Where are the Apologies?

Originally posted by Davros: Whatever MagiK [img]tongue.gif[/img] - you obviously didn't read my post. You were not waging war on their behalf - you were waging it on your behalf. Your willingness to feel noble about it implies that others owe some undying gratitude - I think that is a bunch of pap that some people like to hide behind.

I read your post, and you were wrong, I know YOU may have a problem with the word. My point was correct, and the fact that war is some times justified and the right thing to do. No one owes anyone gratitude here, I wasn't even born during that conflict. I was pointing out possible results from not going to war. lighten up du...errr guy, you are way too grumpy.

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Not to be rude or confrontational but just what the hell are you talking about? You seem to have an idea of who it is you would like to apologise to you (for reasons I'm still not quite grasping. Must be because I'm young and inexperienced [img]tongue.gif[/img] ), so care to name some names so we can say our peace and all be buds again?

The people who were wrong know who they are, they should admit to being wrong, Apology may be the wrong word here, but you cannot point to anything I have written in this thread demanding an apology too ME. so back off the personal slant guy, this isn't about me.

[Cloudbringer]

I have forgotten what it WAS about by now. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Can everyone please debate the topic at hand and let the sidenotes (already WELL covered by both sides) slip on by now?

[Ronn_Bman]

I really don't understand what the world wants in the way of evidence. A picture of Bush standing beside an ICBM silo in Iraq with smoke coming out of it. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

The UN's Chief Weapons Inspector has pretty much laid out the case against Iraq on his own. Beyond that, the evidence of this threat has been shared with the leadership of allied nations, and our allies have provided evidence of their own. That evidence has been reviewed and deemed actionable by the majority. All the evidence is not going to be put on the line for the public in order to protect the individuals who collect the data and to protect all sources of the same type. There is nothing like making public information that should only be known by "Agent X" and a few others to cause "Agent X" and a few others to die and to cause other agents to re-think their position.

Personally, I didn't like the taped phone conversations being aired. Not because I didn't believe it, but because the more we focus on the fact we are monitoring those conversations, the less likely people are to use them in a stupid and reckless way. A stupid and reckless enemy is the best kind to have, unless of course, they have WoMD.

UN Resolution 1441 offered Iraq it's final chance, said that Iraq had to submit immediately, and threatened that non-submission would cause serious consequences. 5 months later, France wants more time and more inspectors, despite the fact that the UN's Chief Weapons Inspector says Iraq is not cooperating in a substantive manner. He said yesterday that Iraq does not need more inspectors because if Iraq cooperated a handful of inspectors could do the job.

[ 02-11-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: If Al Queda is in Iraq then why would the Weapons of Mass Destruction card even need to be brought to the table?

Card? Is that what you think it is?

Actually, WoMD was the reason for coming to the table to start with.

[ 02-11-2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

There are people who have claimed that the whole Iraq problem was "made up" by the Bush administration.

That there was no evidence.

That the US was just war-mongering to boost the economy, to help with the US mid-term elections, to protect the French and Russian oil contracts...um, I meant to steal the oil for US, because Saddam tried to kill Poppa Bush, because W is Satan, etc.

The UN Inspectors have proved that wrong, and the US has information that proves it wrong as well. The problem is, and always has been, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I think that's what Magik is getting at. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: If Al Queda is in Iraq then why would the Weapons of Mass Destruction card even need to be brought to the table?

Card? Is that what you think it is?

Actually, WoMD was the reason for coming to the table to start with. [/QUOTE]Sorry Ronn!

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Sorry Ronn!

[Davros]

Originally posted by MagiK: . No one owes anyone gratitude here, I wasn't even born during that conflict.

Thank you - that is exactly what I am saying.

[Night Stalker]

Davros

I think what Magik was getting at was that if a war was not fought (reguardless of who did the fighting), Germany's aggression would have ground Europe under it's heel. War was necessary - unfortunate, but needed.

From my own view, there are very strong parallels to todays Iraq and post WWI Germany. Chamberlain was of the "avoid war at any cost camp" and his avoidance of war had Brittain under prepared for it when it came knocking. Germany was a very aggressive force then. Part of that can be attributed to all the sanctions and reparations forced upon it by the Treaty of Versilles, but anyway.

Iraq is an aggressor. In the last 25 years they have attacked, for whatever reason, three of their neighbors, most of it under Saddams watch. He is clearly trying to rebuild his military capability, just like post WWI Germany.

The fact is the "peace at any cost" camp, IMO, will not accept any evidence provided that Iraq is in violation of UN 627 (?) and 1441, because those resolutions clearly state that the cease fire would end. The reason that "more compelling" evidence was not revealed ... well, I thought that what was reavealed was damning enough, though not overwelming. Spys are notorious for not wanting to reveal the info they have - because they know that the information they have works both for and against them. Revealed info reveals your intel collection capabilities, calls bluffs, reveals bluffs, closes sources of information, and puts peoples lives at stake. So spies are always nervous revealing info. IMO no info revealed will be good enough for the peace at all costs camp. For the "I'm all for it, just give me more justification" camp, well I hope you appreciate the spy's paradox.