A serious question, War !

[cowboybooter]

I have seen and read what my country's media / politicians / military want me to see and read. I consider I am fairly up to speed on current events surrounding Iraq !

There is one point, one question I cannot get to grips with, and if someone can enlighten me I will feel easier.


Q. How can someone prove they are NOT doing something ?

I can prove that I am doing certain things by demonstrating them, for example I could prove that I was being unfaithful to my wife by producing a girlfriend, but how do I prove that I'm not ? By 'not' producing one ?

Surely the emphasis is on the prosecution to prove it's case, not the defendant !

I welcome your thoughts.




CBB

[ClubMed]

You address the crucial problem of this military campaign.

Are allegations and assumptions enough to start war?

If not, then what must be presented by both sides in the defense of their positions?

Iraq can prove that it does not have WMD's by allowing the inspectors in, by handing over documents, allowing the IAEA inspectors to interview certain scientists, but that's about it.

If this is not enough then who ever deems it to be insufficient should prove that Iraq posses WMD's.

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is the usual ideology in a court of law, it should be no different at the UN and the ‘international court of law’.

If the US gov. claims that Iraq has WMD's then they should prove it. This is the only natural reaction any sane person can have. Convince us that Iraq has WMD's.

The regime in Iraq has finally agreed to:
1. Inspections.
2. Spy planes.
3. Interviews.
4. Handing over more documents.

There is not much more they can do at this point.

The rest is up to the US gov. to prove.

Few nations at the moment are willing to wage a war that seems to be based on assumptions and lacks any substantial and crucial evidence.

[Theophylact]

...has an official position on war with Iraq. Funny -- nobody's yet accused them of being unpatriotic.

[M_Six]

nobody's yet accused them of being unpatriotic.

Child molesters? Yes. But unpatriotic? No.

[reticent]

They could produce proof that they destroyed the thousands of pounds of Ricin, Anthrax and nerve agents, the modes of employing such lethal chemical and biological weapons and their nuclear facilities and the uranium purification devices they have employed. All of these are known to have been in Iraq and were found by earlier weapons inspections. Then they could destroy or give up their mobile labs and sever their ties with Al Qaeda and stop funding terror bombings.

That would be a start.

They could then vow not to do such things again and only research and purchase conventional weapons and allow un-metered weapons inspections.

That should solve all of their problems and get the US and UN off their backs.

[cowboybooter]

How do you prove that you destroyed something ?

Oh Yes, come look at this pile of ashes, this was once...................

What ?

How do you prove it ?

How does the UK prove we don't have WOMD ? WE can't!

Ever hear of the labs at Porton Down, where Anthrax, EBola and combined MRSA / EColi virii were mutated / isolated ?

But of course, we would never use them......................................

Reality check !!!!

Come on back, reticent, I have a case don't I ??



CBB

Originally posted by cowboybooter
Ever hear of the labs at Porton Down, where Anthrax, EBola and combined MRSA / EColi virii were mutated / isolated ?
CBB

Point of order. Agent causing Anthrax is a bacteria; MRSA / E.coli are bacteria, not viruses.

A community service from your friendly infection control professional.

Cheers
Mick

[reticent]

Oh, you have a point. They could produce video of their destroying the materials (could be faked, though) or have weapons inspectors present at its destruction. My take is that if they really destroyed the tons of material, they'd have made a huge public ordeal of it to get us off their backs.

lol, Mickwish. You're right, but at least he posted the correct plural form of the word "Virus". Most people say Viruses, not Virii.

Got that wrong too. Thanks for reminding me.

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the only correct English plural of the word used in any of these senses is viruses, not virii. The "ii" is used to denote plurality in Latin words ending in "ius", not "us." Hence it is "viruses", not "virii." If virus was spelled "virius," then the plural "virii" would be correct, however, it is not.

From here.

Cheers
Mick

[M_Six]

Actually viruses is an accepted form. I know this because I made a bet that it wasn't and lost.

vi·rus
n. pl. vi·rus·es

EDIT: Heh. Great minds again, Mick.