Where are the Apologies?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: It is now evident that a continued determined engagement by U.N. inspectors leads to fuller access and broader sentiment for the status to remain Quo, ie. No international war with Iraq. The U.S. under Bush is playing a poor leadership role by being so aggressive and unilateral without regard to the veiwpoints of Allies and citizens. Perhaps it all boils down to how one weighs which evidence to come to a conclusion.

Continued, determined engagement by U.N. inspectors leads to fuller access? I suppose the 150,000 US troops surrounding Iraq don't have anything to do with the improved level of cooperation?

Saddam hasn't cooperated without the REAL threat of force before, so isn't it naive to think he's suddenly, of his own accord, decided to become a good international neighbor. If the Iraqi's do come forward with all the information required, and the disarmament takes place without war, it will be because the threat of being disarmed by force was present.

If Saddam feels the pressure and voluntarily submits completely, George W. Bush will actually be the one to thank. After all, which of the nations standing against the war has been pressuring Iraq over the past dozen years? What exactly have Germany, France, Russia, and China done to resolve this situation? What kind of results did they get over the past dozen years when they even bothered to address the issue at all?

What exactly are those nations pressuring Iraq with now? Those nations who oppose action are using the threat of that very action by the US to encourage Saddam to finally submit. They have nothing else to use.

If US troops weren't on the ground preparing for battle, there would be no different level of cooperation from the Iraqi's than there has been for the past dozen years.


[ 02-11-2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Saddam hasn't cooperated without the REAL threat of force before, so isn't it naive to think he's suddenly, of his own accord, decided to become a good international neighbor. If US troops weren't on the ground preparing for battle, there would be no different level of cooperation from the Iraqi's than there has been for the past dozen years.

Agreed Ron - agreed.

Originally posted by skywalker: Who would this apology go to? I doubt very much that Bush cares who believes what he says or does not. To those of us on this forum of course! It is called intellectual honesty, and integrity, it is about character and admitting you are wrong. But Im not singling you out either Mark. My opposition to the war...***SNIP*** Lots of stuff ***SNIP***I'm also not convinced about the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, it just doesn't seem likely. So you do not believe the Phone intercepts, the intelligence agencies of the US, Britain or Australia? Who would you believe? Saddam Husein? And one more thing, what is it that makes the United States desires more worthwhile than France, Germany, Russia, and China? Just asking...that's all. And what makes it inferior? You were all pissed off saying bush was just after the oil, and now it turns out that France, Germany and Russia all have vested multi-billion dollar oil interests in Iraq and yet you won't slam them they way you slam the US. Mark

Ray

Originally posted by Grojlach: So war is pointless and no one should ever go to war....would that mean you would rather be speaking German right now? Just curious.

That's an interesting sophism...[/QB][/QUOTE]

Nice comment but no post to back it up. One could say that your post was a bit of sophistry.

My comment was valid and appropriate, the person claiming that war is never the answer would in fact be speaking German right now had not the US waged war along side her own country. So where is the sophistry in that?

Originally posted by Davros: Personally I have no doubt that Saddam has, what are they called now, WOMD [img]smile.gif[/img] . I was hoping that your Colin would have been able to provide such a substantial case that the tide of opinion in the UN could have been swept to your side. However, I was disappointed that with all the resources of the US to call on, the proof that was provided reads as a pretty filmsy case. Surely better proof than that exists - is that really the best we have on Saddam? I am not surprised that the world response has been so poor. Surely the US can convince the other nations if they just lay all their cards on the table. I think the whole show has been mishandled - and very badly at that. More and more support has been eroded as the time line stretches.

You are right in one thing...that was probably not all we have on the issue, but just how many humans should the US sacrifice in it's effort to satisfy public curiosity? Many seem concerned for the needless loss of life a war would cause yet seem willing to have intelligence sources revealed in public so that they may be killed by Saddam.

It really appears that the only major opposition to this whole thing is France, Germany, Belgium and Russia...three of whom have significant financial interests in Iraq both on the Oil front and on the Arms deals. Im not sure what Belgium has to do with all this...except maybe they see the chance to be an influence on the international scene which doesnt happen often.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Quite a few pundits over here seem to think the UN weapons inspectors are the people to believe, not the totally impartial US government. Much as it pains me to say it... And even if he does have them this war has never been about them really, has it. It would have been prosecuted with or without proof, or an attempt at proof. If the governments could find no proof then they would have fallen back on the regime change argument, something they needed no real proof for and most people agree is a good idea. The thing is that people opposed this war with or without proof. Even if he does have them, and even if he is a horribly tyranical ruler, this is not going to solve anything. And its going to get a lot of people killed in the process of not solving anything. Which in my book is a bad thing with or without proof.

Then believe the inspectors...they have said that Iraq is evading and hiding things, the USA's evidence confirms this and the resolution 1441 as passed demands that action be taken. The UN by not enforcing its resolution risks becoming an irrelevant body...if it is not already.

By the way, nice way of avoiding the issue of this thread...don't admit your wrong even when the facts show that you were....smooth move.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: the West actually quite likes Saddam most of the time. He just isn't helping them at the moment.

A completely off topic discussion, and a completely unfounded statement of falsehood. You cannot show any indication from the last 20 years that the "West" likes Saddam Husein....unless you count France, Germany and Russia as representing the west.

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Come on Majik! you didn't really expect an apology, did you? .

I expected the people on this forum to have a bit more intellectual honesty, but I see that was an unfounded expectation. I have been disappointed by the "other side" on this board several times in recent weeks. I used to respect them even if they did not agree with my views, now Im starting to think that I was wrong in that.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Why should anyone have to apologize for having a moral or ethical objection to war in the light of effective alternatives. A war in haste makes waste of more lives in this situation. Not to mention that regardless of the "evidence", I doubt Saddam's Iraq is a real threat to anyone now, except for invaders. Nicely said and completely off topic. I never said anything about apologising for being against war. You might weant to read my original post again....this thread isn't so much about going to war as it is about Intellectual Honesty and Integrity I have a feeling you will see less and less serious posts from me in the future on this board, simply due to the lack of those two little items...whats the point in debate if they do not exist?

Originally posted by Davros: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: So war is pointless and no one should ever go to war....would that mean you would rather be speaking German right now? Just curious.

Time and again (and not only from the one poster I have highlighted) I have seen wisecracks like this about "how you would all be speaking German", or "the French are only good at surrendering" etc. While I happen to like the US, and believe the cause to disarm Iraq is just, this sort of response is just the sort of unthinking arrogance that causes some to brand the country (US) in that exact same way (mind you, I am smart enough not to brand a whole country by the actions of the few).

It was not a wise crack Davros. It was a legitimate way of pointing out to the poster that if some people had not been willing to wage war on her behalf, both her own countrymen and the USA then she would indeed be speaking German right now. War is some times both necessary and the right thing to do, and trying to simply say "War is wrong" is childish and an over simplification.

[/QUOTE]

[ 02-11-2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]