CarolC:

There really is a big substantial difference. A disarming nation is expected to be proactive in demonstration of their disarmament. This model was established as expected practice by South Africa when they voluntarily completely disassembled their nuclear program.

It is obvious that forcing the inspectors to play hide-and-go-seek is a hypocritical stance for a government that has avowed they will cooperate with inspections and disarmament. No matter how many inspectors the UN fields, they have a territory the size of California to look at and there is no way they can succeed in the face of dedicated deception. That's the concern.

That said, I must concur that there are far too few approaches seeking a peaceful solution being taken. Bush's warmongering is the ugliest thing I have ever seen coming out of a government person in my life.

Beccy: I think your remarks are a tad unfair. After all, I generally am very skeptical of Bush's rhetoric, as any citizen should be, but when it appeared there was a genuine factual story supporting his claims I posted the information promptly. It is not the case that "no proof is sufficient". It is the case that no proof has been provided. It is the case, in my own mind anyway, that the burden of proof needed to act as a casus belli, and justify the destruction of human lives, families and property on a wholesale basis (which we are warming up to commit) is an extraordinary burden of proof.

Rhetorical pictures, no matter how vivid, are inadequate grounds for murder.

A

A