Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aeternus There was much scepticism over here in Europe... and that remains unchanged. |
A skepticism unshared by your leaders.
Quote:
|
If there had been hard and unsubstantial evidence, I must ask: Why not do the politically correct thing in presenting that before the security council?
|
I'm not sure what evidence the US did or did not show the SC. But I am sure there was no point. By then, it was unmistakably clear that Chirac was Saddam's shill. Chirac's machinations to subvert the SC and to stall on behalf of his paymaster were clear to all. The US could have produced photos of Saddam sitting on a mountain of labelled sarin cannisters and France would have found some way to stall for time.
Quote:
|
The fact that the US did not do that tells me that it's evidence was sketchy at best...
|
It tells me that everyone but you knew that the UN was not an honest arbiter.
Quote:
|
not enough to convince the rest of the security council to sanction a war.
|
The fact remains that we only know the status of WMD now because we DID invade. The intel would NEVER have become less sketchy, not in 20 more days or 20 more years, since no intel would ever emerge from an uncooperate police state. Saddam's noncompliance was itself
casus belli.