Active Users:195 Time:23/02/2020 02:15:46 AM
Re: Fanatic - 04/02/2003 11:55:55 AM

Did I do that? Damn. Well, I'd like them to work for another 4-5 months, as that is how long they have said they would require.

I'll play around with this later in the post.

If I insinuated that, I didn't mean to. I also do not think Saddam is going to attack America or her allies unprovoked. He knows he would get pounded into the dust if he did. So I don't think there is any danger for America in putting off the war to continue the inspections and thus be in possession of as many of the facts as possible before they attack (or not).

I might come back to this after I see what Powell declassifies for the UN. Further, you're missing the main point -- which is another thing I'll get to later in this post. You say, "I also do not think Saddam is going to attack America or her allies unprovoked", when, in fact, this is not the primary worry. Saddam is not going to attack the US unprovoked. What we are more concerned about, is Iraq attaining nuclear capability; if this happens, he will be able to deter any military action against himself, and also (in effect) hold an entire region hostage.

Whether or not Bush ends up going to war, protesting against him doing so will do no harm. Thus I will continue to do so.

Are you portesting because it will do no harm, or because you truly feel the war is wrong? You should be doing it for the latter reason, and not the former.

On the other hand, (a)Bush acting against Iraq when he is not in full possession of the facts re: what weapons they possess and before the weapons inspections are completed could potentially be harmful. (b)For example, he may attack an installation that he believes to be storing weapons but is in fact a storage facility for sugar (or some such thing) and in doing so pointlessly cause the loss of innocent life.

(A) and (B) as I've marked them above are two different things. In (a), any action taken against Iraq may be wrong, because there may be no WMD. In (B), Iraq may have WMD, but could have moved them, or they could have not been there in the first place. The qualifying statement (not in full possession of the facts) applies differently to each statement. Your linkage of examples is illogical.

So too, your other statement could be incorrect:

acting against Iraq when he is not in full possession of the facts re: what weapons they possess and before the weapons inspections are completed could potentially be harmful

It is just as possible that not acting within 4-5 months could potentially be harmful. In fact, there is no reason for you to be able to say which will be less harmful, acting, or not acting.

Their age IS important, and for two reasons: First, old weapons are much more likely to have been forgotten about than if they were produced three months ago. Second, weapons this old may still be fully functional, but due to the advancement of weapons defence systems in intervening years, these weapons would be far less effective in reaching their target than when they were first built. BTW: the missiles I read about only had a range of a few hundred miles anyway. I'm not saying they're not dangerous, I'm just saying they're not as big a threat as you might think.

There is no reason to assume the former. 12yr old missiles are probably quite common in many armies across the world, and Iraq is probably not churning out missile after missile.

What weapons defence system has been implemented to stop these particular weapons?

Consider this: It is at quite possible that small amounts of weapons such as these were indeed forgotten about. Now, if Saddam were to deliberately disguise some weapons as "forgotten", there is a very good chance that some GENUINE forgotten weapons would be turned up on top of these, amounting to a larger cache of weapons that could not plausibly be classed as "forgotten". The case against him would then mount sharply. I do not believe this is a chance he would be willing to take.

This makes no sense. I am saying weapons were found that the Iraqis new about, and didn't want to be found. When they were found, the Iraqia called these weapons forgotten, because they were not supposed to have them. If they "knew" about them, they should have declared them in the report they sent to the UN (the report that did not get a single favorable response -- except for from the Iraqis themselves).

Therefore, the fact that the amount of weapons turned up can reasonably be classed as "forgotten" suggests very strongly to me that they ARE forgotten.

Well, it shouldn't.

Also, you implied that making the weapons look forgotten about is part of some plan of Saddam's. By that logic, there could be any amount of evidence for Iraq not stockpiling/producing an arsenal of weapons, and you could just turn around and say "But that's what he WANTS us to think!"

What I'm saying is the Iraqi regime would love it if we all bought into its claims that those weapons were "forgotten". I'm also saying that there is clear evidence of this tactic being used before (see the first round of inspections, from 92-98').

True. But to the best of my knowledge, no trace has been found either of the chemical warheads or of their production. And a missile without a warhead isn't much good.

It has the warhead, the warhead is just not chemcially active (that is, all that is lacking are the chemical agents).

O.K., you've got me here. Iraq shouldn't have plans for nuclear weapons, full stop. But if I were Saddam (shudders) I wouldn't be considering the construction of nuclear anything, at least while the sanctions are in place. There would be too great a risk of the U.S. satellites picking something up, or of the U.S. finding out through other sources and getting full UN backing and public majority support for a war. My theory is that he is contenting himself with merely researching nuclear weapons until he can put the theory into practise at some later date. Not a good thing, but better than him having/building them now.

Well, some nations have the courtesy to publicly declare themselves a nuclear power, but I admit this is not likely with Saddam. Producing nuclear weapons is no easy process, however, and the facilities that are needed would stick out like so many sore thumbs to the satellites that produced the original photos of storage facilities in Iraq.

As to waiting until we are certain, my answer is a simple: Yes, we do. Not doing so would, I believe, set a precedent. How much suspicion would then be "enough" for a war? And suppose an answer is given to that question: How long would it then be before a war is launched upon a country for reasons that later turn out to be partly or entirely false?

A lot of what you say in the above three paragraphs doesn't really need a response from me.

You said: Well, some nations have the courtesy to publicly declare themselves a nuclear power, but I admit this is not likely with Saddam

You also said: As to waiting until we are certain, my answer is a simple: Yes, we do.

Finally, You said: My theory is that he is contenting himself with merely researching nuclear weapons until he can put the theory into practise at some later date.

Saddam is going to try to build a nuke, he won't tell us when he's doing it, and we should wait until we're absolutely certain. The only time we can be certain is when he has it. For this, see N. Korea. Spy planes and sattelite photos aren't always conclusive (remember your sugar factory example, our info may be wrong), and we need to be certain.

I just think it is hypocritical of the Bush administration to list defiance of the UN as one of their objections against Saddam Hussein when they themselves are quite willing to go against its wishes by going to war with Iraq.

The US is not under UN obligation not to go to war with Iraq. Iraq is under UN obligation to disarm.

It is not the same thing. If you're just running out of things to say, feel free to stop. There is no treaty that says the US must not attack Iraq: the UN does not have that authority over the US. It has the authority over Iraq that Iraq gave it, which it then never used.

The supposed amassing of WOMD by Iraq arouses two objections by the U.S.: (1) That doing so poses a threat in its own right and (2) That doing so goes against the wishes of the UN. But the U.S. has itself indicated that it is quite willing to go against the wishes of the UN by declaring war on Iraq. Since the Bush admn. would never do something it believed to be a crime () this means that it does not consider disobeying the UN to be a crime and thus invalidates the second argument.

You have no clue. See above. "Wishes" and "Authority" are two different things. The UN can wish all it wants to have authority over the US; the UN has authority over Iraq, but wishes not to practice that authority. Do you understand that? The US is not under UN obligation not to go to war; Iraq is under UN obligation to disarm.

What sort of proof should Iraq be expected to give? I mean that as an honest question. Also, the article in "The Pelican" that I mentioned elsewhere in this thread says that "past Iraqi invitations to Congress itself to send inspection teams have been dismissed as "traps"".

Records. Sites where things have been destroyed. Scientists can check these sites for residue. In case you're wondering, inspectors had not found this residue in at least one site since they recently went back. Of all places, this story aired on NPR one night.

Perhaps he doesn't think they count. What "mass destruction" can be caused by sixteen obsolete missiles with no warheads?

They have warheads. They are not obsolete.

Well, there are other choices, believe it or not, quite viable ones. One option is for the U.S. to provide funding to the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, "the leading organisation of Democracy activists in Iraq" (Just a thought: They might even be persuaded to change their party name to something that would go down easier with the press). A little money here would go a long way to bringing down Saddam (relatively) peacefully from within. There are also various civil rights groups and the new union movement.

Great. And, as Saddam kills his political opponents (Including his own family members, such as a son) I'm sure they'd last long.

Are you serious?




Here be Myth




View/create new replies Sign up for a premium account to add posts to a list of favourites!
Aussie troops are off to Iraq on the 23rd - 22/01/2003 05:51:07 AM 232 Views
Say what!? - 22/01/2003 06:28:33 AM 38 Views
thus is life - 22/01/2003 07:17:36 AM 31 Views
hmmmm - 22/01/2003 07:41:20 AM 30 Views
C'mon, Aussies, you know how our pollies work........ - 22/01/2003 08:07:16 AM 24 Views
The most dangerous thing in the world... - 22/01/2003 09:58:23 AM 21 Views
Not that I'm aussie or anything, but - 22/01/2003 10:18:44 AM 22 Views
On that subject, why are British troops there? *NM* - 22/01/2003 10:46:51 AM 9 Views
I believe it is called NATO. - 22/01/2003 10:49:14 AM 23 Views
But is an attack by one an attack by all? - 23/01/2003 04:46:15 AM 19 Views
But why are you against it? - 22/01/2003 10:46:36 AM 53 Views
If you don't do it our way we don't want to play. - 23/01/2003 12:57:07 AM 21 Views
By the way... (edit) - 23/01/2003 06:00:17 AM 22 Views
Well, since you asked... - 23/01/2003 10:20:38 AM 30 Views
A couple of additional points to your comments - 23/01/2003 10:36:58 AM 19 Views
Re: Boredom. - 03/02/2003 09:48:40 AM 16 Views
Re: Boredom. - 04/02/2003 11:01:29 AM 12 Views
Re: - 04/02/2003 11:55:55 AM 11 Views
Re: Re: - 05/02/2003 08:33:16 AM 7 Views
Re: Re: Re: - 05/02/2003 10:39:19 AM 12 Views
Regarding regarding regarding rega - ah, forget it. - 06/02/2003 05:51:56 AM 6 Views
I, for one - 22/01/2003 12:42:50 PM 31 Views
It may well not be the best timing for them though - 23/01/2003 04:49:32 AM 19 Views
Sorry? - 23/01/2003 07:46:33 AM 18 Views
Oops Posted it in the wrong place, sorry Aerocontrols! *NM* - 23/01/2003 09:52:38 AM 7 Views
No problem. Was kinda confusing, though... *NM* - 23/01/2003 10:02:23 AM 7 Views
It confused me how it got there to be honest *NM* - 23/01/2003 10:25:46 AM 4 Views
*NM* - 22/01/2003 04:15:56 PM 9 Views
get used to it you f***ing wusses! *NM* - 01/02/2003 07:39:33 PM 6 Views
Aussies aren't 'wusses' - 01/02/2003 11:02:05 PM 16 Views
Why are they "wusses"? *NM* - 03/02/2003 03:44:18 AM 6 Views
Re: get used to it you f***ing wusses! - 06/02/2003 07:20:29 AM 9 Views