# Can Iraq be right for once?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-iraq-be-right-for-once/145691>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 30, 2002, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-iraq-be-right-for-once/145691 "2002-12-30T16:22:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\
**Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-iraq-be-right-for-once/145691/41 "2003-01-02T21:11:26Z")

</div>

**notcynical,** I think we are saying the same thing, but you are speaking in French and I in Creole. 🙂

I’m saying that mere possession of WMD will never be a US _causus belli_ partly **because** such a policy would obligate us to attack Great Britain - and (barring massive unforeseen changes) we will never do such a thing.

Instead, the policy appears to be that possession of WMD would be a _causus belli_ if, in addition:

1. The regime possessing the WMD is hostile to the U.S. and there is a real chance that the regime will use said WMD against the US or its allies; or
2. The regime is hostile to the U.S. and is using its possession of WMD as a deterrent while it engages in conventional attacks against neighbors; or
3. The regime has failed to establish safeguards and there is a significant risk that terrorists/blackmailers/etc. will obtain the WMD (though in this instance I think the attack would only be to secure and remove the WMD); AND
4. The cost of the war, in lives and property, does not shock the conscience.

Sua

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![keeper0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@keeper0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeper0)\
**Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-iraq-be-right-for-once/145691/42 "2003-01-03T15:28:14Z")

</div>

Good answers, **Sua**.

I think the key perspective is that, while the United States is in favor of nuclear non-proliferation, it is not entitled or willing _in general_ to go to war in support of that policy.

The US is willing, and claims entitlement through the UN, to do so with Iraq because disarmament was a specific agreement in the cessation of hostilities from the previous conflict.

The US does not have such a claim with regards to North Korea. The 1994 agreement did not (AFAIK) include language to indicate that a breach would trigger hostilities.

I still don’t think it is a good idea to attack Iraq, but the inconsistency between our strategies is not so hypocritical.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-iraq-be-right-for-once/145691.md?page=2)