Firstly there’s nothing wrong with saying things that appeal to common sense without proof, especially if the reason they can’t be proved is because they are inherently unprovable.
Further, the idea that you can’t prove a negative is not some law of nature or logic - in fact you frequently can prove negatives. The statement merely means that in many situations - such as this one - it can be very hard if not impossible to prove a negative.
I don’t think any of the above is revolutionary, and wonder at the purpose of your post.
Well, Iraq’s acceptance might have some bearing on the matter of war and peace, if the Bushistas gave a rats ass about the UN. He has made it clear, over and over, that the UN goes with the US or the US goes without the UN. It is increasingly clear that the Security Council was hoping that the inspection route would allow the war fever to abate, cooler heads might prevail.
Very true. If Bush allowed our nation to be shackled by the sometimes arbitrary, sometimes self-serving whims of the UN Security Council, then an acceptance letter from Iraq would’ve been enough stave off war, regardless of whether or not Saddam complied with the terms of the resolution. Of course, if Bush went with whatever the UN demanded, there would never have been another resolution to begin with, nor would the idea of resumed inspections have ever received more than the slightest whisper of lip-service.
If only our government would put the machinations of the UN puppet show above the security concerns of our own nation…
Jeff