Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
quote:
Originally posted by Mouse:
Actually Cerek, what I was trying to do was to focus some thought on the justification for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state purely on the basis of the accusation that is has the potential or intention to possess WMD's at some point in the future. To me, the invasion of Iraq has established a worrying precident.
|
Actually, no it doesn't. Why? Because the Iraq situation was unique. Iraq had been a naughty little boy in the past and had been ordered to open up its programs for inspection, expunge its weapons, and abandond weapons programs. Iraq was under the threat of continued action if it failed to do so, and in fact there was never an end to the 1991 Gulf War, but merely a cease fire. So, for precedential value, Iraq is too unique to really provide anything. I hope your ministers have this argument under their hat if our gummint tries to use Iraq as a precedent for anything. [/QUOTE]I would agree with Timber for very different reasons. Yes, Iraq is unique and no, it doesn't set a precedent. Largely because the US has intervened militarily without being attacked first in other countries every one or two years for the last half a century. There is no precedent here, merely a continuation. The only difference is that the world has finally woken up because Iraq was on a larger scale.
[ 06-11-2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]