Occrider:

quote:

You're speculating. There's no way you can know for a fact that Iraq doesn't have an active biological/chemical programs. For the same reasons that I can't say that Iraq definetely has mobile chemical/biological weapons programs, you can't say that they don't. However, I think we can conclude that there seems to be and definetely in the past some suspicious activity occurring.

I agree entirely on both points: firstly that I cannot know for certain that Iraq has no biological/chemical programs and I do agree that Iraq has produced chemical/biological agents in the past. However, you must keep in mind that what production was going on in the past was severely destroyed by bombing in the first Gulf War and then the subsequent 7 years of inspections. For instance, have a look at this page:

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/961031/003bk_00d.txt

BIOLOGICAL:

a. Initially, there were four facilities in the area of
BW R&D/production--the Abu Ghurayb Suspect BW Production Facility,
the Abu Ghurayb Clostridium Vaccine Plant, the Taji Suspect BW
Production Facility, and the Salman Pak R&D/Suspect Production and
Support Facility. A fifth facility, the Latifiyah BW Production
Facility, was added to the 1st in February 1991. At these five
facilities, there were a total of 13 major buildings assessed to
associated with BW R&D and production. As a result of coalition
bombing, 11 of the 13 buildings were destroyed and two severely
damaged. All five facilities were assessed to be unable to
support BW R&D and/or production.

b. BW storage initially include 19 twelve-frame
environmentally controlled bunkers at 11 locations and the Taji
Suspect BW Storage Facility. During February 1991, two
additional twelve-frame bunkers were Identified, bringing the
total to 21 such bunkers. Of these targets, the original 19
bunkers
and theTaji Suspect BW Storage Facility were all destroyed or
severely damaged. The final two bunkers were discovered too late
in the campaign to be attacked.

CHEMICAL:

a. CW production included the Samarra Chemical Weapons
Production and Storage Facility, and the Habbanlyah I, II
and III precursor production facilities. Production at Samarra
occurred in six un-bunkered buildings and four bunkered buildings.
Five of six unbunkered buildings and none of the bunkered
buildings were destroyed. Of the four surviving bunkered
production buildings the most significant was P-6, which is
capable of producing 50-70 MT of nerve agent per month. About 70
percent of Samarra's total production capacity was destroyed. The
three Habbaniyah facilities were destroyed and with them most all
ability to produce CW agent precursor chemicals. Three buildings
at Samarra were dedicated to CW munitions filling and all three
buildings were destroyed.

b. CW storage capability was in the form of eight cruciform
bunkers at Samarra and 22 "S"-shaped bunkers at 14 locations. Of
the eight cruciform bunkers, one was destroyed and the remaining
seven sustained only superficial damage. Of the 22 "S"-shaped
bunkers, 16 were destroyed and six suffered serious damage.
Although these bunkers were Identified as CW-related bunkers and
included in the CW target set, bunker architecture is not relevant
to its ability to store agent or weapons, which would have an
important impact on Iraq's ability to reconstitute its CW storage
system in that Iraq would not need to reproduce the 22 "S"-shaped
bunkers to have significant CW storage capability.

It's hard to comprehend the damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during this campaign. According to that site, to restart the biological program would take "100-200 million dollars and 5-8
years" and the chemical weapons program would require "at least several hundred million dollars and 3-5 years. [...] This is assuming that Iraq has access to the required materiel [sic] on the
international market". You can't just stop and start weapons programs at the drop of a hat. Then consider the toll that 7 years of weapons inspections (and a further 12 years of sustained bombing - http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html - basically a new sortie every day) have taken on the programs. In an article I wrote for JohnSmith's website, I said:

"During the UN-led inspections of the Iraqi weapons plants after the Gulf War, in fact, huge amounts of weaponry were destroyed, rendering Saddam Hussein virtually powerless to launch another, similarly potent offensive. Even if Saddam Hussein were stupid enough to wage a war against the US or any other nation (in the knowledge that doing so would lead to US intervention anyway), his capabilities to cause mass destruction are extremely limited. According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect "the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons." In addition to this, "the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program" and "817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for"."

(I've lost the link for the stats provided there, so you'll just have to trust me when I say that they're genuine. )

A poor nation, with no relevant existing infrastructure, is going to struggle to develop these sorts of weapons. The only real danger is the weapons left over from before the Gulf War, and even then I think that their threat is being severely overplayed. This is what Hans Blix had to say about it a few hours ago:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...5E25777,00.html

So the point is, Iraq may still possess a few disjointed reminents of a long extinct chemical/biological program, but this alone is no justification for war. If the inspectors were given the opportunity to do their job, there is a chance - a good chance - that the remaining weapons could have been cleared up, and that Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully. Instead we go to war because Iraq "may" have weapons. If any chemical and biological weapons are used against American forces, then I will genuinely feel for the soldiers (it's not their fault that they're there afterall) but ultimately the blame lies as much with Bush and co. as it does with Saddam Hussein. Over the past 12 years Saddam Hussein has given no indication that he has any intention of using whatever weapons he may have left against other nations. If he uses them in self-defence, then, as much as he should (and will) be condemned for it, part of the blame must go with those who orchestrated this wholly unnecessary war. If you throw a man into a cage with a tiger, you must accept some of the responsibility when he gets mauled.

quote:

Let's not forget the absence of complete, full compliance as proscribed by the truce agreement. Every weapons inspector report I raid always said Iraq should be doing more.

Is that justification for war though? Iraq probably could have done more, but I think that they did much more than was expected of them and what does it matter if it takes them 2 days or 2 years to fully disarm (as Hans Blix said, even if the Iraqis were to fully disarm tomorrow, it would take at least two months to verify it - it's not an overnight job)? Resolution 1441 does not authorize war in this case. Paragraph 12 of resolution 1441 states that the security council must reconvene after a report from UNMOVIC declaring that the Iraqis were not complying (which hasn't happened):

"[...] to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

The Security Council has not reconvened for discussion about this conflict though. If you'll remember, the US didn't even bother going to a vote on the issue.

Nonetheless, even if we assume that the Resolution had been breached by Iraq, it does not open the door for unilateral US action (that is to say, a US led offensive without UN approval). The US can't say that a broken UN resolution is justification for war, when war in this case would be going against the will of the UN in the first place! They either accept what the UN has to say, or they ignore everything, they can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish to abide by and which you ignore.

quote:

Why did inspections fail in 1998 then?

Because Bill Clinton ordered them out ahead of a heavy series of bombings.

Towards the end, the relationship between Iraq and the inspectors because - rightly or wrongly - the Iraqis believed that the US were obtaining state sensitive information from some of the inspectors and that the demands of the inspectors were unreasonable. Once again, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the Iraqis on either of these points, just pointing out what happened.

quote:

How very optimistic of you. The inspections were going so well that in 1998 there was nothng left to destroy so we just up and stopped inspections! Out of curiosity do you have any data documenting just how successful these inspections were?

I don't disagree with inspections though. The stats I posted above demonstrate that the inspections were largely successful and - I can only assume - that more pro-active rigorous inspections this time round would have been just as successful. If Saddam Hussein has WMDs then they need to be taken off him, I don't disagree. What I do disagree with, though, is rushing to war - at an unjustifiable costs both in pecuniary and humanitarian terms - when the diplomatic process hadn't yet run its course and, indeed, had only just resumed after 4 years of relative US apathy (where did this desperation to disarm Iraq suddenly come from?).

Is the data I posted above significant enough to show that post Gulf-war inspections were successful enough to give them another try this time around?

quote:

Taking all this into account I think that we can state that the threat of Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (not mere weapons as you state) is very real.

Like I said there is a good chance that Iraq has some left-over reminents of biological material, which is why I have believed all throughout this ordeal that inspections must continue. It's not as though I think that Saddam should be left alone and allowed to do what he wants. Nonetheless, if he did have these weapons in any great quantity, we'd have a smoking gun by now, I'm certain of it. With all the intelligence that the US armed the UN with, and after hundreds of random/suprise inspections the UN have turned up nothing apart from 13 empty missles a couple of months ago and discovered that the Al Samoud missiles - which were declared by Iraq - travelled further than they were meant to (the Iraqis showed them the inspectors the missiles assuming that there was no breach in the terms of Iraqs disarmourment, but they were found to be able to travel 87 km further than the limit). So yes, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not, but even if we take the worst case scenario (that Iraq still has all the material that the US says it hasn't declared) I still don't feel that there is just cause for war especially when you consider that North Korea and Iran have admitted to having nuclear programs (something the Iraq definately does not have).

Like I said, if were just about quickly and cheaply marching into Baghdad and taking out Saddam Hussein then I'd be all for it - hell, give me the gun, I'd do it myself! Nonetheless - and I can't reiterate this enough - the costs of war, pecuniary and humanitarian, are unjustifiable given the overwhelming ambiguity of the situation and the unwillingness to try and settle the matter through diplomatic, peaceful means.

Nonetheless, after spending most of the afternoon defending my position, I feel that I must add this: even though I am happy to continue justifying my position in this way for as long as I need to, surely the onus in this argument must be on Bush and his supporters to justify why war is necessary and not the other way around? We all know the horrors of warfare and why they should be avoided - so, working within this framework, can any of you say that the "chance" that Saddam Hussein has WMDs is worth $100 billion or more, not to mention the certain deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, with as much right to life as you or I? Would you still think the conflict was just if the cost were tens of thousands of American lives instead? Do you not feel that there is any other way this issue can be solved without the need to resort to warfare? Do you feel that the removal of Saddam Hussein is likely to solve these problems?

Please, keep in mind that I am not a pacifist unable to admit to the ocassional necessity of warfare. I am not blind to Saddam Hussein's abysmal human rights record, nor the possibility that he has WMDs. Nonetheless, I feel that there were still other options available before Bush committed to war and even if the best case scenario occurs - a relatively quick, cheap war - there is still going to be a huge loss of human life and a huge outlay of money, which, in my opinion, is unjustifiable given the sheer ambiguity of the risk Iraq poses and the way that far more dangerous enemies are being allowed to develop much more potent weapons without so much as a slap on the wrist.

War, in this scenario, is not the answer.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

And this is what someone posted on another forum, which clarifies a bit better my thoughts on "WMD as justification for war" (posted by an American incidentally):

quote:

Originally posted by theyeti I support [military action] too. It's just that I don't think it's necessary at this point. I would at least like to know just what it is that he should be disarming himself from before an attack would be justified. Afterall, how is it that we're supposed to know that he's not "disarming" if we don't even know what it is that he's got? No one has said in any straight-forward terms what this is exactly. We're just given an amorphous "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Okay, but which weapons? How much of them? How dangerous are they really? The Bush administration has claimed ad nauseam that Saddam has something, but their initial claims that they used to scare everyone with (that of a nuclear weapons program) has essentially been refuted, and the key pieces of evidence cited have turned out to be fraudulent. The other claims they've made about chemical and biological weapons cannot be confirmed, although quite a lot of their claims have been disconfirmed, which doesn't give me much confidence in the rest. All of the sites that the inspectors have checked-put because of US intelligence turned out to be dead-ends. There are certainly reasons to be suspicious of Saddam, like the fact that some stuff is unaccounted for (though Iraq has provided some of that to the inspectors), but suspicion alone isn't enough. We certainly wouldn't convict an accused murder on mere suspicion, so why should it be sufficient to start a major war? As long as there is suspicion, I would like to see the inspectors get to the bottom of it. As I see it at this point, there are basically three possiblities: 1) Saddam is hiding stuff so well that even US intelligence can't find it (in which case Bush's claims to evidence are bogus), 2) US intelligence has found it but won't share it with the inspectors for whatever reason, possibly to discredit them, or 3) Saddam doesn't have anything worth finding. Note that none of these possiblities make the case for war right now. In case 1, we've got an intelligence problem. There are suspicions but that's all. In case 2 the inspections haven't been given a chance to work, so the solution would be for the intelligence community to share its info. (And remember that the inspectors are there to corroborate any claims from US intel -- the claims are believable when the inspectors confirm them. If the inspectors aren't being allowed to confirm them, then I have no reason to believe them.) And of course case 3 means that Saddam hasn't done anything wrong, aside from being an all-around asshole. I would gladly support military action if it was made evident that Saddam has weapon X and that after having been told to relinquish weapon X he refused to do so. That would make the WMD issue very clear, but that's not even remotely the case. The case is simply that Bush has said that Saddam has something bad, but he's not saying exactly what it is, and it's up to Saddam to guess what it is that he should be proving he doesn't have. This is most broadly defined and slippery pretext for war imaginable. Regardless of what Saddam does or doesn't have, there can always be a post hoc rationalization that he broke the rules. And note also that the issue of disarmament is different from the issue of regime change. The Bush administration has masterfully mixed up the two so that now the supposed failure of the UN to do the first is taken as justification for the second. theyeti

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Renegade, great post, it's nice to finally interact with someone that is extremely intelligeble with the matter at hand. I'm about to go to bed and I think that I'm going to need a few hours to properly reply to your post so I'll reply piecemeal for now. In one segement of your argument you state that if Saddam does indeed utilize chemical or biological weapons there would have been a "chance" that they would have been cleared up through weapons inspections. Then you rationalize that the blame for WOMD use, if it came to that in a war, is just as much in Bush's hands as it is Saddam's. You state that Saddam is utilizeing WOMDs in "self-defence" so a portion of the blame should be accepted by the US. Personally I find this to be the crux of the ENTIRE debate in that Saddam should not have ANY capabilities to do as such. IF Saddam has ANY chemical/biological weapons in his possession that right then and there establishes the UN as a failure in their abiltiy to establish their crediblilty and authority over the world. Heh this is just the TIP of the iceberg but I need to pass out. To be continued ...

quote:

you ALL swore up and down that Hussein had ZERO WMD

Please show me where I swore he doesn't hav WOMDs. I only said we don't know if he has them or not, and that the US shouldn't attack until it is certain it has them. Read my posts better.

___________________
1+1=10

Quote:----------------------------
So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...
Quote: -----------------------------


IN defence. If u look at the way we raise our kids now and the attitude of societys as a whole. We clearly see that we uphold peace and mental progress. We are tearing down bleifes of segragation and the need for violence all the time. So does it suprise u that person "x" who was raised to belive that violence is wrong and that u should "use your words" doesnt want war??? Dispite the suposive need.

___________________
Todays youth have desacrated music with the popification of all generes. FOR SHAME.

MUSIC GURU - 2002.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Occrider: I agree entirely on both points: firstly that I cannot know for certain that Iraq has no biological/chemical programs and I do agree that Iraq has produced chemical/biological agents in the past. However, you must keep in mind that what production was going on in the past was severely destroyed by bombing in the first Gulf War and then the subsequent 7 years of inspections. For instance, have a look at this page: http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/961031/003bk_00d.txt It's hard to comprehend the damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during this campaign. According to that site, to restart the biological program would take "100-200 million dollars and 5-8 years" and the chemical weapons program would require "at least several hundred million dollars and 3-5 years. [...] This is assuming that Iraq has access to the required materiel [sic] on the international market". You can't just stop and start weapons programs at the drop of a hat. Then consider the toll that 7 years of weapons inspections (and a further 12 years of sustained bombing - http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html - basically a new sortie every day) have taken on the programs. In an article I wrote for JohnSmith's website, I said: "During the UN-led inspections of the Iraqi weapons plants after the Gulf War, in fact, huge amounts of weaponry were destroyed, rendering Saddam Hussein virtually powerless to launch another, similarly potent offensive. Even if Saddam Hussein were stupid enough to wage a war against the US or any other nation (in the knowledge that doing so would lead to US intervention anyway), his capabilities to cause mass destruction are extremely limited. According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect "the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons." In addition to this, "the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program" and "817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for"." (I've lost the link for the stats provided there, so you'll just have to trust me when I say that they're genuine. )

I believe your stats, but I think you said it best when you said, "It's hard to comprehend the damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during this campaign." The fact of the matter is, we really don't know how much of an impact there has been on their chemical/biological weapons program. Yes I'm sure that it has been set back significantly but as to how much we don't know for sure. Yes it may take 7-8 years for those programs to regain their former production capabilities but what if they have been revamped to produce only 50% of what they were able to produce before. 500 litres of VX is going to make you just as dead as 1000 litres. Also you describe what has been destroyed, the key question however is what is LEFT and what was not destroyed. Their production have been seriously hindered however, their CAPABILITIES are still questionable. There have been a number of documentation discoveries by UNSCOM detailing Iraqi efforts to hide the actual number of weapons they produced.

quote:

A poor nation, with no relevant existing infrastructure, is going to struggle to develop these sorts of weapons. The only real danger is the weapons left over from before the Gulf War, and even then I think that their threat is being severely overplayed. This is what Hans Blix had to say about it a few hours ago: http://www.news.com.au/common/story...5E25777,00.html

A poor nation with a 1.5 billion dollar military budget ... and that's only the official quoted figure, who knows how much is spent on secret programs.

quote:

So the point is, Iraq may still possess a few disjointed reminents of a long extinct chemical/biological program, but this alone is no justification for war. If the inspectors were given the opportunity to do their job, there is a chance - a good chance - that the remaining weapons could have been cleared up, and that Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully. Instead we go to war because Iraq "may" have weapons.

I agree, most of my arguments are based on "may", "could", "possibly", etc. However, it's not the world's obligation to prove that they definetely have WOMDs it is IRAQ'S obligation to eliminate ALL doubts as to its WOMDs arsenal and production. Since they have failed to comply fully and unconditionally with the UN (again where is the UN report saying that Iraq is doing everything they possibly can to assist weapons inspections?) they have failed to prove to the world that they don't possess these weapons. This is not an innocent until proven guilty topic. This is a parole hearing. THEY have to prove to us not vice-versa.

quote:

If any chemical and biological weapons are used against American forces, then I will genuinely feel for the soldiers (it's not their fault that they're there afterall) but ultimately the blame lies as much with Bush and co. as it does with Saddam Hussein. Over the past 12 years Saddam Hussein has given no indication that he has any intention of using whatever weapons he may have left against other nations. If he uses them in self-defence, then, as much as he should (and will) be condemned for it, part of the blame must go with those who orchestrated this wholly unnecessary war. If you throw a man into a cage with a tiger, you must accept some of the responsibility when he gets mauled.

Please see my last post from last night

quote:

Is that justification for war though? Iraq probably could have done more, but I think that they did much more than was expected of them and what does it matter if it takes them 2 days or 2 years to fully disarm (as Hans Blix said, even if the Iraqis were to fully disarm tomorrow, it would take at least two months to verify it - it's not an overnight job)? Resolution 1441 does not authorize war in this case. Paragraph 12 of resolution 1441 states that the security council must reconvene after a report from UNMOVIC declaring that the Iraqis were not complying (which hasn't happened): "[...] to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

I disagree, what was EXPECTED of them was that they would pass inspections with no complaints. You can't say that, since we're used to them being liars and cheats that 2 honest answers is better than what was expected so we're making effective progress. And with regards to it taking at least 2 months to fully verify their disarmament, they've had 11 years!

quote:

Nonetheless, even if we assume that the Resolution had been breached by Iraq, it does not open the door for unilateral US action (that is to say, a US led offensive without UN approval). The US can't say that a broken UN resolution is justification for war, when war in this case would be going against the will of the UN in the first place! They either accept what the UN has to say, or they ignore everything, they can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish to abide by and which you ignore.

It's not an issue of a broken resolution. It's an issue of a broken truce agreement.

quote:

I don't disagree with inspections though. The stats I posted above demonstrate that the inspections were largely successful and - I can only assume - that more pro-active rigorous inspections this time round would have been just as successful. If Saddam Hussein has WMDs then they need to be taken off him, I don't disagree. What I do disagree with, though, is rushing to war - at an unjustifiable costs both in pecuniary and humanitarian terms - when the diplomatic process hadn't yet run its course and, indeed, had only just resumed after 4 years of relative US apathy (where did this desperation to disarm Iraq suddenly come from?).

This desparation came after 9/11 when US foreign policy shifted gears from being complacent to pro-active

quote:

Is the data I posted above significant enough to show that post Gulf-war inspections were successful enough to give them another try this time around?

My take on the matter is that the data is inconclusive.

quote:

Nonetheless, if he did have these weapons in any great quantity, we'd have a smoking gun by now, I'm certain of it. With all the intelligence that the US armed the UN with, and after hundreds of random/suprise inspections the UN have turned up nothing apart from 13 empty missles a couple of months ago and discovered that the Al Samoud missiles - which were declared by Iraq - travelled further than they were meant to (the Iraqis showed them the inspectors the missiles assuming that there was no breach in the terms of Iraqs disarmourment, but they were found to be able to travel 87 km further than the limit). So yes, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not, but even if we take the worst case scenario (that Iraq still has all the material that the US says it hasn't declared) I still don't feel that there is just cause for war especially when you consider that North Korea and Iran have admitted to having nuclear programs (something the Iraq definately does not have).

You're presenting two opposing arguments. First you're saying you're SURE that Iraq doesn't have WOMDs because we didn't find the smoking gun and then you're saying that there's still a great deal of uncertainty as to whether they have WOMDs or not. If they do and they are hiding it, then there IS just cause for a war. Let's say I get in a war with you and you surrender on the terms that you will no longer buy tomatoes. If I find you buying tomatoes again I'm justified in going back to war with you! I told you explicitly the conditions of a peace, you agreed to it, and you violated it, so you lose out on peace.

quote:

Nonetheless, after spending most of the afternoon defending my position, I feel that I must add this: even though I am happy to continue justifying my position in this way for as long as I need to, surely the onus in this argument must be on Bush and his supporters to justify why war is necessary and not the other way around? We all know the horrors of warfare and why they should be avoided - so, working within this framework, can any of you say that the "chance" that Saddam Hussein has WMDs is worth $100 billion or more, not to mention the certain deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, with as much right to life as you or I? Would you still think the conflict was just if the cost were tens of thousands of American lives instead? Do you not feel that there is any other way this issue can be solved without the need to resort to warfare? Do you feel that the removal of Saddam Hussein is likely to solve these problems?

Like I said before, it's not up to Bush to justify the war, it's up to Iraq to prove to the world that its unjustified. If it is unjustified I expect the UN to declare the war as an illegal act. We'll see if that happens. As for the worth of this war with respects to cost. We don't know because we don't know the true costs yet. 1 innocent may die or 10 million. It may cost a lot, it may not. You can't place a price cap or perform cost-benefit analysis on foreign policy because the issue extends beyond cost. Is there any other way to resolve this issue? Maybe ... we just don't know.

Its so funny how Tiesto14 went from tying to be articulate and argumentative a month ago to comming back to his own name-calling idiotic and propagated american self.

In all honesty Tiesto14, you really do know how to make an idiot of yourself.

Do you actually think people here are going to take your word over Rnenegades?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Keep acting stupid..... I like laughing at you!

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa You are speaking like all Iraqis are one single person. How are innocent Iraqi civilians and conscripts related to the WMD, and why should they suffer a land invasion for the WMD? Can't the WMD be eliminated without American troops? I'll answer this myself. Even if Saddam suddenly started speaking the truth and complying 100%, he couldn't prove that Iraq doesn't have any WMD. How can he know whether or not some of his generals snatched some WMD into their own caches? If Bush wants to be convinced that all the WMD have been destroyed, he needs to have trustworthy American troops to check out every square yard of the Iraqi soil. It's unlikely that America will immediately find all WMD caches, so they'll need to stage their military there permanently to prevent former Baathists from digging out WMD from well-hidden caches and selling them to Al-Qaidas. That's the problem with the WMD, and especially with chemical and biological weapons. When they exist, they'll be hard to destroy without leaving lingering doubts. Conclusion: the Iraqi civilians will be collateral damage in a long-term occupation, so that Bush can keep an eye on the Iraqi bad guys. Or perhaps the bad guys will be taken to Quantanamo, and all info about hidden caches tortured out of them.

Why ask the question when you're gonna answer it yourself?

No Iraqi civilians aren't at fault for their leaders possessing WOMDs. And it's unfortunate that they're all pawns in this. However, foreign policy revolves around the actions of governments not people. If the two could be seperated then the world would be a lot better of a place but they can't.

Yes you're correct that we would never be 100% for sure that the WOMDs were all destroyed. However we aren't demanding 100% assurity, we were demanding 100% compliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King ... propagated american self.

I must have been asleep when the word American became a derogetory remark.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Just a rhetorical device to help me continue with my argument. Nothing personal, as usual.

I know I was joking