Why bother debating this?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: But Moiraine, if what Ronn said is true (and I'm not up to date on this) and any govt (France or any other) is threatening to not admit nations to a group (NATO etc) because they were on the opposite side of this issue, isn't that blackmail as well? Again, I don't have the details, but it just seems to me that both sides play the same game, just claim different victories. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes it is blackmail as well, Clouddy, and I never said I supported my President on this issue. I said so in Ronn's new thread. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Non-military means not attacking Iraq to achieve what the world wants which is disarament of womd. A military unused is the best kind of military for a civilized world. Yes, but it's that unused military you suggest we bring home despite the fact that it is the pressure from that military that has achieved the level of cooperation everyone is raving about. Let's not forget the inspectors were withdrawn in '98 because of a lack of cooperation, and Saddam said last year they would never be allowed to return. What changed his mind? You really do the world a disfavor saying the U.N. has been a joke all along. Every organization has it's failures, but the potential of a world forum to solve problems makes it a grand and good idea on the whole. I said if the UN can't survive this disagreement it has been a joke. I didn't say that everyone had to agree on this issue, but you suggested a lack of agreement would be the end of the UN. As far as requiring a level of top secret fact access to support the war, Both sides of the issue can guess and speculate. The reality is American lawmakers and world leaders, who do have classified access, think we should not go to war in Iraq without solid proof and a U.N mandate. I dont need top-secret access to listen to those that do. You don't need clearance to listen to the American lawmakers and world leaders who have classified access and think we should go to war because we already have solid proof, either. Those you agree with haven't proven anything to you either. They haven't provided you with anything tangible, but you choose to believe them?

[ 02-27-2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]