Why doesn't America PLANT WMD evidence in Iraq?

[bo989]

I'm curious. Whether the American's were lying about WMD or not, why don't they just plant the necessary evidence in Iraq? As far as I understand it, there are no independent bodies there to supervise their investigation, so what's stopping America from taking stuff from their own stockpile and planting it in Iraq? Or building a whole slew of fake mobile weapon's labs and distributing them across the country?

I'm not claiming to know a whole lot about the situation, so I ask my questions in ignorance. Please don't jump on me for what you might consider an 'obvious' mistake in my reasoning.

[Lissa]

Hopefully, what would stop them would be integrity.

More realisticly, "they" could fear potential embarassment in the future if it ever came out that the evidence was planted. Too many people would be in the know, and you can't always count on all of them keeping their mouths shut.

Maybe it's just dogged stubborness. "We WILL find weapons. There's no need to plant them," someone could be insisting.

Also, most Americans just don't care that much. Either it's forgotton why we went there in the first place, or they've been distracted by the notion that it doesn't matter as long as we got rid of Saddam. The rest of the world may gripe as much as they like. The Powers That Be couldn't care less: the rest of the world are not registered voters, and winning elections is what's most important.

[Anemic Falstaff]

It's not worth the risk. If there's even a hint of foul play, then Bush is out of the white house. Why take that chance, when the polls say most people say it doesn't matter if we find WMDs?

[rjung]

I believe it's also possible for forensic scientists to take some WMDs (say, biological weapons), inspect them, determine what strain they're from, and identify their country of origin as a result. It would be a really big embarassment for the U.S. if they "discovered" a huge cache of anthrax only to have UN scientists discover that it's from a set that was only available in some North Dakota lab.

Of course, the easy way around it would be to prevent any independent investigations of the "discovered" WMDs, but that would give all the skeptics an even bigger stick to bludgeon the Administration with.

[PatriotX]

Welcome Anemic Falstaff.

rjung, As I understand it Iraq's strains of biological weapons came from the US anyway. So just because they match the US's stock wouldn't mean much.

[Monster104]

rjung, As I understand it Iraq's strains of biological weapons came from the US anyway. So just because they match the US's stock wouldn't mean much.
They did?

[bo989]

Originally posted by Anemic Falstaff
Why take that chance, when the polls say most people say it doesn't matter if we find WMDs?

Lissa said something similar to this. Is this true? Do most American's not care about the WMD evidence? If so, why not?

[bo989]

Originally posted by rjung
Of course, the easy way around it would be to prevent any independent investigations of the "discovered" WMDs, but that would give all the skeptics an even bigger stick to bludgeon the Administration with.

But this is what they're currently doing anyway, right? They've already prevented independent investigation in the country, and I haven't personally heard anyone imply that the US government planned to bring in an impartial third party upon finding the WMD.

[bo989]

I mean, couldn't the most recently discovered WMDs be a (somewhat naive) example of this sort of tactic? These things could have easily been made and planted by the states, right? Just driven into Iraq from a neighbouring country. I mean, they weren't really much more than mobile trailers right? There was no trace of actual biological or chemical weapons, so there was nothing to trace back.

[Anemic Falstaff]

Originally posted by bo989
Lissa said something similar to this. Is this true? Do most American's not care about the WMD evidence? If so, why not?

Yeah, it is. It's well over half, although I can't seem to find the polls at the moment.

I think it's a combination of factors:

1) People think Bush is fundamentally likeable. They want to believe him.
2) Apathy about the news in general. With the exciting explosion part over, the ratings for cable news have dipped again. Many are satisfied with 'we went in, we won, end of story'. If the war (that is, the combat part) hadn't gone so amazingly well, that sentiment would be far different.
3) Mass graves, children prisons, men condemned to die hiding under floorboards. In this age of television, you can see the skulls of babies being removed from a ditch in the ground. In front of that, it hardly seems to matter how or why Saddam was removed, just that he was.
4) Patience. People are aware that the UN had over a decade to deal with this problem; they don't expect instant results.

[Squink]

Originally posted by bo989
Lissa said something similar to this. Is this true? Do most American's not care about the WMD evidence? If so, why not? Zuma did a nice job on the "American's don't care" spin in this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3530350#post3530350).

[Anemic Falstaff]

Originally posted by bo989
But this is what they're currently doing anyway, right? They've already prevented independent investigation in the country, and I haven't personally heard anyone imply that the US government planned to bring in an impartial third party upon finding the WMD.

What impartial third party would that be? I certainly can't think of any.

The UN wants to cover their tacit support of Saddam. France would look foolish if WMD's are found. Representatives from Arab Nations aren't to be trusted. There *are* no impartial parties, except for those so-far removed that they can't possibly be affected by this.

Which would be... maybe some small African nations?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure some of the UN teams are coming back, such as the nuclear watchdogs.

[Milum]

Ok, SimonX, you said: " As I understand it Iraq's strains of biological weapons came from the US anyway. So just because they match the US's stock wouldn't mean much."

Just what the heck does that mean? Do you think that the US gave Saddam Hussein biological weapons so he could kill the Kurds? Other Iraqians? Iranians? Damn have balls, explain yourself.

[Anemic Falstaff]

Originally posted by Squink
Zuma did a nice job on the "American's don't care" spin in this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3530350#post3530350).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030604.asp

Two weeks into the war, as WMD were not used by Iraq and were not found by coalition forces, Americans changed their minds. In an April 5-6 poll, 58% said the war would be justified even without evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, a 20-point increase. In the current poll, despite continuing controversy over the failure to find the weapons, 56% of Americans continue to take that position. Only about a quarter of Americans are suspending judgment on the war pending the outcome of the search for weapons of mass destruction.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Milum
Ok, SimonX, you said: " As I understand it Iraq's strains of biological weapons came from the US anyway. So just because they match the US's stock wouldn't mean much."

Just what the heck does that mean? Do you think that the US gave Saddam Hussein biological weapons so he could kill the Kurds? Other Iraqians? Iranians? Damn have balls, explain yourself.

Many articles I've found claim just that.

This one (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm) says:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html) says:

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

This one says much the same. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true)

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

[casdave]

Good old America...................

Bring the money, we'v got the goods!

[kflanaga]

From the Washington post:

"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Doesn't the fact that they call anthrax a "biological virus" immediately show that their information might be a bit inaccurate? Their trying to convince me of some international conspiracy when they can't be bothered to check a high school biology text book?

[Milum]

casdave : Location: Castleford,west yorkshire, England.

"Good old America...................

Bring the money, we'v got the goods!"

Think, little buddy casgrave, would Bush-the-first allow biological weapons to be given to the despot Saddam Hussein?

Huh?

[capacitor]

Um, there are some CSI's that are even more sophistiated than the show depiction, FBI labs notwithstanding.

[december]

Originally posted by bo989
Lissa said something similar to this. Is this true? Do most American's not care about the WMD evidence? If so, why not? Because, whether or not Iraq had large amounts of WMDs in March 2003, there was a risk that they would acquire them and use them. It's not disputed that Iraq had major chemical, biological, and nuclear programs in the past.

Furthermore, there were many other good reasons to favor Saddam's overthrow -- his cruelty, his support for mid-East terrorists, his hatred of America, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, his failure to honor his 1991 peace agreement, etc.

Finally, the war was a great success.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by december
Finally, the war was a great success.

By what measurement? By removing all those horrible WMD? *chortle*

Milum, you've been prevented with a number of cites proving that Iraq could very probably did get biological weapons from the US, as recently as 1992. "Damn man, have balls"... care to answer those posts with something more than a drive-by? Looks to me like the answer to your question about Bush I is probably "yes."

[december]

Originally posted by Avalonian
By what measurement [was the war a success]? We won (That's the main thing.) Quickly (no "quagmire") Few Coalition casualties. Few civilian casualties Limited destruction of infrastructure. Only a handful of oil well fires set by Saddam The war did not spread into other countries The war did not lead to uprisings in other countries Many political prisoners were released, including children. Efforts to reverse Saddam's environmental damage are now occurring.

[Wolfian]

"Why doesn't America plant WMD evidence in Iraq?"

Because if discovered this would be Bush's Watergate. Thirty years from now college students would be writing essays on why Bush, who seemed very capable of beating his challengers, would throw it all away by planting evidence when a good deal of Americans didn't care about it.

december, careful with the "no 'quagmire'" statement. There's still the whole rebuliding thing.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by kflanaga
From the Washington post:

"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Doesn't the fact that they call anthrax a "biological virus" immediately show that their information might be a bit inaccurate? Their trying to convince me of some international conspiracy when they can't be bothered to check a high school biology text book?

A few weeks ago, CNN announced on their ticker that this was the anniversary of the death of "Joan of Ark." The media makes these stupid mistakes all of the time. I wouldn't necessarily find that reason to discount the information, unless I had a reliable source disputing it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Winning or losing was never the point. Nobody ever thought we would lose. Winning doesn't make it ok.

[Anemic Falstaff]

Originally posted by december
We won (That's the main thing.) Quickly (no "quagmire") Few Coalition casualties. Few civilian casualties Limited destruction of infrastructure. Only a handful of oil well fires set by Saddam The war did not spread into other countries The war did not lead to uprisings in other countries Many political prisoners were released, including children. Efforts to reverse Saddam's environmental damage are now occurring.

While you implied it, I think "people aren't being fed feet-first into woodchippers" is a worthy addition as well.

That being said, the quagmire equation is unknown. Everything could still go to hell. Frankly, in that region, it doesn't take much.

We'll see. :).

[Anemic Falstaff]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Winning or losing was never the point. Nobody ever thought we would lose.

Retcon.

Granted, nobody serious thought we would lose. But very few media outlets predicted just how well the combat would go.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Anemic Falstaff
While you implied it, I think "people aren't being fed feet-first into woodchippers" is a worthy addition as well.


[slight hijack]

We don't know for sure that they ever really were. (By the way, the rumor says that it was a plastic shredder, and the incident was witnessed, possibly ordered, by Uday Hussein.) I posted a thread about this a few months ago, and pretty much, there wasn't any solid evidence. IIRC, it boiled down to the testimony of one refugee before a comittee.

I also remember the testimony of the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter before Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers tossing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators onto the floor. It was later proven untrue.

Saddam was an evil son-of-a-bitch. I'll grant you. Hell, I'd even say he'd be quite happy to use a plastic shredder to torture people, but there's no solid evidence that he ever did.

IIRC, one Doper posted in the thread that s/he had searched the internet for a commercial plastic shredder large enough to admit a human being, and was unable to find one offered for sale that was large enough.

I'd like to see some evidence before I'll regard the story as much more than an urban legend.

[Anemic Falstaff]

Lissa-- My mistake then. But the example is illustrative, not the reason in and of itself. But you're right, I shouldn't have said it without looking into it more carefully. My mistake. :).

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Anemic Falstaff
Lissa-- My mistake then. But the example is illustrative, not the reason in and of itself. But you're right, I shouldn't have said it without looking into it more carefully. My mistake. :).

You are forgiven.

Go and sin no more. :D

[Evil Captor]

One reason might be that it would be exceedingly difficult for Bush and friends to plant WMDs that could stand up to nspection by European experts. And it will HAVE to work that way -- no one outside the U.S. (and only saps inside the US) is going to "buy" WMDs that only American experts have inspected.

A good, thorough, CSI type investigation of any WMDs would probably turn up anomalies in any fake WMDs that would give them away.

[PatriotX]

ThanX Lissa. I don't have any cites that can add to what you've given.

I just assumed that this stuff had certainly come up before on the SDMB.


Sorry to have shocked you Milum.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Anemic Falstaff
Retcon.

Granted, nobody serious thought we would lose. But very few media outlets predicted just how well the combat would go.
On the contrary, most of the media predicted it would be over in days, despite the administration's usual tactic of trying to lower expectations (thereby providing an artificial sense of "surprise" in the end). White House lackeys went on the Sunday morning shows parakeeting the line that we should "not expect this process to go quickly...it might take months..." etc. It's sort of the poitical equivelent when a used car lot provides big "discounts" off of greatly inflated prices. The Bushies were pointing behind our backs at a hand wringing, hippie straw Cassandra that never existed. The vast majority of those who opposed the war expected that it would not be a fight. The notion that war protesters were predicting a "quagmire" was simply subliminal horseshit dropped into the conversation by the Bushies themselves. I know and have corresponded with a great number of very liberal, anti-Bush, pot smoking, vegetarian, pinko, anti-war types. I don't know a single person who thought there would be a quagmire. In fact, a lot of us were surprised that the invasion went as poorly as it did, and the subsequent occupation of Baghdad has been a fiasco.

We were against the war because it was wrong, not because we thought it would be difficult.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by Lissa
IIRC, one Doper posted in the thread that s/he had searched the internet for a commercial plastic shredder large enough to admit a human being, and was unable to find one offered for sale that was large enough. I haven't seen the other thread that you refer to, but plastic shredders do come in large enough sizes:

http://www.newlifeplastics.com/capabilities.htm

(Of course, the mere existence of such items doesn't prove the story).

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
I haven't seen the other thread that you refer to, but plastic shredders do come in large enough sizes:

http://www.newlifeplastics.com/capabilities.htm

(Of course, the mere existence of such items doesn't prove the story).

This (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172060&highlight=Plastic+Shredder) is the thread I was referring to.

I need to make two corrections to my previous posts on this issue. The person said that they had found a plastic shredder large enough. Also, it was Qusay, not Uday who "supervised."

I apologize for the errors.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by december
We won (That's the main thing.) Quickly (no "quagmire") Few Coalition casualties. Few civilian casualties Limited destruction of infrastructure. Only a handful of oil well fires set by Saddam The war did not spread into other countries The war did not lead to uprisings in other countries Many political prisoners were released, including children. Efforts to reverse Saddam's environmental damage are now occurring.

You're missing the point, december... I can't say I'm surprised.

When I asked "by what measure was the war a success?" I meant something more like "what goals were stated prior to the war that were acheived by the war?"

A litany of reasons the war went well after the fact does not justify the war.

Let's see... here's the reasons we heard about before the war.

The big one, pretty inarguably the primary reason the Bush Administration used to justify the war: Weapons of Mass Destruction found? Not yet, and not looking good.

Hussein (Public Enemy #1) found and imprisoned/killed? Doesn't look that way.

Free and democratic government established in Iraq? Haven't seen any real progress in this department yet.

So, once again with feeling, december, what stated goals of the war have been thus far acheived by the war? This, and only this, are its true measure of success. Be sure to back up your answer with facts... blogs don't cut it.

And "We won" does not justify a war, unless you feel that might makes right.

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." - John Adams

[adaher]

Another reason:

We claimed there was TONS of stuff. You can't plant that much. Such a shipment would require way to many people to know about it. It would come out sooner rather than later. Planting a vial or two, something that could be done with only a few people knowing, would be pretty useless. It would be like, "We went to war for this?!"

So planting is not an option simply because it's not possible to plant the needed evidence in the quantities necessary.

[december]

Originally posted by Avalonian
When I asked "by what measure was the war a success?" I meant something more like "what goals were stated prior to the war that were acheived by the war?" Bush's goal was regime change. He said Saddam's regime was evil. You will recall the fuss over the phrase, "Axis of evil". You may not like that reason, but it's certainly what the President has been telling us for some time.

BTW, an Iraqi general says in the LA Times that Iraq retained the ability to manufacture WMDs (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-wmd8jun08,1,3308078.story?coll=la-home-headlines).Iraq Had Secret Labs, Officer Says
Goal was to someday rebuild chemical and biological weapons, general alleges

He insisted they did not produce any illegal arms and that none now exist in Iraq. But he said the teams met regularly and put plans on paper to quickly develop weapons of mass destruction if U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted.

"We could start again anytime," said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he fears for his life. "It's very easy. Especially biological."

"The point was, the Iraqis kept the knowledge," he explained during a lengthy interview Friday in which he offered tantalizing details of secret programs. But U.S. weapons hunters "will never find anything here. It's a very interesting interview. If it's true, Iraq didn't possess stores of weapons, but they were a threat just the same.

[bo989]

Originally posted by adaher
Another reason:

We claimed there was TONS of stuff. You can't plant that much. Such a shipment would require way to many people to know about it. It would come out sooner rather than later. Planting a vial or two, something that could be done with only a few people knowing, would be pretty useless. It would be like, "We went to war for this?!"

So planting is not an option simply because it's not possible to plant the needed evidence in the quantities necessary.

But that's what they're doing with the trailers, adaher. They're pointing to a few flat-beds (that are completely clean of biological and chemical material) and saying "look, we were justified in going to war." So, actually it seems that "a vial or two" of stuff would be substantial for this administration.

No one's addresed a point I made earlier. Are these not the perfect 'vehicles' (pardon the pun) of conspiracy? They could be driven in with the knowledge of only one or two persons and the chances of them being traced back to American's is close to zero. So perhaps the payoff here was small, but the risk was almost nothing.

[bo989]

Originally posted by december
Bush's goal was regime change. He said Saddam's regime was evil. You will recall the fuss over the phrase, "Axis of evil". You may not like that reason, but it's certainly what the President has been telling us for some time.

BTW, an Iraqi general says in the LA Times that Iraq retained the ability to manufacture WMDs (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-wmd8jun08,1,3308078.story?coll=la-home-headlines).It's a very interesting interview. If it's true, Iraq didn't possess stores of weapons, but they were a threat just the same.

Isn't war for the sake of regieme change either (a) against international law or (b) a war crime? I'm pretty sure its one of the two, I just don't remember which one.

[bo989]

There is an even more basic issue at play here, that december seems to be avoiding. Even if Iraq DID have WMDs, that still doesn't by default make them a threat to the USA. What indication was there of the imminent use of these weapons against American citizens?

[bo989]

... to continue my point: India and Pakistan have the bomb, but you don't see Bush invading those countries.

[Desmostylus]

I read the story, december, and I'd judge it to be complete crap."We could start again anytime," said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he fears for his life. "It's very easy. Especially biological."

"The point was, the Iraqis kept the knowledge," he explained during a lengthy interview Friday in which he offered tantalizing details of secret programs.

<snip>

The intelligence officer's account, parts of which could not be independently verified, gives ammunition to both sides of the controversy. He said that U.N. sanctions and inspections in the 1990s crippled Iraq's ability to build illegal weapons and that Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs were effectively eliminated in the mid-1990s.

But his description of an ongoing effort to prepare for illicit weapons production programs in the future suggests that Hussein would have remained a serious threat if U.S.-led forces had not ousted the dictator.Sounds just like more of the crap that the DoD has been listening to from Chalabi's band of liars and thieves.

[december]

Originally posted by bo989
Isn't war for the sake of regieme change either (a) against international law or (b) a war crime? I'm pretty sure its one of the two, I just don't remember which one. You have raised a quite serious point. International law and UN principles give great weight to leaving regimes alone, no matter how evil they are internally. But, under this standard, the world should do nothing against a evil regime, as long as their wickedness is internal. E.g., when Pol Pot kills millions of Cambodians or Robert Mugabe causes intentional mass starvation within his own country or when Stalin intentionally starved 10 million Ukranians. I have a problem with this principle.

Saddam had a history of exporting his evilness. He attacked Kuwait and Iran, starting wars that led to over a million deaths. He openly supported middle Eastern terrorism. He was building medium range missiles that could reach quite a few other countries.

Furthermore, the example of 9/11 showed us that the world is a small place. We cannot afford to ignore evil, just because it's half a world away.

In short, ISTM we need to rethink the principle of ignoring a regime's internal behavior.

[Desmostylus]

You're still missing the point, december.

"Regime chance" isn't a sensible objective, nor is "invasion".

Let's say Bush wants to invade Canada. The immediate question would be: Why? What do you hope to achieve?

"Regime change" is not a sensible answer in itself, because the question still remains: Why? What do you hope to achieve?

The answers to that question might describe a sensible objective. But "regime change" isn't enough on its own.

[bo989]

Well, december, your response at first seemed fairly reasoned. However, as any great politican might do, you completely avoided answering the question. Whether you believe a regieme change in this situation was morally mandated, doesn't change the fact that war for the sake of regieme change is illegal. Your reasoning seems similar to what wackos say to justify the murder of doctors performing abortion.

[adaher]

Illegal has little meaning in cases of international law. Internatinal law is ignored by everybody when it suits them, most of the time with no consequences. International law is not yet something that has any kind of real-world authority.

Sure it's illegal. Saddam himself was illegal, a violation of the UN Human RIghts Convention. If there was an effective enforcement mechanism for international law, this wouldn't ever be necessary. Since there isn't ,it makes no sense to try to bind the US by it while giving a pass to other nations who violate it.

[spanna]

By breaking International Law yourself you can't the take someone else to task for doing the same thing.

Suppose North Korea decide South Korea are planning to invade. They have no proof , but they believe it. Does thaqt make it OK for them to invade?

What is Bush going to say then ....... " err. hey guys, Thats against International Law?"

Bush has effectively sidelined the UN, together with International Law.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by december
BTW, an Iraqi general says in the LA Times that Iraq retained the ability to manufacture WMDs (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-wmd8jun08,1,3308078.story?coll=la-home-headlines).It's a very interesting interview. If it's true, Iraq didn't possess stores of weapons, but they were a threat just the same.

Oh, December, this is so pathetic. Can't you see how far you've fallen? It's not "They've got weapons of mass destruction" any more. It's "They know how to make WMD. And they were thinking about it ... really HARD!"

Some justification for war.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Any attack on the sovereignty of another state for any reason other than self-defense or imminent threat is a violation of the UN charter. Internal politics, including despotism, are explicitly excluded as justifications for aggression. The only legal justification for the invasion of Iraq was imminent threat via WMDs. That justification has now been proven false, and what's more, the Bushies knew it was false before they launched the invasion. That is not a small issue, it's a major breech of national and international trust. I know it's not as bad as (heavens) getting a blow job, but isn't it even a little bit disturbing to the Bush boosters?

[John Mace]

Originally posted by spanna
By breaking International Law yourself you can't the take someone else to task for doing the same thing.

Suppose North Korea decide South Korea are planning to invade. They have no proof , but they believe it. Does thaqt make it OK for them to invade?

What is Bush going to say then ....... " err. hey guys, Thats against International Law?"

Bush has effectively sidelined the UN, together with International Law.

Are you equating the US invasion with Iraq with a N. Korean invasion (although hypothetical) of S. Korea? While I understand your point about international law (to the extent that such a thing actually exists) do you really believe that there is not a distinction?

Let's take it a bit further. Suppose that N. Korea actually invaded the South tomorrow. What would happen? The international community, including the UN, would unanimously (or nearly unanimously) condem it, and a counter invasion would ensure. That counter invasion would be led by the US and almost certainly have the full blessing of the UN. Would anyon in the "international community" seriously put up a roadblock to that invasion simply because the US has recently invaded Iraq? I don't think so.

Perhaps your analogy might have been more realistic had you proposed something like China invading Vietnam for some reason. Anyway, my point is that the world would judge an invasion of one country by another not just by the "sovereinty" issue, but by whether or not the country being invaded was 1) a trusted member of the international community in the first place and 2) recognized as a serious violators of it's citizens rights. Iraq fails both those tests. S. Korea passes both.

[bo989]

How about another criteria John Mace?

3) Whether the aggresor is so powerful that it could simply crush you out of existence if you resisted.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by december

BTW, an Iraqi general says in the LA Times that Iraq retained the ability to manufacture WMDs (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-wmd8jun08,1,3308078.story?coll=la-home-headlines).It's a very interesting interview. If it's true, Iraq didn't possess stores of weapons, but they were a threat just the same.


He insisted they did not produce any illegal arms and that none now exist in Iraq. But he said the teams met regularly and put plans on paper to quickly develop weapons of mass destruction if U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted.


Isn't this evidence that the UN sanctions were working?

[light strand]

december, let me tell you how easy it is to have a "potential" program.

In my lab I have various bacterial strains for controls. Among these are all sorts of pathogens. Let's say that I want to have bio-weapons program. I can either use one of my control strains I've ordered from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection), thus having this strain fully logged categorized, and the paperwork in order or I can order a new strain from ATCC. If I don't want to get caught, and I want a strain, I can go out and find it wt (wild type). I can relatively easily acquire wt pathogens by going to a hospital, a sheep farm, or a slaughter house.

Let's say now I got wt anthrax from a sheep farm. With a little knowledge of Microbiology, I can culture and refine my strain. Now I put it in a test tube, on a "slant" and I put it in my fridge. I now have a "potential" bio-weapon, that I can put in my pocket.

Chem-weapons are even easier. Got a formula for VX? Memorize it. Hell put it in your wallet. Voilà!"Potential" chem weapon.

I suppose because I have degrees in both Chemistry and Microbiology, I have "potential" chem-bio weapons capability.

Potential don't mean diddly. We didn't go to war for "potential", we went to war because we could be attacked in "45 minutes" with "tons and tons" of weapons.

Monster, yes we did give Iraq bacterial strains. ATCC sent them many different stains. From this old thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=134872) I went through the various strains that were sent, and didn't find that any were particularly dangerous, and only B. anthrasis was suitable for bio-weapons capability. Most were the type of controls one would need in a food lab. Common in part of the world where food is often contaminated.

[obo]

Just give them enopugh time and im sure they will

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by obo
Just give them enopugh time and im sure they will Who's "them"? What's "enopugh"? Who's "im"? "they will" what?

[spanna]

How much time is required?

We were told he definately had them, we were shown satellite photo's of places which proved he had them.

I can't belive that we stopped watching these places before we attacked, so either the weapons are still there or we watched them being moved somewhere else, Either way we should know where they are.

How much time is required IF we really had anything more than conjecture and innuendo.

[elfje]

Originally posted by Anemic Falstaff
It's not worth the risk. If there's even a hint of foul play, then Bush is out of the white house. Why take that chance, when the polls say most people say it doesn't matter if we find WMDs?

what polls?
If it doesn't matter whether WMD's are found or not, then why are both Bush and Blair under severe criticism from their own governments and their opposition?
Blair could lose his position as PM of the UK, and Bush is facing impeachment if it's proven that he lied to rally support for his war.

I'd say it does matter, as the WMD were the main reason for this (illegal) war.

[PatriotX]

Bush is under severe criticism?

I mean beside from people on internet MBs?

I've not heard a peep on the radio, (the most mainstream of my news info sources).

[Desmostylus]

For fuck sake.

Buy a newspaper, SimonX.

Buy a magazine (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030616ta_talk_gourevitch).

Read Google news.