Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I like how you guys use the UN as a ratchet -- if it's against you, fuck 'em, but if it's for you then it's all kinds of meaningful legal authority and proof of facts.
|
No, and you're too good a lawyer to really think that. Your type takes the party line that the U.N. was against the war because it knew there were no weapons. In fact, the U.N. either thought there were weapons or it is one of the most vile institutions conceived. It was starving Iraquis with unwarrented sanctions if it really felt there were no weapons.
Our sides, if I might be so modest as to take a shot at this, would say the U.N. took a position that makes it irrelevent to modern times.
The U.N. said Iraq has weapons, and we aren't having sucess with our inspection regime, but we must limit ourselves to the same failed inspections. the US can't afford to follow that path.
party admissions can be used to challenge the other side, you know.
