Dave,
A thoughtful, considered and well constructed post. I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with most of the opinions expressed, however.
Some Points Of Information:
I have to take a little exception to this notion that one must have served to have any idea of the realities of war or Iraq.
Please explain how one can gain any idea about the reality of the war in Iraq without having served there.
the morality of beating prisoners to death
Please present your evidence, newspaper reports aside, that this prisoner was beaten to death by his captors.
a lot of people I served with are stuck in this mindset and it gets them nowhere in civilian life
The subjects of this debate are not 'in civilian life' - they are serving soldiers in harms way on a daily basis.
I’m sure many if not most of the folks who use these forums may well have an experience of aeronautics and service life that extends no further than a homoerotic fascination with “Top Gun”. Sadly, behind the cloak of anonymity, one right-wing flow of indignation at apparent attacks on their beloved military doesn’t distinguish the impostor from the genuine article, if you get what I mean.
I get EXACTLY what you mean, Dave. I have been an active contributor to these fora for some time now, and I am sure there are many here who would lend support to my credentials.
When it comes to violating these resolutions, we weren’t exactly helping when we used the teams as intelligence gathering units , completely outside their remit. If you want resolutions to be ignored, no better way to do it than use your teams as spies.
That is EXACTLY what the weapons inspectors WERE. They were there to inspect and report, publicly, on weapons systems that SH's regime wished to keep secret - if that is not espionage, I don't know what is. Again, with the much-vaunted 'due process' in mind, if you have evidence that the inspectors acted outside of their UN-sanctioned remit, please present it.
If these guys are guilty, is there ANY way this can be condoned? I say no.
Our ONE point of agreement. I will add, however - what evidence do YOU have that they are guilty?
the press pushes the right-wing, pro-military angle every bit as much as they push the left-wing, anti-military angle.
On which planet, exactly? Name me ONE british newspaper, besides the Sun, which is consistently pushing a pro-war line. All the rest seem highly critical most of the time.
so long as we avoid FOX and the tabloids, wouldn't you agree a copy of the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Torygraph, perhaps chucking in a Spectator and New Statesmen for free, is probably going to give you as good an overview as any other?
Really? Let's examine:
Guardian - FIERCELY left-wing
Independent - Left wing
Times - Left wing (and Blair-loving)
Telegraph - Blatant and consistent pro-Tory bias, regardless of circumstance
...so how does this list give one "as good an overview as any other"?
And why the (double) mention of FOX News in the negative? It is not only the ONLY right-leaning major network in the US (AND UK for that matter, since it is broadcast here), it also allows the 'other side' airtime to express their views.
We are incredibly selective in which violations of UNSC we chose to take action over now aren’t we, when it concerns Middle Easter/Mediterranean countries.
Your obvious reference to Israel is noted. This link:
www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html
...will take you to a list of UN Resolutions passed against Israel between 1955 - 1992. Notice that the majority are 'condemnations' of actions that have already taken place. Some 'urge' Israel to take a particular course of action, others 'demand' that it does so. NOT ONE of them ORDERS Israel to take any specific action, with defined consequences for non-compliance. Israel, therefore, has arguably never been in 'Material Breach' of a SINGLE UNSC resolution. I am aware that this may be regarded as semantic trickery by some - so be it.
Food for thought.
16B