Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[zakrosian]

Zeev - The US condemnation of Israel's attack on Iraq's may have been more of a strategic move than a sincere opinion. Also, at the time there were the same sorts of questions regarding the "imminent threat" posed by the reactor as there are today about Iraq's activities. IMO, it was an early example of just how irrelevant and misguided International Agreement can be. A worthwhile recap of the issue:

http://gothamannex.blogspot.com/2002_09_29_gothamannex_archive.html

One argument advanced on the moral grounds for attacking Saddam is that we're not initiating a new war, simply resuming the one the ended with a cease fire predicated on a list of demands that Iraq has not complied with. After 12 years an international coalition, outside the UN, has determined that it's necessary to replace a regime that has no willingness to live up to its international commitments.

It seems to me that the moral grounds are at least as strong as they would have been for France to have confronted Germany when the stationed troops in the Rhineland in the 30's. Because France could not get Britain's approval, they didn't engage a German army that would have been unable to fight back. Had they acted unilaterally, Hitler might have become a minor footnote in 20th century history.