Sfsdfd, I applaud your attempts, but around here it's really falling on deaf ears.

[shrug] Not really. The people who post here aren't the only ones who read the threads.

- David Stein

Agreed. But as far as discussions are concerned, everyone is pretty well set in the rhetoric. Unless something massive happens (like finding WMDs) nothing is gonna change in the dialogue.

If it's coming close to the November elections and Bush's numbers are down...then YES, the US will plant WMDs

Or if they're legitimately found around that time, you will question the timing, or argue they're plants....:rolleyes:

I'll go on record as stating that, in the absence of seriously discrediting evidence, any WMDs we might find in Iraq are probably geniune. A scandal that big would involve the complicity of too many people - there would be a leak somewhere. I don't trust our government (no matter <i>who</i> is in charge), but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

- David Stein

In all fairness, it was not I who brought up the sentiments and motives of America's "allies". :)

I believe the point is that the Bush administration took the action they did, an action they strongly felt was necessary, because of all the information and intelligence that was available to them. Information and intelligence that was not merely of their own gathering, but that which came from the work of many around the world, and the work of those that came before them. That fact, that nearly the entire world and past administrations firmly believed the same as the Bush administration and advocated similar action, is relevant. I think it would be far worse if we were at the same point in time as we are now, if the Bush administration went completely against the grain of what was believed about saddam and his regime, but we all know that they did not.

While you point out that what America did, liberating Iraq, was worse because no other nation took measures as drastic as America did, I believe, as do a great deal of others, that what France and Germany did was much more insidious. If they opposed America out of any sense of moral justice, whether it was right or wrong, I might see things differently. Clearly though, they did not.

We put our reputation on the line based on the whole world's thoughts and convictions, not simply those of a few men in America. To me, that is a difference that matters. And though I know we disagree, I find the Kay Report highly encouraging. There is still work to be done, but it will happen.

Reducing the opposition to the US stance to simply "looking after their own selfish self-interests" is tad simplistic. Moral justice or not, there were certainly "principles" involved, namely multilateralism vs unilateralism. It's no secret that the Bush admin was never a big fan of international law and international organizations. That "policy" is what France, Germany, and Russia opposed.

The whole world's thoughts and convictions? While there seemed to be an agreement that Iraq possessed WMD's, their was no such widespread conviction that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone.

Perhaps it is a bit simplistic, but I still do not believe in any way that "principles" were involved in France's or Russia's decisions. Germany was merely Chirac's lapdog in the whole matter, which still puzzles me to this day. France saw a chance to consolidate their power and advance their position, so they took it. It remains to be seen if it will be a successful gamble.

Quote:

---

The whole world's thoughts and convictions? While there seemed to be an agreement that Iraq possessed WMD's, their was no such widespread conviction that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone.

---

What, I am not allowed any hyperbole? ;)
However, I think you are mistaken as to whether anyone from France or Germany thought that saddam was a serious and immediate threat.