Quote:
Originally Posted by crowonapost
Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. That is the question.
I KNOW you argue for the Hobson's choice as a rhetorical argument.
I also know that you think it could have gone different.
THIS is the CENTER of the 'real' discussion.....seriously.
Your quote....
What could have been the alternative to how many final opportunities was Iraq supposed to get to comply with Resolution 687?
For YOU, Cordelier?
Hmmm?
WHAT could it have been?
Enough of your safety on letter of Law.
|
I think you know how I feel about Iraq, Crow... I think wisdom dictated that invading Iraq wasn't worthwhile unless there was a broad international consensus to do and marshal together another Gulf War-style coalition. That was the wise decision. However, wisdom is often inversely proportional to bravery. The brave decision was to realize that Saddam was an evil tyrant who - even if he didn't have WMDs - was intent on acquiring them and to do whatever it took to head that off.
What if FDR and British Prime Minister Baldwin had decided to invade Germany in 1936, when Hitler was in clear material breach of the Versailles Treaty? The result would have probably been much the same as Iraq - overextended and undermanned US & UK forces battling embittered German nationalist guerrillas, a US President and British Prime Minister under attack at home by vigorous opposition to the war. But Hitler would have been dealt with... only nobody would have realized a far greater disaster was averted.
Who knows what would have happened if Bush and Blair hadn't gone into Iraq? If Dr. Blix was given his "weeks, not months" then odds are that he would have ended up issuing a report saying that even though he couldn't account for all of Iraq's weapons stockpiles, he couldn't find any evidence that they were still in existance and so Iraq would have gotten off the hook. As we've seen in the Duelfer Report, even though Iraq didn't have WMD's in 2003, it didn't mean that Saddam had given up trying to re-acquire them - his plan was to get out from under the sanctions and then to rebuild his WMD programs. So, in effect, Dr. Blix would have played into Saddam's hands. Who knows where that would have led? It's possible that Bush & Blair averted an even greater disaster down the road. And what about the UN? If it's indecision led to a resurgent and aggressive Iraq, what makes you think it wouldn't pay the same price the League of Nations paid in not standing up to Hitler and Mussolini?
So it's a difficult call... is it better to be wise or to be brave? What do you think?