Patrick O'Brian Discussion Forum

Maybe I should drop this.

As you already know, WMDs were not "the" justification for the invasion of Iraq (only one of many), and as you also know the allegation was not shown to be a lie. What you mean, and should have said, is that the assertion turned out to be untrue. I can at least attempt to believe you believe that.

Furthermore you're making a logical error to say that {Iraqi WMDs were a lie} implies {the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an aggressive war}. The invasion was a war of aggression regardless of the status of the WMD claim; whether it was a lie, or a mistake, or actually true, we were the aggressors in that war. Obviously that doesn't mean we were wrong to forcibly topple the Husseini government; I think we were right.

Mr Adams, for the past few years you've been mostly thoughtful and truthful in our occasional exchanges. In this current thread you seem to have devolved a bit, and have repeated allegations which you know to be false (at least when you're not all het up and emotional). Perhaps you'd prefer to drop this thread and just wait for Christo to reply to the initial question?

On Sun Nov 1, The Last of the True French Short Bastards wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------
>Gulf War 2 was an aggressive war rather than a sanction. The justification for it -- WMD -- was shown to be a lie.

>Had Bush and Blair requested permission from the UN to go to war as a sanction for OTHER violations of UN resolutions by Saddam, then the UN could have granted or withheld permission to engage in war in its name; but they did not. The UN would not have granted such permission, so they made up a new one: WMD. As it was a lie, the war was in fact an aggressive war.

Sun Nov 1

This message read 64 times