zonder, I've always thought you were a smart fellow. You're a worthy and worthwhile individual to differ with.
How about US knowing full well what Saddam was doing with the chemicals they sold him and continuing to support him anyway?
You'll have to forgive my taking the "reporting" of the alternative media with a grain of salt.
They claim they are either destroyed or destroyed - i.e. passed their useful time, which, if you look into the useful lifetimes of these elements, is not so incredible.
I don't know much about weapons inspection techniques or the unique forensics attendant to it, but I'd imagine that there would be some evidence of either of those outcomes - destroyed or (let's call it) neutralized - that would be evident to inspectors. If you have information covering those useful lifetimes (or any evidence that at some point production of such weaponry stopped dead), I'm open to reading and considering it.
Anyway, if that is a cause for launching war on Iraq, I trust the UN Security Council to do so.
Well, this is where we fall squarely into separate camps. I dislike and don't trust the U.N., and would support at the very least our exit - ideally, it being disbanded - categorically.
If that was a cause for invasion, England would have invaded the US long ago. I am referring to the major support for IRA coming from the US, of course.
I believe that the differentiating factor comes where it is the state (versus private individuals) harboring terrorism, but even then, my response is: if England wants to attack the United States and strike at us for "supporting terror" in the form of having residents that are IRA backers, it's well within her right.
Which is no different than me saying I have higher standards than my parents and now will hunt down every criminal in Monte-Carlo in my spare time, nevermind the police, because they are too soft (or something).
Not at all. It speaks to different tolerance levels and, in particular, a difference in priority.
In terms of the aforementioned example - and again, I find interpersonal examples applied to the international sphere specious in most cases - how isn't it within your right to determine that your parents were wrong, and undertake action to correct those perceived wrongs?
You are talking vigilante here.
Vigilantism suggests action taken outside the realm of agreed-upon conduct. Not only do I believe that the flimsy "legal" framework of the U.N. is scarcely worth upholding, I believe that ones' defense is paramount to all concerns, including those of the prevailing legal framework.
LPS5 |
