Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
Moiraine, Nobel laurates are acknowledged for their expertise in a specific filed. Seeking their thoughts about war and the dangers posed by Saddam is akin to asking Barbara Streisand for her opinion on how a war should be fought...or even IF it should be fought.
Like it or not, the only people really qualified to make the decisions are those who have access to the highest levels of intelligence material....aka heads of state and the Military type advisors. Hollywood actors, and nuclear physicists have no more knowledge of the issue than your average man on the street....or at least thats how I see it.
Edit: Just out of curiosity, where were these notables when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in norther Iraq? and why didn't they go to Iran as Human shields when The US was helping Iraq in its war against Iran (where chemical and bioagents were used by Iraq)?
And where the Heck were all the hollywood stars when Clinton used cruise missiles to blow up an asprin factory?
Sorry....just some things I was wondering but are really off topic I suppose.
|
I thought you swore off the serious war forum...
[img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]
I am sorry but I do not find the "Its top secret and you dont know any better" argument for a "a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support" very compelling.
U.S. lawmakers and world goverments oppose the war for very specific and detailed reason and have access to "high" levels of data.
With-out a smoking gun, the push for "a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support" (it's just fun to say! [img]smile.gif[/img] ) is based in speculation and shallow good-vs-evil moralism.
If the U.S goverment is holding out data, they do so to their own discredit.