The argument of self defence appears to be the one chosen by UK Govt hence the requirement for the heavily doctored and now rubbished dodgy dossier. No doubt about it we went to war on a lie.
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. (hence 45 min claim) However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat.( hence WMD claim) However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........( No evidence was ever provided or discovered)
Of course what we have not seen is the revised legal advice provided to the Govt, they are not so stupid as to disclose that, are they?
Last edited by nigegilb; 5th Jan 2007 at 10:25.