Quote:
Originally posted by Bingo+Dec 2 2004, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Dec 2 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Dec 2 2004, 02:39 PM
The only people who are going to change their minds about the US's refusal to wait based on these developments are those that felt that the US faced a genuine threat from Iraq that necessitated an invasion, but also felt that it should only be waged with UN approval.
Since I never felt that there was a credible threat to the US from Iraq, the fact that the UN may never have agreed doesn't change my opinion over their choice to invade unilaterally.
|
Well clearly my question was pointed toward the former group ... those that said they needed UN agreement before going in.
That was a pretty good sized camp. [/b][/quote]
What was that camp saying?
I was amongst those saying that the war would have been ill advised but acceptable with a real coalition and UN approval. But then it is only because the UN has the right to approve the invasion of a soverign nation in order to have it's orders enforced, not because it would have legitimized the supposed threat to the US.
I just assumed most other opponents felt that way too, rather than feeling that the threat was real but consent was still needed
