WMDs and Iraq: Proving a negative?

[Gadarene]

Let me say first that I think it's eminently possible that the Iraq report is "another deception in a history of lies," as we've so diplomatically put it. I also wouldn't be surprised if Iraq does turn out, despite their protestations, to have WMD capacity.

But let's assume (perhaps counterfactually) that Iraq doesn't have any such weapons. What can they do to demonstrate this to the current U.S. administration's satisfaction? One gets the sense that there's no way Iraq could convince us that they had no WMD; that is, it seems increasingly that we've committed ourselves to going to war with Iraq, that we presumptively disbelieve what they're telling us, and that no evidence will satisfy us that it isn't so. So how does--or how should--Iraq go about proving the negative of having no WMD, assuming (for the purposes of this thought experiment) that they really don't?

[december]

At this point in time, I don't think there's anything Iraq can do. It's too late. Instead I will answer the question, What could Iraq have done to demonstrate that they have no WMDs? They could have Included in their Weapons Report the details of their (assumed) destruction of the WMDs they were known to have had in 1998. Brought in UN inspectors to verify the (assumed) destruction of their WMDs during the last 4 years. Cooperated with the UN inspectors during the period 1991 - 1998. Cooperated with the UN now by ceasing their attacks on US planes in the No Fly Zones. Not built WMDs after 1991, per heir agreement Indicated their cooperation by not using belligerent rhetoric Not left WMDs where various countries' spies could see them during the last few years. Taken the initiate in making their scientists available for interviews so as to confirm the (assmed) absence of WMDs.

[Saen]

as december [i]succinctly[/b] states, it is not that they have to prove they have no WMD. They have to prove that they have dissarmed the ones we know they do have.

[SuaSponte]

Actually, Saen, I don't think december says that at all. Indeed, he says that opposite - that Iraq cannot meet their burden of proof, and that is incorrect.

Instead, you win the prize for being the first person with the correct answer. Kindly send $75.00 for shipping and delivery to me.

Sua

[Saen]

Well, I was being facetious with my half assed attempt at italicizing, but of course, as always, I was wrong and you were right that I was right err..