03-20-2003, 10:45 PM
Hi,
What exactly is the role of countries like Iceland or Kamerun in this coalition
While they cannot help militarily, they can take a stand as to the justice of the war. Support for a war effort by countries that are normally inclined to pacifism is, I think, much more sincere than opposition to a war by countries that have a financial ax to grind.
The current attack on Iraq is based on basically nonexistant evidence of Saddam hoarding weapons of mass destruction.
{edit: Pete beat me to this one:)}
Not quite. Evidence has been given, both by the USA and by the UN inspectors. It is *not* a question of evidence, it is a question of whether that evidence is real or a lie. If the evidence that *has* been given is true, then a war with Iraq was probably inevitable. To have waited under those circumstances would have been foolish, in that it would have given Saddam more time to prepare and bought those fighting against him nothing. If that evidence is a lie, then it becomes an important question for the USA to determine where that lie originated. If the lie was that "tentative" or "speculative" information was passed as "most probable", then those who passed it as such are guilty. If the "information" was fabricated whole, then those who did so are even more guilty. In either case, if the information was false, then it is the fault of the administration for accepting it without sufficient proof.
I seriously doubt that that information was intentionally falsified. I am less sanguine as to its real versus putative accuracy. But, as of right now (actually, as of Powell's presentation to the UN of a few weeks ago) I am convinced that the action taken by the USA is correct. Taken for the wrong reasons, possibly (even probably), but still correct.
--Pete
What exactly is the role of countries like Iceland or Kamerun in this coalition
While they cannot help militarily, they can take a stand as to the justice of the war. Support for a war effort by countries that are normally inclined to pacifism is, I think, much more sincere than opposition to a war by countries that have a financial ax to grind.
The current attack on Iraq is based on basically nonexistant evidence of Saddam hoarding weapons of mass destruction.
{edit: Pete beat me to this one:)}
Not quite. Evidence has been given, both by the USA and by the UN inspectors. It is *not* a question of evidence, it is a question of whether that evidence is real or a lie. If the evidence that *has* been given is true, then a war with Iraq was probably inevitable. To have waited under those circumstances would have been foolish, in that it would have given Saddam more time to prepare and bought those fighting against him nothing. If that evidence is a lie, then it becomes an important question for the USA to determine where that lie originated. If the lie was that "tentative" or "speculative" information was passed as "most probable", then those who passed it as such are guilty. If the "information" was fabricated whole, then those who did so are even more guilty. In either case, if the information was false, then it is the fault of the administration for accepting it without sufficient proof.
I seriously doubt that that information was intentionally falsified. I am less sanguine as to its real versus putative accuracy. But, as of right now (actually, as of Powell's presentation to the UN of a few weeks ago) I am convinced that the action taken by the USA is correct. Taken for the wrong reasons, possibly (even probably), but still correct.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?