Summary, (apart from past tense comments) is: you believe the US and British governments when they say they have intelligence of present possession. Not overly impressive unless you believe governments don’t lie.
Certainly, if “we all” believed as you do, what you say would follow. However, the inspections have been allowed Saddam precisely because we do not all so believe.
**
Your point seems to be that since everyone already believes Saddam has WMD’s, and will continue to believe that even if the UN inspectors come up empty handed, there is no point to the inspections.
That is logical in itself, but the problem is, your basic premise (that everyone so believes), is false.
The answer is that the Bush Administration will not be satisfied by the report and start war. Whether there are WMD, or some are planted, or whatever, does not matter, Bush needs war. And Saddam needs to go.
This is a reasonable argument. However, from my POV Saddam has had nothing to gain, and much to lose, by all his non-peaceful acts since 1991, such as not cooperating with UN inspectors and firing on US planes. This behavior shows that Saddam doesn’t look at things the way you and I do.
December, I think you underestimate the normal human tendency to resent intrusion (even to the extent of resenting reasonable intrusion).
How do you think the average American would feel about another country controlling your airspace or an international body demanding access to search your country for weapons? Can you imagine any circumstance at all where Americans would say “Yeah OK, we’be been evil, we deserve to have to put up with this”? Not on your nelly.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand that Saddam got himself into his own mess, but I just don’t find the examples of his behaviour that you cite to be examples of not “looking at things the way you and I do” at all.
Why does everyone think of missiles and bombers? Why couldn’t he just smuggle it on board a freighter and detonate the bomb when the ship docks in New York?
A principled international stand to be sure. However, I would have thought that the (internal US) politics depend on the successful prosecution of the war, not the legal niceities. Realpolitick (IMHO) would dictate that it’s a time to be perceived as strong rather right. For oppositions, wouldn’t it be a time to keep the irons in the fire, play it straight and hedge?
Interestingly enough, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee stated yesterday that he believes Iraq has WMD. He is a Democrat. I don’t have the newspaper with me at the moment; if necessary, I will try to dig up a cite.
He doesn’t seem to be hedging.
I know it is fashionable to instantly dismiss everything Bush says as a politically motivated lie, but I wonder why one of Bush’s political opponents would back him up if that were the case.
Perhaps they have access to US intelligence sources.
Yeah, but now they’re saying that it’s not a specific peice of proof, like a picture or a defector’s report, it’s a series of bits and peices of information.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I just spotted Mother Teresa in my Cinnabun.
Both sides in this debate seem to misunderstand what the burden of proof established by international law is in this situation. Here is what is required pursuant to the relevant UN resolutions:
The burden of proof is on Iraq, not the UN Security Council;
However, Iraq is not required to demonstrate it has no WMD - practically speaking, that is an untenable burden;
What Iraq must prove is that the WMD which it acknowledged that it had, along with the additional WMD that UNSCOM demonstrated that Iraq had, has been destroyed. That proof must be in the form of documentary and physical evidence.
That’s it. That’s the standard. As of 1998, Iraq had failed to meet that standard. It claimed it had destroyed all of the WMD (and rockets; let’s not forget about the rockets) it admitted it once had, or which had been proved that it once had, but failed to provide the requisite physical and documentary evidence of that destruction. For most of the unaccounted-for WMD, Iraq claimed it had destroyed them on its own, even though the sanctions resolutions required Iraq to wait to destroy them in UNSCOM’s presence.
So, there is no carte blanche handed to Bush. OTOH, arguments that it is impossible for Iraq to meet its burden are incorrect; unless we accept an argument that “gosh, I left those anthrax spores in my other pants, and then they went through the wash,” Iraq has to know what it did with the stuff it was proven that it had.
As Hans Blix has noted, governments keep track of their WMD.
My debating questions are this:
Does anyone believe that the above is not a reasonable standard?
If Iraq refuses to provide evidence that it has eliminated the WMD it has been proven that it had, would you accept that as evidence that Iraq has, at the least, maintained those WMD for which it refuses to provide evidence? and
If your answer to question #2 is “yes,” is that sufficient basis for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force?
On re-reading my last post, one thing I wrote is poorly worded (well, at least one thing :D). Substitute this in the second paragraph, if you please:
As of 1998, Iraq had claimed it had destroyed all of its WMD. It provided physical and documentary evidence that it had destroyed most of its WMD, but failed to provide the requisite evidence for a considerable amount of WMD.
That’s a reasonable belief to have. In fact it’d be irresponsible to to dismiss the likelyhood that Iraq has WMD’s However, when we base our beliefs on insufficent evidence, there’s always the possibility that we are wrong. Perhaps the high mucky-mucks do have incontrovertible proof that Saddam has new, ready to use, WMD’s. If that’s so, they aren’t concerned enough about them to force immediate action.
Your analogy is flawed, Ace0Spades. “Bits and pieces of information” can exist. OTOH, Mother Teresa cannot be in your Cinnabon; not only is she deceased, but her corpse is considerably larger than a Cinnabon.
Or were your just being facetious and not adding anything to the debate? It’s hard to tell with you.
I disagree. Even if “we all believe” he has WMDs (and some don’t), and there’s no proof, he still might not. Then an attack is not justified.
I believe that going to war is a serious enough thing that proof is a concrete pre-requisite. We need proof to convict a person in court, shouldn’t we also require proof before hundreds or thousands die in a war?
psst. Revtim. Read my first post. The standard of proof the Iraqis must meet is there.
BTW, that level of proof would be sufficient to convict somebody in a court of law. Which, of course, begs the next question. Is “beyond a reasonable doubt” sufficient basis for war?
Oh, it’s already been well demonstrated that Iraq has WMD’s. Ask the citizens of Halabja, or ask the UN inspectors which found several mustard gas bombs just the other day.
What has NOT been demonstrated is that Saddam has gotten rid of all of them.
Since the burden of proof is on Iraq to show that they have destroyed their WMDs and dismantled their programs, then a simple absence of proof that has WMDs does not satisfy the UN requirements.
<<We need proof to convict a person in court, shouldn’t we also require proof before hundreds or thousands die in a war?>>
It has already long since been proven that Iraq has violated the UN security council resolutions 16 times.
It has already long since been proven that Iraq is willing to use WMDs.
It has already been proven that Hussein does not require the same niceties about a ‘burden of proof to go to war’ that you seem to advocate.
It has already been proven that Iraq invaded a neighboring country, in violation of international law.
It has been further proven that having lost the war, Iraq violated the terms of its cease fire.
The war:court analogy doesn’t hold up. Indeed, such a standard would make stupidity a national defense institution.
One needs proof to convict IN U.S. courts.
However, one only needs probable cause to obtain a warrant to smash down a suspect’s door and take him into custody, or to kill him if he uses deadly force to resist arrest, or endangers the lives of innocent parties.
But what is the absolute standard of posession of WMD. For example, Britain has no free fall nuclear weapons. THis is a fact. However we almost certainly could knock one up in short order, or take a warhead out of TRident and strap it to a plane. But as far as SALT etc are concerned we have no free fall A bombs.
Saddam almost cretainly posesses artillery shells, crop sprayers etc. He also posesses weedkiller. These could become chemical weapons quite easily. Do these count?
Sua, although I did miss your post, my argument was against december’s logic that simply “we all believing” he has WMD, even without proof, is a sufficient excuse for war.