Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
I have always said the war was badly handled, the 2nd resolution would have been better, for one reason as you said Andy, it would have helped create a more stable world (although that would be limited, as the UN hardly carries any weight or respect in that area of the world).
|
I was thinking more that we needed to carry more Arab opinion as well as others in the Western world, rgather than it being about respect for the UN.
Quote:
|
But that leads us back to the question, is it legal, or justified to go ahead without it. With the second resolution the it would have mean relations between the coalition and the rest of the world wouldn't be so bad, but I stand by what I said, that the second resolution isn't compulsary.
|
I think from what's been revealed it was not clear cut; legal opinion was, shall we say, divided. And that is what should have been explained to Cabinet, Parliament and oiks like us, not least because the logic being given for intervention was not regime change (no threat to us or, say, Israel) but WMD (whooooh, scary). Those two inter-related facts are the salient ones for me. We went in to war on limited if not deliberately misleading information which is unacceptable in a democratic society.