> Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized > by the UN Security > Council resolutions 678 and 1441. North Korea does not have
Interesting. So, if the UN gives Bush the "right" to attack Iraq, such an attack is no more preemptive ? Why would it be different from Bush giving the US army the "right" to attack ? Would that still be preemptive ? The fact is, Bush and his followers are lying like mad, and it shows so much I'm surprised they still manage to not laugh hard while saying those. They can claim it's not preemptive for their propaganda, but does it make it so ? > No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral > justification. I was merely pointing out that Bush was not > "dragging us into war" since there was popular support for war. He's certainly dragging the world into war. Repercussions of this war will not be only visible in the US (and of course, Iraq, pity on them). Bush's actions are only going to give some legitimacy to terrorists. > We are alone with [...] a list of countries which, for the most part, see either the leash of the master (in some cases with a large US military presence on their soil) or have been guided by the smell of money, or immaterial favors that might or might not be awarded. Good grief. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
