Secrets of the Allies: Invasion of Iraq can not be based on self-defense

[stray cat]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272787/site/newsweek/

In a March 8 "options paper," Britain's Cabinet Office wrote that sanctions against Iraq had "effectively frozen" Saddam's nuclear program, and hindered his biological-weapons efforts. Saddam, it added, "has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours." The paper maintained Iraq was continuing to develop WMD, but also noted that "our intelligence is poor" on that point. The brief's authors concluded "there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD." What's more, they found that "there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism." Given that, Blair's advisers wrote, "There is therefore no justification for action against Iraq based on action in self defence..."

[wtmusic]

1. That was the birth of all the nonsense about "Preemptive Self-Defense" nt

[KeepItReal]

2. If Iraq was self-defense NATO would be there like they are in Afghanistan

NATO is a mutual defense pact. When we were hit on 9/11, NATO went into action. We had NATO planes (AWACS) flying over U.S. cities right after that for a period.

Iraq was a "pre-emptive" (or pre-meditated) war against folks who were no threat to us. Even the CIA said that Iraq was only a threat if the U.S. invaded it. That's why just about all of the world called "bullshit".