# Iraq is launching those weapons of mass destruction it doesn't have at our soldiers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798 "2003-03-20T13:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Max\_Carnage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/max_carnage/32/12775_2.png) [@Max\_Carnage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Carnage)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/61 "2003-03-20T17:41:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by alenar \* > \*\*According to this [article](http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/274616.html) in Haaretz, _“Missiles Iraq fired at U.S. troops in Kuwait were not Scuds”_, rather they were “FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground) missiles - or something similar - which have a maximum range of 70 kilometers.” > > Perhaps they were [poisonous FROGs](http://www.geocities.com/lukasz5000/guide.html) of mass destruction. \*\* In keeping with the anit-French sentiment, should they not be called “FREEDOM (Free Rocket Emitting Explosions During Overground Missions) missles”? ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/62 "2003-03-20T17:42:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hlujarn \* > According to Sauron, any nation has the right to act in their own self interest, including invasion of another country, or just about anything. Now what if Germany, France and Russia decided it was time to “Decapitate” the American regime? No credible explanation, just in their self interest. > > Or just maybe some “nation-states” have more right to act in its self interest than others. > > I guess some pigs really ARE more equal than others. Why is this a difficult concept? Any nation has the right to act in its own self-interest. At times, the leaders of that nation may believe their self-interest would best be served by attacking another country. Does that make the nation in question correct in doing so? Of course not. History is replete with examples of this. I’m at a loss to understand why this is too complex for some to grasp. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/63 "2003-03-20T18:10:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > **You might want to check into a little thing called “World War II.” Germany and Japan did some bad stuff back then. Did they have the moral right to do it? No. As nation-states, they acted in their own self-interest, which any nation has the right to do. They were wrong in doing it, and other nation-states had the right to pound them into limburger as a result.** Under the UN Charter, which the US has signed, a nation does _not_ have the right to act in its own self-interest if that act consists in attacking another nation without the excuse of self-defence or UNSC approval. > [@](#): > > **I’m not saying it would be a legal action under the UN charter, you imbecile. I’m saying that if WMDs are discovered and/or used, the primary reason for the Security Council’s objection to the war has been eliminated.** But a key reason for Security Council objections to the invasion were not only that WMDs have not been found. Another reason was that, if these WMDs do indeed exist in Iraq (which is certainly a possibility), then the best way to go about getting them is to let the inspections continue rather than to invade an give Saddam Hussein a direct incentive to use them. But of course, the US decides to invade, and now if Iraq does have WMDs they will definitely be “destroyed.” The only problem is that their “destruction” could involve them being launched at Israel or anyone else within SCUD range. > [@](#): > > **The reasons were not more complex than that. Not according to Putin, and the French official quoted yesterday (I forget his name) who said that France would fight if WMDs were used. Try to keep up.** I’m keeping up just fine. Your own post says that France will join “if WMDs were used.” This is not the same as saying France would join “if WMDs were _found_.” > [@](#): > > \*\* I never said it created automatic UNSC approval. You might want to look up the definition of the word “tacit;” it’s not synonymous with “automatic.” If Russia and France are saying “We’ll fight if WMDs are used” and “The attack was wrong **because** concrete evidence of the existence of WMDs hasn’t been provided”, the implication is that attacking is right if WMDs are used or their existence is proven.\*\* But tacit support is not sufficient to make this a legal or justifiable action. The possibilty for that has passed and can never be resurrected, even if every nation on earth decides to join the US. The reason is that the US and its allies chose to invade without UN approval, and thus violated the UN Charter. This is an action that can’t be called back, no matter how many _ex post facto_ justifications or rationalizations are given. And while France and the others opposing the invasion might have said they would join if WMDs were used, they have not, as i pointed out above, said that they would join if such weapons were simply found to exist. > [@](#): > > **I don’t know international law well enough to debate you on that. Failure to get Security Council approval before attacking equals illegal? Possibly so. I don’t know.** May i suggest that you read the [UN Charter](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html), paying particular attention to Articles 2 (4), 42, and 51. Although you have made it quite clear that the legality or otherwise of this action is not of great concern to you. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is asinine to the point of idiocy. It’s okay for Iraq to keep banned weapons that it agreed to give up because the U.S. is patrolling areas that it said it would patrol as a result of the initial UN agreement? Amazing. > > You do realize it’s been _13 years_ since Iraq agreed to the UN demands, right?\*\* I never said it was OK. What i said was that, at a time when inspections seemed to be working, the US felt the need to park the world’s most powerful army on Iraq’s doorstep with every indication that it would attack. The fear of imminent attack is not the sort of thing that is conducive to getting a nation to hand over its weapons. I don’t think it’s OK for Iraq to have those weapons, but the US, with its belligerence (and its constant bombing of the country over the past years) must take some blame for this defensive attitude. And you’re right - it’s been 13 years since Iraq agreed to **UN** demands. And the UN is the organization that has the authority to decide on what punishment Iraq ahould receive for its violation of the agreements - not the US. Bush has spent much effort telling us that this war is justified because of Iraq’s snubbing of the UN, but at the same time he has made it very clear that he thinks it’s OK for the US to snub the UN when it’s convenient. “We’re going to defend the integrity of the UN by defying the UN” seems to be Bush’s genius argument. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You believe the war is illegal and/or unjustified. Fine. You may very well be right, a point I have made in this thread. (Really! Go back and look!) You may also be wrong, a position which apparently frightens you, since you attacked me without provocation. You little George Bush, you. \*\* But being wrong is not an option here. Not because i’m some genius or because i’m never wrong, but because the invasion is already illegal, no matter what happens after. The fact that the invasion is illegal will not change no matter what weapons the US finds (or does not find) in Iraq. The fact that it is illegal will not change even if every Security Council member joins in. It may _become_ legal if the UNSC decides to vote to approve it, but this legality will not be retrospective; every day of war without Security Council approval is illegal. And under the UN Charter, it is not only illegal, it is unjustified. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/64 "2003-03-20T18:25:29Z")
> [@](#): > > **Beagle** said: > > If he has a huge stockpile of them, wises up, surrenders himself without using them then it is bullshit that Iraq has prohibited weapons? I would expect many of the Iraqi commanders to not use the weapons regardless of whether they have them. I think it is pretty clear what might happen to anyone who uses them. Nope, it’s probably not bullshit. But I hope you can see the circular argument inherent in your statement. We’re now fighting (a rather entertaining, so far) war to take away the dangerous weapons which the Iraqis are smart enough not to use, even under the most ideal conditions. So what’s the point of fighting, dammit? (And I think that Chemical Ali would find it irresistible to use chemical weapons in order to slow down the Allied advance. The most potent weapon the Iraqi leadership has is time, because only by prolonging this war do they have any chance of surviving it.) We’ll find out soon enough. CNN is now reporting that Marine forces have crossed the DMZ. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/65 "2003-03-20T18:38:45Z")
How will this war be regarded if no WMD are ever found, yet the regime change is successful and the lives of Iraqis are genuinely improved? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/66 "2003-03-20T18:43:47Z")
I wouldn’t worry about that, **Gangster** - we humans have a great capacity for rationalization and for excusing each others’ rationalizations, especially after the fact. Stricter standards of honesty do apply when one is engaged in fighting ignorance, though - the battle we have all enlisted in by registering on this site. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/67 "2003-03-20T18:46:06Z")
Whether or not the long range missles used & possessed by Saddam are “WMD” or not is a matter of semantics. It doesn’t really matter, both sides have a good arguement. However, “WMD” or not, they are certainly & clearly illegal, and at one time SH did claim he had no such illigal weapons. Then he said he did- but he was “working on destroying them”. :rolleyes: They are packed with explosives for gods sake, just blwo them up! Just another lie & delaying tactic. Saddam was in clear violation of the UN accord- even if semanticly speaking these long range missles aren’t “WMD”. It’s like that thread in GD where some loon was suggesting we impeach Bush. He claimed Bush lied, and to back up that claim, he pointed out the bit about the aluminum tubes. Now, these tubes COULD possibly be used to develope Nuclear weapons. But they aren’t really designed for it. His cite went on to point out that they likely weren’t bought for the purpose of nukes, they were instead almost 100% likely bought for the purpose of making conventional motar rounds. They were SO very happy that SH had been absolved by this. Except, all ye completely clueless dudes- SADDAM WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE BUYING CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS EITHER! So, nuke or motar, he was violating the Law. Sure, nukes are more scary, but the cite completely proved that SH was buying innocent looking supplies, with the idea to turn them into weapons. If he was wiping his hairy ass with that section of the Law, why do you so blithely assume he wasn’t on the WMD sections also? My god, dudes, it’s like some dude claiming he wasn’t guilty of the murder, as he was across town raping someone. But, since we only have proof of the rape, we are gonna let him go- after all, the murder charges are thus doubtful. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Scruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Scruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruff)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/68 "2003-03-20T18:57:19Z")
Err, I just did a Google search on “George Bush” “goat” “sex” and came up with 2640 hits! Ergo, our President **must** be a pervert… :wally ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/69 "2003-03-20T19:00:09Z")
however, if your thesis is (as is presently) that we _must_ invade this country and dispose of it’s leader 'cause he has these WOMD, and capability and intent to use them against his neighbors and the US etc etc etc, it’s rather problematic if you find that instead of WOMD (as commonly held, ie chemical, biological, nuclear) you find he had a box of cleanser, a scientist with the flu, and some matches. (methaphorically speaking) ---
**Author:** ![Scruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Scruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruff)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/70 "2003-03-20T19:04:53Z")
Well, you could also argue that the war should end now because (SH having firing the missiles) he clearly doesn’t have them any more, and has thus tardily complied with 1441! No? Well, it makes about as much sense as anything else in this damned thread. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/71 "2003-03-20T19:10:23Z")
I’m suggesting that firing the whatever the fuck they were does not ‘prove’ that he has WOMD. Because we’re now finding out that the range estimations were incorrect, it’s not even clear that these were weapons he wasn’t supposed to have (keep in mind that disarmament did not apparently involve him having no defenses at all, after all, there’s Iran next door who hates him too). I haven’t commented on ‘does he have stuff he’s not supposed to?’. ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/72 "2003-03-20T19:24:42Z")
I know this is the pit and all but "The CIA can hardly be cited as credible sources. They have in the last 4 months produced false evidence, manipulated facts and taken them out of context, lied, and lied. " Cite?? ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/73 "2003-03-20T19:34:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > \*\*Happy now? If not, you’ll have to continue your Clintonesque semantics games on your own, while ignoring the larger point. \*\* LOL! Methinks you need to take a reading comprehension class Milo. Not the part of the statement that says AS WELL AS, and has a comma. Nowhere in any of your links has SCUDS been called WOMDs. They have just been mentioned together. “The House is guarded by a security fence **as well** as big doberman pinchers.” Does that mean the dogs are really fences? Perhaps not the best analogy. The sites you give talk about WMD’s which are a violation, AS WELL AS talk about having SCUDS, which are also a violation. NOWHERE, let me repeat that. NOWHERE in your statements does it say otherwise. Or even suggest it. Learn to read your cites before you post em. Thouroughly and with some comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/74 "2003-03-20T19:37:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*…it’s rather problematic if you find that instead of WOMD (as commonly held, ie chemical, biological, nuclear) you find he had a box of cleanser, a scientist with the flu, and some matches. (methaphorically speaking) \*\* There’s an out for that, too - remember Dubya’s (and the rest of the RW commentariat’s) referring to what Saddam _wanted_ to do and _could_ do if given the opportunity and time? Not being based on facts at all, and therefore invulnerable to contrary facts, it’s a wonderfully sound argument. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/75 "2003-03-20T19:42:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tomcat \* > \*\*Aah! Finally! Fox News has a [snippet:](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81649,00.html) > > “The defense official also said a small plane headed from Iraq toward a Marine expeditionary force position in Kuwait crashed short of its mark. The Marines donned gas masks because of fears that the plane could have been carrying chemical weapons, the official said. No agents were detected”\*\* Odd how that snippet hasn’t been picked up anywhere else, isn’t it? They report, we decide - and it’s easy to decide about _that_, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/76 "2003-03-20T20:11:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > Another reason was that, if these WMDs do indeed exist in Iraq (which is certainly a possibility), then the best way to go about getting them is to let the inspections continue rather than to invade an give Saddam Hussein a direct incentive to use them. Because, of course, the inspections have been so successful so far. By definition, if inspections went on for eight years (before the inspection teams were pulled out because of Iraqi non-compliance) and were later resumed before again being halted, and yet WMDs still exist in Iraq, the inspections were not successful. > [@](#): > > But tacit support is not sufficient to make this a legal or justifiable action. I’m not arguing legality. I thought I had made this clear. I do believe something can be justified without being legal. Lawyers make fortunes on debates like this all the time. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. > [@](#): > > May i suggest that you read the [UN Charter](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html), paying particular attention to Articles 2 (4), 42, and 51. Although you have made it quite clear that the legality or otherwise of this action is not of great concern to you. Once again, I’m not arguing legality. However, I’m not sure the Articles you’re quoting do a whole lot to bolster your case. Article 2 (4) has been essentially waived for the past 13 years in this instance as part of the agreement Iraq made with the UN. Articles 42 and 51 don’t seem to apply; 42 basically lays out the actions the UNSC can take to maintain international peace and security, while 51 basically says Iraq has the right to defend itself if it’s attacked. Which they’re doing. > [@](#): > > What i said was that, at a time when inspections seemed to be working, the US felt the need to park the world’s most powerful army on Iraq’s doorstep with every indication that it would attack. In the first place, the inspections _didn’t_ seem to be working. In the second place, the U.S. provided several opportunities for Saddam to end this peacefully, which for the most part asked him to comply with the 13-year-old agreement he signed. > [@](#): > > The fear of imminent attack is not the sort of thing that is conducive to getting a nation to hand over its weapons. I don’t think it’s OK for Iraq to have those weapons, but the US, with its belligerence (and its constant bombing of the country over the past years) must take some blame for this defensive attitude. I’ll say it again – 13 years. And the “constant bombing” was in response to anti-aircraft fire directed at U.S. planes over the no-fly zones and other activities that Iraq had agreed (once again) not to do. Now, having said all that, I firmly believe Bush was looking for any excuse to start the war. Based on the information I’ve seen, he (and the U.S.) are not justified in attacking. Perhaps they have other information I’m not privy to which clearly indicates the presence of WMD and other violations; in that case, I believe the attack was justified. Legal? Probably not. Again, international law isn’t my bailiwick, and I don’t think the UN Articles you mentioned cover this situation. ---
**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/77 "2003-03-20T20:22:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > \*\*CNN is now reporting that Marine forces have crossed the DMZ. \*\* They’ve invaded North Korea?!? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/78 "2003-03-20T20:30:37Z")
[Definition of WMD](http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html). > [@](#): > > The most widely used definition of “weapons of mass destruction” in official U.S. documents is “nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” SCUDs can be _converted_ to WMD if they are equipped with nnuclear, chemical or nuclear warheads, but so far we haven’t even seen any SCUDs much less WMD equipped ones. I’m amazed at all theback pedalling now by those who were so convinced that Saddam was sitting on piles of ICBMs. If we don’t find any WMDs will any of you admit you were wrong, or will you just try to redefine your justifications? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/79 "2003-03-20T20:50:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scruff \* > \*\*Well, you could also argue that the war should end now because (SH having firing the missiles) he clearly doesn’t have them any more, and has thus tardily complied with 1441! > > No? Well, it makes about as much sense as anything else in this damned thread. \*\* Nah, we have to plant the evidence first, spin the story and then end the war. Oh wait, we have to level the place first. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798/80 "2003-03-20T20:52:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > \*\*I don’t think the UN Articles you mentioned cover this situation. \*\* Can’t agree less, i’m afraid. Article 2(4) was in no way rescinded or waived because of the post-Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The articles to which i referred you specifically state that member nations should refrain from threat or use of force in international relations, and that the only exceptions are : a) self-defence b) when the UNSC approves the use of force It’s pretty clear. I suppose you can try to make a distinction between legal and justifiable as you have attempted to do, but when the US signed the UN Charter and committed itself to follow the rules of international law, it bound itself to obey the charter and stay within the law. Everything that Saddam Hussein has done, or might have done, is thus irrelevant, because the US snubbing of the UN and international law is, in itself, unjustifiable. I’m not crying too many tears for Hussein and his cronies right now. And if they end up exiled or dead, i won’t lose any sleep. But this whole action is predicated on the notion of unilateralism (yes, yes, i know the US has a few allies, but none of them would buck the UN without the US taking the lead), and the idea that the US alone will decide when international law and the UN should be obeyed, and when they should be ignored. I’d have less of a problem with the whole thing if the US actually had the guts to say “Fuck the UN; we resign.” At least then we could avoid the hypocrisy that comes with asserting the value of the UN when it’s convenient, and telling the UN to piss off when you don’t agree with it. If the US would show its true colours and leave the UN, thus confirming its belief in its own rectitude and its scorn for world opinion, then at the very least the rest of the world would know where it stood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-is-launching-those-weapons-of-mass-destruction-it-doesnt-have-at-our-soldiers/162798.md?page=5)