PM Blair just stated that Britain "stands by its intelligence" on Iraq attempting to purchase uranium in Niger.
Bush’s critics are wrong. His statements were correct, and the Prime Minister stands by his intelligence. Just don’t expect any of the President’s critics to admit it.
I think you might still be missing the point here. Even if Iraq managed to get weapons grade uranium from Niger (long shot, in all reality, but not impossible) and we had sketchy intelligence on it, is it really worth going to war over?
And seriously, is it worth haggling over right now? Isn’t it kind of besides the point, since we’re already at war?
Who the hell actually cares whether or not the intelligence was good… Military Intelligence has long been considered an oxymoron anyways.
Jay is not “missing the point here.” The only reason this is a story is because of the misleading characterization of why we went to war, which needs to be responded to. Certainly we did not go to war over uranium from Niger. That issue was alluded to once in the SOTU address (of course, no mention was made of Niger, but Africa instead.), along with many other reasons. But assume it is true that Saddam was on the verge of acquiring uranium. Would that be reason to go to war? ABSOLUTELY. Should we wait for this mass murderer to actually devlop nukes? Or, based on his track record of devloping and using bio and chem weapons, should we do what we did and end the threat. Most Americasn, I believe, would vote for the later.
Or, based on his track record of devloping and using bio and chem weapons, should we do what we did and end the threat. Most Americasn, I believe, would vote for the later.
There’s no provision in international law for wars of pre-emptive threat elimination, or whatever. So, regardless if it was right or not to go to war with Iraq, it was certainly illegal for the US to do so.
A law is hardly a law if its selectively applied.
A law is hardly a law if its selectively applied.
You mean, like how we held Saddam to international law, but broke it by invading his country without provocation? I agree, selective law enforcement is pretty hypocritical. I guess we should start changing that.
You mean, like how we held Saddam to international law
You are delusional. We let him break the terms of ceasefire for over a decade.
I guess we should start changing that.
We should. For example we should start enforcing international law in Lebanon. It has been a few years since Israel pulled out of Lebanon (UN has certified the pull out), yet Lebanon refuses to put border guard on its borders and refuses to prevent Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel from its territory. One would think that this is an issue. But I haven’t heard anything from UN on this matter. Care to enlighten as to why?
You are delusional. We let him break the terms of ceasefire for over a decade.
I’m delusional? Didn’t you defend this war as an attempt to hold Saddam to international law?
If you don’t believe in international law, then we had no right to invade Iraq because what he does in his own country is his own buisness. If you do believe in international law, then we had no right to invade because he hadn’t attacked us or our interests.
I don’t understand how you can hold Saddam accountable under international law but not do the same for the US. Sounds hypocritcal to me.
But I haven’t heard anything from UN on this matter. Care to enlighten as to why?
Actually I’d say that’s another instance of the UN dropping the ball. How come I never hear anything from them about Lyberia? Taylor want’s peacekeepers, the UN has ’em. What’s the hold-up?
I think we probably agree on the UN. They need to get off their asses on a number of fronts.
If you don’t believe in international law, then we had no right to invade Iraq because what he does in his own country is his own buisness.
This is getting silly. If I don’t believe in international law then we can invade whom we please.
If you do believe in international law, then we had no right to invade because he hadn’t attacked us or our interests.
If I do believe in international law, then we were enforcing terms of ceasefire.
I don’t understand how you can hold Saddam accountable under international law but not do the same for the US. Sounds hypocritcal to me.
We go in after he kept breaking terms of ceasefire for over a decade and we are a bad guy?? If that’s “international law” then I care little for it.
Actually I’d say that’s another instance of the UN dropping the ball. How come I never hear anything from them about Lyberia? Taylor want’s peacekeepers, the UN has ’em. What’s the hold-up?
Where are the human shields? Funny how all these “peace” organizations are mum about zimbabwe, liberia, etc. UN is useless.
I think we probably agree on the UN. They need to get off their asses on a number of fronts.
UN needs to die.
UN needs to die.
Then who’s going to come up with the international laws that you claim give you the right to enforce ceasefires, etc?
Then who’s going to come up with the international laws that you claim give you the right to enforce ceasefires, etc?
Treaty/ceasefire is an agreement between 2 parties (or more). Instead of having UN represent us – we’ll represent ourselves. Simple.
Treaty/ceasefire is an agreement between 2 parties (or more). Instead of having UN represent us – we’ll represent ourselves. Simple.
Yeah, how well did that work before? Not one but two world wars before we came up with the UN?
Not one but two world wars before we came up with the UN?
Seriously, Chet. I thought the League Of Nation was supposed to prevent WW2? Come on now.
Hmm… Wait a second, what’s going on here? Can one draw a parallel between UN failing to enforce its resolutions on Iraq and League of Nations failing to enforce the treaty of Versailles? Holy cow! I can!
the american government is a joke and they don’t realise that so they take it out on weaker countrys to make them feel better