I don't think "legitimising" is an appropriate word here. That implies widespread acceptance, which is certainly not the case.
* they attack Iraq without the UN mandate then they are doing exactly as I suggest. Acceptance is irrelevant because the next time anyone else wants to do similar they simply have to say "The US did it".
By the way, this will most likely occur even if the UN mandate it as many feel the UN is simply bowing to the cash cow.
ADG... the "direct" (indirect? - what difference would that distinction make?)
It makes a HUGE difference. A country has every right to defend itself from a direct threat and no right to defend from an indirect (implied) threat. After all, america is an indirect threat to all of us so would you say a pre-emptive strike on the US is appropriate? (i'd say not).
threat supposedly posed by Iraq to the US is that it will provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Queda.
What rot. That's never been an issue. Indeed, Al Quaeda have more chance of getting hold of one of the 11 missing US nukes than weapons from Iraq. Again, should we pre-emptively strike the US?
At least that is what has been said/explained...whether and whoever believes this is a credible threat is another story..but its a simple postulation.
It's nothing but rubbish, I can find nothing on this subject anywhere but in the US. Other countries aren't suggesting it, which really points towards more US Government dishonesty.
Beyond that, I suppose the US effort is an effort to head off future problems that could be caused by a dangerous Sadam & co. Iraq. and to stabilze the region to the liking and security of the US...in regard to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether any of that results, I could not tell you.
The US has NO RIGHT to interfere with the internal politics of other countries and indeed other regions, that's my point. When there is a DIRECT THREAT against the US then, and only then, do they have the right to pre-emptive strikes. This is why there is such huge anti-war sentiment out there.
On the other hand, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction changes the equation... Many countries may be in a position of damned if they do..and damned if they don't. Certainly that appears to be the situation in which the USA finds itself.
Well as the holder of more WMD than any other country they are being hugely hypocritical, particularly in light of the fact that they really are currently protecting nobody.
We're living in interesting times...unfortunately.
Yes, and it is reminiscent of the 1970's and the USSR
behaviour .. unfortunately, guess nothing is learnt.