no chemical warheads. But Russia and France still suck

Three missile attacks against Kuwait - poorly aimed, and none carrying chemical or biological warheads. If Iraq has WMD, why haven't they used them now, while the bulk of our troops are still concentrated? It doesn't seem likely that they actually posess any.

From Bush and Blair's speeches you'd think that all three of Iraq's duct-tape drones would have spewed smallpox all over Kuwait by now.

Excellent point however by Blair's people just now on NPR. UN Resolution 1282 in 1999 called for inspections without teeth - and was rejected by China, Russia, and France. UN Resolution 1441 called for stringer inspections backed by credible threat of force. It actually put requirements on Saddam to 1. cooperate and 2. disarm. It's obvious that Saddam has been in violation of #1. But since no WMD were ever found, and none have even been used yet, could he have ever technically met requirement 2? (I may be entirely wrong and the WMD are about to be used againt our troops. I fervently hope that there aren't any and that I am right).

Anyway the British minister was correct, use of force was contingent on Saddam's compliance, and so the critique of Russia and France against the military action is founded on teh wrong argument. Putin says the war is without any justification - thats technically untrue. The war is justified if violation of Requirement 1 is enough to trigger the military response (I don't know if that is so or not). To make their critique principled (ahem - like mine) and not blatantly self-aggrandizing, they should be talking up Requirement 2.

No comments: