Wednesday, September 18, 2002

When you see the case put cleanly and concisely, it's worth repeating. Dr Daniel Mandel is a University of Melbourne historian and associate editor of The Review, published by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council
True, not every dictator can be replaced and not every country with weapons of mass destruction is a threat. But Saddam is. The reason is simple: use, not possession, is the key criterion. A gun in the hand of a policeman, an ordinary citizen, or even some criminals is not to be compared with one in the hands of a mass murderer.

and this:
But if the case is open-and-shut, various pundits insist, the US should seek the authorisation of the Security Council for military action if he refuses to be disarmed. In fact, the authorisation is there. Saddam's record induced the Security Council to pass successive resolutions mandating "all necessary means" to liberate Kuwait and enforce "all subsequent resolutions", which include disarming Iraq.

It's really quite simple: we are still at war with Iraq. They agreed to a conditional cease-fire, which conditions they have repeatedly, flagrantly violated. They do not have a leg to stand on. The "all subsequent resolutions" is the legal G-string that the USA can use if required to justify, yet again, doing the right thing.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?