Quote:
Me: ... I am unwilling to assume innosence by default...
This is a very weird aproach - actually it would be very funny, if it wouldn't be so frightening..
|
What is frightening is the eagarness with which liberals want to apply moral equivilancy to despots. Why are we obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Quote:
|
Have you ever considered, that proving something not existing, is sometimes much more difficult, than proving someting exist. It is sometimes impossible to prove one's innocence, when one is innocent.
|
The difficulty is irrelevant...he interfered with inspections. if it was difficult before, he was making it
more difficult. That leads me to believe he is hiding somthing.
Saddam has done all manner of horrible things...why was it so hard to believe he was capable of producing WMDs? It isnt like we just started picking on him for no reason.
Quote:
|
I'm very sceptic against any argument based on almost free speculation with no evidence, and defended only by demands to claim one's wrong.
|
If you want to defend him feel free. Most people would not consider it unreasonable to put the burden of proof on
him. He is not morally equivilant with legitimate world leaders.
Quote:
|
There were not evidence of the weapons. For Saddam, it was likely impossbile to even proof, that he had destroyed the weapons.
|
They are two different issues. He could have satisfied us that he was not producing (or trying to produce) WMDs
without having to conclusiveluy prove that he had destroyed all previous weapons. The issues are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
|
There is no evidence of partition of terrorist activities. Now you're taking exactly same aproach. There is no evidence, but somehow you're assuming guiltiness by default.
|
Why do I owe him the benefit of the doubt? He has plenty of motive.
Quote:
|
Overall, I would like to repeat, that the terrorist connection is really a weak argument, and I would like to see you admiding it.
|
I hope you arnt holding your breath. I think it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. This is a man who is known to oppress millions of people, who has defied "international law" many many times. Why should we assume this is beyond him? Gimme a break.
Quote:
|
Anyway, the speculation about the terrorist connections is little vain in this part of the story. If there had been real terrorist connections, the U.S military would had likely found the evidence.
|
The lack of evidence does not mean the connections did not exist. Especially true since he interfered with inspectors. Had he cooperated fully, it might be different.
Quote:
|
Why don’t we go back into Vietnam, we "had" an ex-president who thought the North Vietnamese were a threat…
|
Same thing.
Quote:
|
Would you care to point out anymore threats that our ex-presidents shared to defend our current administrations actions?
|
I cant think of any others at the moment. If a majority of people, even those politically opposite Bush, shared his fears about Iraq, it is reasonable to assume his fears were not irrational. Do you disagree?