 Quote:
Originally Posted by deport_garysher  "The problem is that the “state of war” in question here was an al-Qaida attack on the U.S. that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Perhaps to spare Congress the embarrassment of formally declaring war against a nation that had not attacked America, Bush settled for a loosely worded resolution supporting his use of military power if Iraq failed to comply with U.N. mandates. This was justified by the White House as a means of strengthening the United Nations in holding Iraq accountable for its WMD arsenal, but as most of the world looked on in dismay, Bush invaded Iraq after U.N. inspectors on the ground discovered that Iraq had no WMD." | While I personally believe there was no actual link between Al Qaeda and Iraq nor between 9/11 and Iraq, it is incomplete and misleading to say that the UN solely found Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
While it is true that the UN weapons inspectors stated that they didn't find any actual WMD's in Iraq just prior to the invasion of 2003, they also stated just prior to the invasion that there existed outstanding unanswered questions regarding Iraq's weapons programs.
Perhaps these outstanding unanswered questions didn't warrant an invasion of Iraq.
However, these outstanding unanswered questions did exist just prior to the invasion regardless if Iraq was invaded...or not.
(It should be interesting to note that there was no formal declaration of war during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts which, of course, were different situations when compared with the Iraq war.) |