Friday, May 16, 2003
So, this admission by Jack Straw that the British Government is now accepting that there may be no proof of WMD is rather interesting. Especially as Straw tried to suggest that Hans Blix found loads of evidence of what we should probably call 'Weapons of Not as Much Destruction than Weapons of Mass Destruction But Still Pretty Damn Destructive', which Blix himself disagrees with.
So it's back to the 'but Saddam Hussein was such a nasty tyrant!' argument once again, which once again begs the question 'Well why wait over a decade to deal with him?' Do we really have to wait twenty or thirty years, until after Blair and Bush are dead, before we can look back and say this whole situation was unjust and immoral?
So it's back to the 'but Saddam Hussein was such a nasty tyrant!' argument once again, which once again begs the question 'Well why wait over a decade to deal with him?' Do we really have to wait twenty or thirty years, until after Blair and Bush are dead, before we can look back and say this whole situation was unjust and immoral?
