
September 24th, 2003, 04:00 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Originally posted by deccan:
quote: Originally posted by primitive:
“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.
|
1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.
2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1. 1.
We agree on that, and I agree that Saddam was a Big Bad MF who deserved everything he got. But I do believe that the cost of this war is way larger than the benefits. And I am not talking about money; I am talking about the cost of gutting the UN, the cost of creating a new cold war (between Islam and the west this time), and the cost of increased terrorism (by hitting the wrong target).
2.
There is a big difference between “can not” and “will not” account for something. If it was “will not”, documents or witnesses should have been available to the inspectors by now (or soon). As the situation stands right now, it would appear that it was more a case of “can not”. Bomb any country half back to the Stone Age and see how much records that survive.
And yes, he did throw the UN inspectors out, but he also caved and let them back in when the US threatened to use force (which I approved off). Problem is: GWB chose to attack even after Saddam caved and agreed to the US demands, thereby ruining “threat of using force” as a diplomatic tool.
__________________
Never trust a cop with rubber gloves.
|