Over at Wizbang, Jay Tea dusts off his account of the reasons why the invasion of Iraq was valid. Why now? Partly in response to the yammering at the Academy Awards the other night.
The main justification for the war is simple -- Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender during the first Gulf War. When a nation signs an agreement to end a war, those terms are binding. And when the surrendering nation violates those terms, the victors are entirely justified in imposing sanctions, performing selected attacks, or restarting the war entirely -- the peace agreement is null and void.
...continued in full post...
1) Iraq had many obligations under the terms of surrender from the first Gulf War. And they repeatedly, willfully, violated those terms. 2) Iraq sought to assassinate former president George H. W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Let's skip the fact that he is the father of the current president, and look 3) Iraq repeatedly attacked our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, another condition of the surrender. Firing on United States Air Force and Navy aircraft is an act of war. 4) Iraq continued its support of terrorism.
It obviously needs to be repeated.
Over and over, until those who can get it do get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment