Inspections work- not demonstrations

OK, I have gone on record repeatedly here as being opposed to an invasion of Iraq (well, at least given the current situation, of course).

Now it seems like some dudes here & there are buying ads, demonstration, and otherwise argueing against any military action in Iraq. They say “Inspections work- war doesn’t” (or “… bombing doesn’t”).

However, by doing so they are ensuring that inspections won’t work. Hans Blix (who certainly is not a war hawk) has made it clear that only threats of US Military force have made the current round of inspections possible. Quote "I don’t think that there would have been any inspection except for outside pressure including U.S. forces ". (italics mine). He went on, this isn’t a quote out of context.

So the only way inspections will work is if there is a credible & real threat of US Military action, including invasion.

If there is any real benefit to demonstrations, it must be that they want the US to back off plans to invade. But if they work, and the US does so- the inspections won’t work.

Thus, by demonstrating against War, but pro-Inspeactions, they are actually lessening the chance that Inspections will have a real chance to work.:smack:

Very interesting arguement. I like it.

Guess we’ll have to oppose both the war and inspections.

I think you will find the arguments in this thread very similar to this thread I don’t think you will find anybody but a small minority of the protesters that are arguing against providing Hussein with a credible threat. You may find some disagreement on what constitutes a credible threat though.

The U.S. obviously has intelligence on where chemical and biological weapons are, because they’ve gone as far as to discussed how they will need to run Special Ops missions against those sites to avoid the disaster of bombing them directly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23867-2003Mar1.html

So, we have targets that we are fairly sure contain weapons. We aren’t telling Blix because we don’t want inspections to turn up a few weapons.

Well, Like I said- YES: to saber rattling & Threats. Maybe: to limited military action (smart bombs on special WMD targets, certain military targets, and maybe even a few Special Forces sent in to confiscate WMD). NO (or, better, I hope not): to actual invasion.

:dubious:
Why, pray tell, do we not want inspections to turn up a few weapons?
If we truly know where weapons are and are, as official policy, keeping this information from the UN inspection team, then this is, officially, the stupidest and most ignorant push for war in the history of AMerica. I volunteer you, Apos to tell all the war widows after the invasion that we really knew all along where the stuff was, but we just didnt feel like sharing.

Well, I am mostly, but not completely against the war with Iraq. And I believe that “inspections” are a waste of time. Iraq is a big country, with lots of area to hide stuff. Plus, I dont believe the UN inspectors are really searching diligently. Rather, I think that they are trying to buy time for Iraq.

Okay, a credible threat of what, then? Bombing doesn’t work. Sanctions don’t work. The only thing left to threaten him with is invasion. But even now, Saddam’s not fully complying - he’s making a few token gestures every now and then, while completely ignoring the spirit of the whole disarmament process, which is that he tells us where everything is, and we watch him destroy it. If he continues to drag his feet, and we continue to say, “Comply, or else,” how long will it take before he realizes that there is no “or else”?

In order for there to be a “credible threat”, we have to be actually willing to invade. Many, if not most, protesters seem to miss this. They say, “Yeah, provide a credible threat, but you better not really mean it.” The way this is going, it’s only so long before Saddam says to hell with it, and stops complying completely, as he did in 1998. And then what? You really think there’ll be more support for a wat then than there is now?
Jeff

Where is the proof for god’s sake! Here in GD we demand citations for bold assertions, and yet we should somehow demand less of a burden of proof for those who want to send our soldiers in harm’s way? We have this force breathing down Baghdad’s neck telling them to let the inspectors do their job, and then we say we don’t like the UN’s answer. Our SecState offers a series of dubious bits of evidence, and we are supposed to believe that there is much more, but they can’t tell us because of national security.

It is just as counter-productive to provide a credible threat that will attack no matter what as to provide a threat that is lacking credibility. Either way, Hussein might as well do whatever he wants. It could easily be argued that putting Hussein in a catch-22 may increase his likelihood of further developing and stockpiling these weapons in preparation for attack. Without providing Hussein some manner of successfully meeting the UN’s demands, why should he do anything excpet prepare to go out with a bang? The current administration keeps telling them that they must comply with the UN resolution, but then completely discredit the representatives of the UN responsible for determining that very compliance. What do the hawks need to call off the dogs? What needs to be found and by who. And please don’t tell me that they need to not find any WMD. Proving a negative is next to impossible, and is not a serious demand.

—I volunteer you, Apos to tell all the war widows after the invasion that we really knew all along where the stuff was, but we just didnt feel like sharing.—

Hey, I’m not happy about it. I think it’s deceptive to pretend that we care about the inspections succeeding if we don’t, or are unwilling to see them find anything.

CTB:

Well, we have intelligence that points to several known WMDs and production facilities. If Saddam said “Okay, I’ll comply, here are the weapons”, and handed over - at the least - every thing we know him to have, that would be sufficient. Since Saddam doesn’t know what we know, he would have to either give up everything, or risk keeping something we know about. Does this seem unreasonable? Or are you one of the people who still believes Saddam has no weapons, isn’t trying to make any weapons, and is just being picked on by the mean ol’ US of A?

Apos:

I don’t think it’s really that we don’t care about them working, it’s just that we never really expected they would. We knew Saddam wouldn’t comply now any more than he has over the past decade, but we knew we could get more support from allies if we gave it a final token effort. But, given that we didn’t expect them to work, it’s reasonable to expect that we wouldn’t want to waste a lot of time on them. I think at this point, we’ve carried the charade out long enough to realize it’s pointless, and we’re eager to get the war over with.

On the one hand, it seems odd that we would have info about weapons and not share it, if that info could lead to the destruction of those weapons. However, we must assume that there is stuff we don’t know about. If we gave up the goods on what we know, we’d have no ammo for invasion, yet the threat of the Unknown Weapons (and it’s foolish to think that our intelligence is so wonderful that we are guaranteed to know about every single last weapon in Iraq) would still exist. Then we’d be back to square one. A non-compliant Iraq, probably still making weapons, and we have no political capital with which to buy our way into a solution. Kinda sucks either way.
Jeff