View post (a moral dilemma)

View thread

educatedfilm
Registered User
Joined: 08/10/01
Posts: 882
educatedfilm
Registered User
Joined: 08/10/01
Posts: 882
02/01/2003 3:50 pm
hmm, just a quick point, cos goddamit, I'm short of time

The idea that you can prove you DONT have something is an insult, because when it comes to some thing like a nation it is IMPOSSIBLE... No country can PROVE that they aren't hiding anything... It should be innocent till proven guilty..
Ponyone: lol, it's the middle east, and we're both agreeing.... intresting... :)

The concept of small pox attack is blatant scare mongering, small pox is not easy produce (i'll stick my neck out, to go as far say niegh on impossible) , and it sure as hell is not easy to spread, even though they tell you all you need is one terrorist to start it all... true, one guy can start it, but although he may come into contact with alot of poeple, very few will be actaully affected, secondly my parents generation are vacinated against it..
THe small pox idea is very potent pr wise, but really i'd be more worried about planes, car bombs etc...

The thing is, there is no change within the last 2 or 3 years that justifies this sudden change in policy... oh except that Bush got elected...

Saddam is not a nice guy by an means, however he is VERY unpredictable, and one of the worst things you could do is to box him into a corner.. if he has WMD the US risks an attack on isreal... but dont think the current admin hasn't taken that into account, because they know he hasn't got anything that's of anyreal threat...
THey are complying with the inspectors, and that should be enough to avert a war... but nope, the inspectors cant pump oil... send in the troops followed by the tycoons...