Originally Posted by ganeil
Well...someone interpreted the "diplomacy" wrong in this case. If ordering someone to leave the country in 72 hours or...; if telling someone to show the WMD that he does not have; if ignoring the reports of the inspectors from UN; if the only proof is your own "data" and PPT plots...if that is called the diplomacy... then we're all screwed...
Why not the same "diplomacy" approach in Somalia, Sudan, and other "hot" areas of the world???
Iraq was obligated to destroy its stores of WMD under the supervision of the UN inspectors, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
Iraq was required to end its support to terrorist organizations, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
Iraq was required to end repression of its civilian population, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
Iraq was required to compensate Kuwait for the damage done by their invasion, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
How much more time should they have been allowed? Another 12 years? 50?
Every situation is unique and requires a unique type of resolution.