THERE is little doubt that the voices of pluralism in the West have given Saddam Hussein the idea that there is so much opposition to the Bush/Blair stance that compliance with UN resolution 1441 has been honoured more in the breach than the application.
In addition it has made the job of threatening him into disposing of his weapons of mass destruction or personal flight into exile that much more difficult.
In fact one has the impression that he is laughing up his sleeve thus making an attack more likely.
Tony Blair has now invoked the moral imperative and underlined the 'fact' that it is essential for world peace that Saddam Hussein face the consequences (ie we have to attack Iraq).
However, there is one question that has not been addressed.
If America were to decide to not 'go in', would we alone with, or even without, a new UN resolution to give a semblance of legitimacy?
John Campbell Port Road Wenvoe Cardiff
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article