no, of course not...it's a rediculous comparison to bring up pearl harbor as an analology.
I don't see why Pearl Harbour is a ridiculous analogy, both were surprise (air) attacks against the US, both by foriegn powers that had previously not declared war on the US and both caused a similar amount of casualties. That seems to fit the bill of what an 'analogy' is supposed to be...
Anyhow the point I was making with Pearl Harbour was not a justifcation for war on Iraq as I later said:
But I thought this was about WOMD that Iraq possesses / may possess.
Using the Pearl Harbour/911
analogy I was questioning just what it would take for a 'pacifist' to get off the fence and support their country - it's a simple question.
They way you talk about 9/11 is as if you are bored with it and that it has ceased to be relevant.
Now we've sorted out Afghanistan we can all go home and forget it ever happened!
The CIA, FBI and a majority of the political leaders have admitted that there is no concrete proof linking Iraq to Al Queda. It is all speculation.
OK I'll give you that but I did not say that the Iraq thing was about 911.
The US and Britain have not been able to prove that Iraq has them.
I believe your logic is flawed. Iraq has definitely posessed WOMD. There is no argument over that. So far we have not seen proof absolute that these weapons have been completely destroyed. Therefore WOMD probably still exist.
This belief is further re-inforced by the track record of Iraq during the lengthy process of inspection:
Co-operation only under duress,
Incomplete declarations,
Undeclared hardware (missiles, drone),
Incomplete access to scientists.
etc...
In normal circumstances when applied to any kind of investigative process this would indicate that the suspect has something of importance to hide.
Iraq destroying missiles is not cooperation? Iraq providing documentation of chemicals being destroyed is not cooperation?
Iraq destroying those ridiculous missiles is
not co-operation. Missiles are not WOMD. WOMD = VX, nuclear materials & bio-weapons. The very fact is that a weaponised biological agent can be deployed from an aerosol can and that drones similar to the one we have recently seen are more likely to be used to deploy chemical and biological weapons in the west than one of those high profile missiles.
You see the crux of our disagreement really boils down to this:
I believe that the WOMD posessed by Iraq in 1991 still exist because they are unable to provide proof of their complete destruction. Furthermore the very nature of their co-operation or rather lack of it gives me the belief that they most cetainly have something to hide i.e. WOMD.
Your stance (I feel) is that the 1991 WOMD are no longer relevant and that Iraqi co-operation thus far is sufficient to prove that they are not a threat.
I'm not going to change my opinion, are you?