Sounds like december is. Unless you count intelligence agencies’ word as proof, and I don’t.
Actually, the USA do refuse to the international commissions in charge of disarmament the access to american installations.
Most certainly, the US has something to hide, or else, why would they do that 
?
“If your answer to question #2 is “yes,” is that sufficient basis for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force?”
It’s probably a sufficient legal basis for authorizing the use of force if it chooses to. But the UNSC is not bound by some kind of sentencing guidelines and there is nothing automatic about UNSC violations leading to a war let alone “regime change”. That is another decision the UNSC has to make on pragmatic grounds. It might choose to continue with inspections even it has a legal basis for going to war. Such a decision would by well-justified pragmatically as I have argued elsewhere.
If the UNSC chooses not to authorize war the US doesn’t have the legal basis to act on its own initiative citing UNSC resolutions any more than ,say, Iran has the legal basis to attack Iraq.
Funny definition of pragmatism, that. Pragmatically, a failure of Iraq to account for the WMD it was proven that it had means that Iraq has not complied with the UN Security Council. Pragmatically, the inspectors cannot find anything in Iraq if Iraq is not complying with the UN Security Council. So, pragmatically, the inspections would then be a useless exercise.
So wouldn’t the pragmatic thing to do in that situation would simply admit that the UN is not going to require Iraq to comply, and let the inspectors go home? Pragmatically, I’m sure the inspectors would rather be home with their families, if their work in Iraq won’t amount to anything.
Sua
Well ,pragmatially speaking, success isn’t a cut-and-dry matter here. If inspectors can find and destroy a large proportion of Iraq’s weapons, weapons-making capacity and in particular any nuclear facilities it may have, that would count as a reasonable success even if it can’t get hold of every last test-tube of anthrax. The pre-1998 experience with inspectors indicates this is a reasonable expectation.
No, inspectors can’t guarantee that they will find 100% of the unconventional weapons that Saddam has. But neither can regime change through war guarantee that the US will be able to find 100% of the weapons or prevent Iraq from passing them on to terrorists etc. We are talking about a choice between imperfect solutions here with the difference that one of them (war) has a vastly greater direct cost than the other.
Actually, he has a lot to gain by looking like a badass. He is able to gain respect for his people by standing up to “big bad America”. Bowing to America’s will would make him look weak to his countrypeople- which puts his power (and life) at risk. By acting defiantley, he is also able to gain respect from him neighbors, who will think twice before they start screwing with Saddam. Cultivating a badass image is one of the most effective ways to stay in power.
What exactly is a “weapon of mass destruction”? It seems to be worst than a nuclear weapon, in fact, a new class of weapon. Why haven’t we stockpiled these WMD’s? Don’t we need them, to protect ourselve’s from being attacked by a nation with WMD’s.
On a serious note. I don’t think Iraq has WMD’s, which to me means Nuclear Weapons, which from here on I will call NWMD’s. This is the only serious weapon of mass destruction, make no mistake about that.
Wow. Just … wow. Guess I’m making a mistake, then. You do realize that under the proper circumstances, chemical and biological WMD, particularly bioweapons, can kill a hell of a lot more people than nukes?
Guess that ain’t serious, though.
Sua
Sua, you called Ace of Swords Ace0Spades.
Typo?
Nope. One and the same.
Sua
The way I see it, the “anti-war” dudes will just keep raising the bar.
First- “Saddam has no WMD” or “We can’t prove he does”. Yep, he does, and we found a few. Not to mention all his other violations. So the next “anti-war” arguement goes:
“Well, those are minor, he doesn’t have any current large capacity to wage war using WMD”. True, not that we have found so far. But let’s say we find some real solid WMD- then the next arguement will go:
“Well, so what- we FOUND them- yes? So they are gone now, right? This doesn’t prove he has MORE that he is hiding, so there is still no reason for war”. Riiiiight.
So basicly- no matter what the UN inspectors find, no matter what violations Saddam commits- nothing will convince the anti war group of the nesseasity of armed intervention or invasion.
So, December, dude- you OP is pointless. The anti war crowd doesn’t give a rats-ass about “WMD”. They are just using that as a current point of attack.
Right on DrDeth! Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me that the “anti-war” dudes are actually Iraqi agents, or just general America-haters. Surely it’s impossible that some people actually think that military action might not be justified sometimes.
It’s pretty damn annoying when people are standing in the way of the exercise of your profession, isn’t it DrDeth?
My freinds- there are many good arguements why we shouldn’t invade Iraq (although I don’t rule out any sort of armed response). BUT- even if there was clear & convincing evidence of WMDs you would not be in favor of “armed response”- then argueing about the WMDs is specious. Most “anti war” debaters don’t give a rats-ass about WMD, even if Saddam was found with the “fat man” in his bedroom closet. So- if there was NO evidence of WMD’s that woudl convince you that War is a ‘good idea’- why argue about them?
So- sure, go ahead and protest the POTENTIAL war all you like. There are some pretty good arguements to make. But it seems like the “WMD” arguement branch is getting thinner & thinner as you are getting further & futher out away from the main trunk.
Care to point a few of those folks out, or are you just breaking wind here ? Seems to me that making wide and baseless allegations without actually naming names is a time honored part of the “Big Lie” strategy. You wouldn’t be trying to unfairly discredit anyone who finds death and destruction distasteful would you ?
Hardly “discrediting”- especially as I agree there are some pretty good ant-war arguements. Just because I say that ONE of your arguements is specious doesn’t mean I think your main point is incorrect. I respect those who abhor war- even though I do feel that War is sometimes nessesary (and this does not seem to be one of those times, IMHO).
Now I will cheerfully admit that my post saying that “most antiwar… debaters” was backed up by little evidence, and is mostly my opinion. But tell you what- can you find ONE poster here, who has made a point of being antiwar- who will say “yes, absolutely, if we do find proof of WMD’s we should invade without further ado”? Face it, Squink- most (IMHO) of those here who are anti-war are not anti-war simply because the evidence for WMD is weak- they have many other stronger arguements. There has been enough evidence so far to “convict” Saddam of violations- although admittedly so far just minor “technical” violations. But this has changed no ones opinion or posts. I haven’t yet read the post which said: “Yes, I am now convinced Saddam must be removed by any means nessesary, I was wrong”- and I don’t think I am going to see that short of an attack on the USA proper.
But you know dudes- go ahead and attack me for my opinions. Always a good thing to revile those who are in the middle ground- they then are SO very eager to move over to your side.
I suspect you are referring to this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mustard_gas_1
"Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, concurred. Asked in New York on Friday if the mustard gas was a violation by the Iraqis, he said: “They had been declared before, and that was not news.”
Try again.
Um, barton, why should DrDeth try again? Mustard gas is a WMD, so WMD were found.
The fact that it had been previously declared simply means its existence wasn’t a violation of the UNSC regulations, not that it doesn’t exist.
Try again.
Sua
I don’t think there is any logical inconsistency in saying “Even if Iraq has significant WMD I don’t think invasion is the best way to proceed. However first show me that Iraq does in fact possess significant WMD” Think of it as a series of hurdles the hawks have to overcome in making the case for war.
As for me I am prepared to take the administration’s word about Iraqi weapons but I don’t think invasion is wise as long as inspectors are allowed to continue working because,among other reasons, it will damage US national security in the long run for reasons I have gone into elsewhere :
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=149106
I though AceOSpades was banned?
Now he has a nother account. (sock puppet?) Anybody got a link that explains any of this?