Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Illegal invasion? Let me spell it out to you. You fire on a US warplane, it's an act of war. Period. We patrolled a UN enforce no fly zone, agreed upon by Iraq, and they fired on us. Daily. No illegal invasion. They fired at us, daily, for years, we invaded. That's how wars fucking work.
|
Yeah, sure you were just attacked, and had to retaliate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle387374.ece
From the Downing Street Memo: 23 July 2002
(8-9 months before the Iraq war begun)
Quote:
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
|
Now, who attacked first?