(July 6, 2016 at 8:56 pm)Aractus Wrote: I refer you to this commentary on the Chilcot report:
"P McGeough, Canberra Times Wrote:
Defenders of the Iraq invasion invoke all kinds of justifications – and some have a certain logic.
But here's the thing – if those justifications were the benchmark for must-do, morally or humanitarian-based interventions around the globe, we could be invading a different country each month. Chilcot make the point that were that the rationale to be applied, the assessment at the time of British intelligence was that Iran, North Korea and Libya were greater threats than Iraq, in terms of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
You seem now to be dancing around the point you were trying to make. Not only does that not demonstrate your claim, it's irrelevant, because we didn't invade Libya.
So, I ask you again, how does one go about a peaceful, diplomatic resolution when a murderous dictator is involved?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
