Originally posted by astrocreep
Diva, a great post that gives a very good understanding of the timeline. The only issue I have isn't with you but with the author of the list and
their use of the term "unilateral" . I understand this is a favored term but no where in the Iraq conflict is it applicable according to it's
definition.
Before the state of the union adress, he says that "Iraq must disarm or the international community will act, because he's a threat to world peace"
and after it it's more "America will attack Iraq, no matter what happens, no matter what other countries say, because America's security is being
menaced directly by Mesopotamia with WMD". There's the difference imho.
In the first case, he consults with allies and agrees on a program and modality : if the inspections work and Saddam disarms, good for everyone. If
not, we'll rip his ass. That multilateralism.
In the second case, as soon as it turned out that inspections _were_ working and Saddam _was_ disarming, he breaks, unilaterally, the former agreement
with his friends and decides to send his bombers.
[Edited on 11-7-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]
