Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Robin Cook, Claire Short

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #33
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    I disagree

    I know you do. It's alright, I allowed for this. See my comment about the "pathetically ignorant" in the previous post? Draw your own conclusions!


  • Options
    #34
    shotamoose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭shotamoose


    Originally posted by Shinji
    If it DOES transpire that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, then this isn't a matter of switching sides. If he has those weapons and has been concealing them, then a military incursion to remove them can be considered justified (although of course the nature of such an incursion, its right to effect regieme change and the nature of any state set up in the wake of such an incursion remains open to question).

    I don't hear many voices other than the pathetically ignorant arguing with that line.

    What I do hear is a hell of a lot of people, myself included, who see precisely zero evidence of the existence of said WMDs. If they do exist and Saddam does fire them at US troops, I'll be the first to throw my hands up and say "fine - I was wrong, this war was justified". That doesn't mean I'll shut up and be happy with how the US decides to run Iraq afterwards, of course...

    Maybe I'm pathetically ignorant too, then, because I don't agree that if Saddam fires WMD at US troops "this war was justified". But it would be enough to justify a subsequent war if Saddam had been proven to have been hiding WMD with the intent of using them in the near future. If you kick a dog in the face and it bites you it doesn't justify you kicking it in the face.

    This war will always be a pre-emptive strike based, at best, on a hunch. If they know he's got WMD and have failed to convince even half the world of it they were probably never interested in disarmament alone in the first place.


  • Options
    #35
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    As I mentioned in another thread.

    If Saddam attacks with WMD, how can you say this war is justified?

    Remember it's the US/UK who's actions removed the UN Weapons inspectors from Iraq before they could finish their job, and despite Iraq dragging it's feet they were making progress.

    It's a shame that Bush is more intrested in proving himself right by the possible deaths of US soliders and civilians then by using the weapons inspectors.

    Now if he had gone to war after the weapons inspectors had finished and found something I might be more inclined to agree.


Advertisement