I can't remember...

[The Afoci]

...and am too lazy to check, but were there actually people here who thought Iraq wasn't in material breach. In the first few hours of the war, Iraq proved it was by firing missles they said they destroyed, and the missles traveled farther then they were suppose to be able to by a considerable distance. Thank god they haven't used chemical weapons yet...

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not sure about here, but I'd be utterly shocked if we hear anyone, either on this board or out in the world utter these words: "Oops. I guess I was wrong. They DO have those weapons. They ARE in material breach. My bad." My guess is that for most of those opposed to liberating Iraq, itt isn't about whether or not they are in breach of a unanimous Security Council resolution. To those who would say: "this is a UN matter," consider this: we and our allies are the ones enforcing the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution.

[Bee]

I think the majority of those against the war do not question if he has banned weapons, but they question if war is necessary to disarm him.

[Craptacular]

Ditto what Bee said.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
I think the majority of those against the war do not question if he has banned weapons, but they question if war is necessary to disarm him. ...and I guess that is where I'm confused. Resolution 1441 said that Iraq will face "serious consequences" should it not comply. It was passed unanimously. What other "serious consequences" for non-compliance did they expect? (I'm not being rhetorical there. I'm really curious...)

[albionmoonlight]

The distinction may be that it was up to the UN--not the US and her allies--to decide when the resolution was breached and when an attack should have been authorized. Would the UN have ever done that . . . .

I don't know. I think that our government knows more about who is in bed with whom then they are letting on right now.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
The distinction may be that it was up to the UN--not the US and her allies--to decide when the resolution was breached and when an attack should have been authorized. Would the UN have ever done that . . . .

I don't know. I think that our government knows more about who is in bed with whom then they are letting on right now. albion...

Both those paragraphs make a lot of sense. If our government knows with little doubt that it was a soul-less resolution, then they're certainly stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't position.