Quote:
|
Originally posted by BkueKanoodle: Hmm, a question of threat huh? How about allowing a man who we already has made attempts to assassinate an ex US president, someone who shows that he has already used it. I think we'll be seeing lot of change in the stance from the Antiwar crowd from "no proof of WMD" to no "proof of threat from WMD" in the next few weaks as they attempt to shore up their rapidly eroding position. |
My point is that this was the actual debate at the UN and in most literate circles. Whether or not the talking heads on Fox News or CNN said "they think Saddam has no weapons and love him and hate America" makes no difference.
Where it might get confusing is how the term "WMD" is used. In many circles, the term does not apply to chem/bio/radio agents, per se. It is reserved for when those agents are combined with delivery systems, particularly delivery systems that can cover great distances.
Everyone at the UN agreed that Iraq was in possession of materials in breach of their agreements or at least that they had not proved the absence of these materials. That is why UN 1441 was unanimous.
The disagreement was whether or not the level of threat posed by Iraq justified a pre-emptive invasion and occupation.
Again, there is a difference between the actual debate and how the debate was characterized by various parties with an agenda.
Some people would always rather shout, "Hey, they hate America and love Hitler" than shout "Hey, they disagree that there is only one way to handle this problem and refuse to negotiate an alternate method".
At any rate, the point is long past. It only matters to people who are still trying to justify our actions to themselves or others. I, for one, think it's too late to tell ourselves it was the right thing or even the only thing we could have done. It doesn't matter now.
Now we have to focus on doing the right things to prevent Iraq from becoming like Afghanistan or Palestine or just slipping back into another form of tyranny once the coalition forces leave.