Of course there’s massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, dahling. Simply massively massive stockpiles. You’re just not looking haaard enough, dahling.
Ya know, I was willing to accept this argument as strong circumstancial evidence. Prior to the war, I had no argument for it.
But remember, the claim of the administration wasn’t that he simply had these WoMD, but that he would use them. Against us. And then, at the start of the war, there was all this intelligence that Iraq was going to use them against us.
So, why didn’t he?
The answer I have heard most often from the pro-war folks is that perhaps Saddam was “taken out of the loop” prior to having the chance to issue the order to use them.
And I find that argument extremely flimsy. First off, everyone, including Saddam, had to know that a major advantage and likely military tactic of the US military was to cut off “command and control” of Iraq’s military commanders and the troops. It is simply implausible that Saddam held onto to some final authorization to use WoMD against invading US troops - he knew that even if he were alive, he may have trouble communicating the order.
Doesn’t anyone remember the intelligence reports of the “red zone” - the line in the sand - around Baghdad?
So, against Sam’s circumstancial evidence, the most damning empirical evidence is that Iraq did not use WoMD against invading US troops. If he didn’t use them then, where was the threat, exactly?
Saddam was a terrible guy who didn’t care very much what happened to his people. Then again, I’ve read that the Clinton administration decided that they wouldn’t permit the lifting of the sanctions even if Iraq was disarmed, I’ll see what I can find on that count later. (By the way, the sanctions were murder regardless of Saddam.)
[quoteBecause those munitions and missiles are stationed in or near agricultural areas ?[/quote]
Random note, but interestingly enough, the San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that a chemical used in rocket fuel is being found in high concentrations in letture bought in northern California supermarkets. www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0428-05.htm
I tend to agree with CarnalK, anyway. There’ll be international outrage if nothing is found. Indeed, I think there will be anyway because, to most, the fact that nothing has happened yet indicates that the ‘Iraqi threat’ was, at the very least, rather overstated. But in America, which is all the Bush group is worrying about, nobody gives a shit. People will just assume they found something even if they don’t hear about it, just like they’ll assume the link with Al-Qaeda has been proven, and just like they assumed (when I say this, I mean 'encouraged to assume) that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11.
Well, I still say its only a matter of time before the US finds those WoMD. I wouldnt doubt that if none were found in Iraq (and they dont fall on this Intelligence misread spin) that they might extend the search area into Syria. I dont think they would invade Syria, but I think the US may test French resolve by having them approve a UN resolution made by the US for a stringent weapons inspection.
for the record, I hope they do a UN weapons inspection on Israel too.
“Extending” the search into Syria would mean a war. Given that the US got stringest inspections in Iraq and THEN went to war, I can’t see Syria saying “sure, come in and disarm us.”
The French approved the inspections resolutions with no problem, and they pushed for more inspections when Bush and Blair wanted war. Asking them to approve an inspections resolution wouldn’t be a test.
I said a UN resolution made by the US.
ie you can forget about Hans Blix for this one.
That resolution was sponsored by the US and Britain. It’s an implausible scenario anyway: the US has said they don’t want UN inspectors (i.e. Blix) back in Iraq, so the notion that they’ll want them in Syria seems odd.
it is not odd because your assessment of “extending” the search into Syria is valid and would be percieved as an act of aggression. So the US would use the UN inspection route again. That is unless it has already decided that the UN is irrelevant.
If they do go the inspections route again, i am pretty sure the terms and conditions of that resolution would be much more stringent and “french-free”.
Do you seriously think the Bush administration thinks the UN is at all relevant? They went to war against the UN charter, threatened the organization repeatedly (and said it would make itself irrelevant if it didn’t back them), and then decided not to push for a resolution authorizing war when they realized it wouldn’t pass. Does that sound like the behavior of people who think the UN is relevant? Bush didn’t even want to consult them in the first place, and the people who support him most are EXTREMELY clear about what they think of the UN.
I have no idea, and I don’t know if you do either, how the terms of the resolution for inspections would be more stringent. And they can’t make anything “french-free,” because the French have a veto on the Security Council. So if they say no, whatever is proposed fails, period.
For that matter, if the US thought the UN inspections process was relevant, they’d have UNMOVIC inspectors in Iraq now. Not only are they not there, major UN countries have been suggesting that they should be - and the government has said in no uncertain terms that they’re not going to be allowed in and all searches will be conducted by the American military.
Resolution 1441 was a compromise between the US and the French even tho the US proposed it.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079746/
maybe after reading this article, you may get a better idea on how to de-frenchify a UN resolution.
Now this is closer to my OP. I did wonder why this would be a strictly US military inspection (other than the fact they dont trust the UNMOVIC inspectors to keep secret how intelligence determined a site was suspicious for WoMD) There seemed to be a great reluctance to share WoMD intelligence while the UN inspections were taking place. There is a peice of the puzzle that is missing here and I cant quite determine what it is.
Still, I dont think Bush has decided what he wants to do with the UN.
The resolution was a compromise, yes. The key compromise, as that article says, is that it didn’t include automatic trigger language for a war. It would have failed if not for that compromise. Bush said he was willing to go to war without even 1441, if you recall. No skin off his nose.
But Blair wasn’t keen on the idea (just as he didn’t like the idea of not securing a second resolution). They gave up on a second resolution because they realized it wouldn’t pass as written, and also because they decided that they could interpret it in a way that legitimized the war even though that was plainly not the intent.
Bush has said the UN has a place in post-war Iraq, but he rejects the idea of the UN administering the country. At best, I’d say he would accept the UN as a means of supporting his aims (if it ever does so again), but wants to feel free to ignore it if it doesn’t. Even if he doesn’t know what to do with the UN, and I think his people know exactly what they want done with it, they’ve certainly done plenty with international law.