take on the entire thing.
larry
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:20:24 -0500, Kris Baca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --last try!--
> BACKGROUND
> America secured unanimous approval for UN Security Council Resolution
> 1441 which stated that Iraq was assumed to be armed and must disarm as
> verified by UN weapons inspectors. Should Iraq fail UN weapons
> inspections, or refuse inspections, "force of arms" could be used.
>
> Following 1441 the President asked for, and was granted by Congress,
> the ability to use "force of arms" against Iraq should it fail, or refuse to
> participate in, inspections.
>
> 4 months after this resolution, while the UN arms inspectors were
> completing their job, President Bush stated his intention to invade Iraq.
> He said that the US had "ironclad" proof that Iraq had WMD, a violation
> of 1441, and therefore force was justified immediately.
>
> The UN disagreed and pointed out that whether Iraq was in violation of
> 1441 was to be determined by UN weapons inspectors and that, since
> they had not completed their job, no determination was yet available.
> Further they said that if the President had specific information
> regarding WMD he should pass it along to the UN and the inspectors.
>
> The President did this via Colin Powell in the now infamous UN
> intelligence presentation. However, the UN Security Council disagreed
> that the proof was ironclad. It was suggested that the President ask
> for another resolution to use force based on his new intelligence if
> he still wanted to use force at that point.
>
> The President, over the objection of NATO and the UN Security Council,
> declined and invaded Iraq with "a coalition of the willing."
>
> ANALYSIS
> Senator Kerry believes the President should've been given the option
> to authorize war, but, that the President should have allowed the UN
> process to finish before using it.
>
> Doing so, claims Mr. Kerry, would've given the US credibility and most
> likely, based on 1441, many allies.
>
> That is, the disagreement is not about whether Mr. Hussein is/was a
> bad man, or whether the US should consider using force to get rid of
> him. Rather the disagreement is about how and when to use that
> option.
>
> Mr. Kerry believes the circumstances did not justify using force at
> the time it was used and that doing so has put the US at a
> disadvantage in the War on Terror as well as in Iraq.
>
> MY OPINION
> This is similar to a black belt in Karate. He/she is taught that
> their skill is to be used only as a last resort when defending
> themselves.
>
> Using this analogy, the President's actions would be similar to me, a
> karate expert, beating you senseless before you ever attempt to strike
> me because everyone told me that you had the ability to strike me.
>
> This is the exact position America now finds itself in. Given the
> lack of WMD and a connection to 9/11, the only logical reason that can
> be given for the Iraq War is that Mr. Hussein is gone. The problem
> with that is we have no idea what that means.
>
> It may mean spreading democracy in Iraq or it may mean a renewed era
> of Shia theocracy led by Iran. Either way the US's troops are tied up
> in a struggle that is, at best, loosely linked to the War on Terror,
> which is our true threat.
>
> Expending resources on what is, at best, a tangential goal when you
> have real threats facing you is not the best use of our resources.
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
