On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:36:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

Miltary actions sanctioned the UN or NATO, in which UK forces
participated in accordance w/ treaty obligations and agreement w/
treaty partners. *Very* different from Iraq where - no matter that
the outcome is a Good Thing - the US and the UK invaded a sovereign
country under two pretexts:

- that Iraq had contravened UN sanctions (which it had; however, the
overwhelming majority of the members of the UN did not support
military action on the timescale dictated by the coalition leaders)

- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear
and present danger to the middle east and beyond: something not yet
proven, and which increasing numbers of respected experts are saying
will not be proven. The "45 minute" claim, although not central to
this pretext, was nonetheless cited as part of the justification for
military action.

*Other* reasons for the "war" (regime change, liberation of the Iraqi
people from a tyrannical regime, removal of a supporter of al-Qaeda,
etc.) were either not cited by the coalition, or were explicit stated
not to be justifications prior to military action.

Julian
(not that I expect mere facts to change IMM's position!)

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk