Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Smooth... nice, very nice. If this were my only argument, you'd be correct. Because it is not, your response with rules of logic is irrelevant.
In any case, Saddam *had* to comply with UN rules, which dictated he had to provide evidence of destruction. He did not, therefore it is reasonable to assume he has something to hide, especially with prior knowledge of his attempts to hide evidence.
Your logic is nice in theory; but in reality, Saddam must have seen the US response, and must have known that not complying would get him in trouble. So, either he was stupid and suicidal, or he was hiding something. There, was that more logical?
|
No, it's not more logical. Now you are committing an either/or fallacy. There are other explanations other than the ones you are proposing. For example, Saddam might not have been stupid, suicidal, or hiding anything. He might have just refused to comply for reasons only he knows (I merely proposed some). AFAIK, he isn't dead and might, for all we know, be basking in some cave or tropical island with a cool billion dollars.
Quote:
But even if he did not have anything to hide, he was still breaking the rules.
As for your reasons: even your agreement with point 2 doesn't matter. Saddam was defeated by the US and allies in '91; he signed a ceasefire agreement that demanded his full cooperation with UN weapons inspections. Therefore, he already acknowledged the foreign entity had the right to demand inspections. If he then changes his mind, he is in fact tearing up the ceasefire agreement, and there's a war... which makes it legal for the US to attack, making this whole discussion futile.
|
I'm not debating on whether he was justified in denying inspections, just that if he did so then he refused for reasons only he knows. His refusal to provide evidence (and I'm only conceding that for the sake of making these points--numerous others have already debated the issue of whether he was providing "proof" or what constituted proof) doesn't necessarily indicate that he was hiding something--your point is pure speculation.