OMG what if we don't find any WMD?

Great Debates
61

Did you also use hospitals as garages for your tanks? :wink: [sup]or should that be tank?[/sup]

[sub]******************************[/sub]

If there are no WMDs found it will mean at least a single term for Bush.

This is ridiculous because of the fact that if there are no WMDs found it will change the minds of many that are presently in favor of the war (yours truly for instance). I cannot speak for those against the war in the case WMDs are found, but I fear in this case the above is correct.

With some reservations about his willingness to make a thorough search, I am for Hans Blix going in with his inspectors to verify the existence of the WMDs (if they exist of course).

62

WMD won’t change my opinion of this war. I always thought Saddam had them, that tougher inspections and a bloodless (or at least less bloody) deposition of Saddam by the UN would have worked better than this cowboy bullshit, and I never thought he would have reason to use them unless Bush provoked him. Also, I find it highly suspect that the White House couldn’t build a clear connection to Al Queda.

I’m stealing this from source unknown, but you know something is wrong when you ask the world to side with you or the devil and they question your motives more than his. Either poor Bush and a Country Club full of Halliburton exec are being unfairly defamed, or as I said earlier this is…

By far the biggest piece of crap in the history of war.

63

Thats why we are doing the Ground War thing. mano a Mano Based on the unusual activity that the US strategists took yesterday, they now have the opinion that Saddam is still alive and are taking steps to rectify that.

If finding WoMD does not justify this war to the peaceniks, then they are even dumber than previously thought. We went into this war to find these WoMD. That was the justification. It is unjust now because the Bush administration didnt offer clear and undeniable proof. When clear and undeniable proof is offered, how could the reasonably say the war is unjust.

Its like finding a gun on a man who refused to be searched. Can anyone protest the search after the gun was found? and if they do, do we have to listen to these nuts?

64

Why should it?

It is perfectly possible - likely even - that Saddam has (wisely in my opinion) gotten rid of his WMD’s as soon as war appeared inevitable. Should he survive somehow, there is no guarentee that he would not re-acquire said weapons, if he were left to his own devices.

The issue is one of trust. The Allies have engaged in this war because they did not trust Saddam, given his history of defiance of inspections. It is entirely possible Saddam never had the weapons, since GW1; it is possible that he had them, and then destroyed them; it is possible he has them still. The Allies don’t know, and cannot know, except by violent occupation – assuming that the inspections regime was not working.

However, even assuming that he doesn’t have them now, is there any guarentee he would not acquire them once the heat is off?

Again, assuming that the basis for an invasion was sound to begin with (and that is really the big assumption), ex post finding or not-finding of the weapons should not make any difference. Ditto if the basis for war was not sound.

In other words, the justification or lack of justification must be based on what was known prior to the decision made to go to war. If it was justified then, it would be justified after inspections found no WMD’s; if not justified then, no inspections could justify it.

65

Why should it?

It is perfectly possible - likely even - that Saddam has (wisely in my opinion) gotten rid of his WMD’s as soon as war appeared inevitable. Should he survive somehow, there is no guarentee that he would not re-acquire said weapons, if he were left to his own devices.

The issue is one of trust. The Allies have engaged in this war because they did not trust Saddam, given his history of defiance of inspections. It is entirely possible Saddam never had the weapons, since GW1; it is possible that he had them, and then destroyed them; it is possible he has them still. The Allies don’t know, and cannot know, except by violent occupation – assuming that the inspections regime was not working.

However, even assuming that he doesn’t have them now, is there any guarentee he would not acquire them once the heat is off?

Again, assuming that the basis for an invasion was sound to begin with (and that is really the big assumption), ex post finding or not-finding of the weapons should not make any difference. Ditto if the basis for war was not sound.

In other words, the justification or lack of justification must be based on what was known prior to the decision made to go to war. If it was justified then, it would be justified after inspections found no WMD’s; if not justified then, no inspections could justify it.

66

Certainly you can, and it happens all the time.

An illegal search, even if it turns up criminal evidence, remains illegal. In most courts I know about, evidence obtained by illegal searches - no matter how damning for the accused - is inadmissible.

The legitimacy or otherwise of a search must be based on what the cops knew beforehand (sufficient to obtain a search warrant), or the reasonable suspicions they had that a particular person was about to commit a crime (to justify a warrantless search). If those suspicions were not reasonable in the first place, the search remains illegal no matter what they find. Otherwise, the cops could just search everyone if they felt like it.

To stretch the analogy, the Allies are in the position of a cop who applied for a warrant (from the UN), only to be told that the UN would not issue one - no matter what. They then said, “in the case of a criminal this dangerous, we can make a warrantless search, because the suspect is acting suspiciously” and proceeded to do so. The issue is whether that decision was valid, which does not rely on whether anything is subsequently found or not.

67

Then why even bother with the 4th amendment (in the second example)? If the police find evidence of wrongdoing, then the search is justified after the fact; if they don’t, then no harm done, right?

In the first case, the war is still unjust because of the damage it does to the world order and institutions, to the relationships between nations, to the current and future allies of the U.S., and to the long term health of the U.S. It also sets the very dangerous precedent, not just of pre-emptive war, but of gambling on pre-emptive war being justified afterwards.

To combine your analogies, this is like me shooting my neighbour and hoping to find on his corpse the gun by which I felt threatened.

68

A fair enuf analogy. This precisely why I am saying that the gun must* be found because we already shot the guy. The 4th amendment does not apply to international affairs. There is no international constitution with its bill of rights. Sure, i agree it sets a dangerous precedent, but I also agree with Mr Bush. Waiting for your enemy to strike first when your enemy has WMD, is suicide. Its damn foolish at the very least. Who wants to be the first civilian to die before we take action? Why should we wait for our enemy to be at his strongest before we fight him? Why do we have to take the first strike?

This “search” for WoMD is not illegal. Resolution 1441 allows this seach as it also allows military action should Saddam not fully and completely cooperate with resolution 1441, which clearly Saddam didnt.

69

…which is exactly why I allege that, if the search was justified in the first place, it remains justified even if no WMD’s are found. Of course the reverse is also true.

70

I am sorry that most of world does not agree with you. If there are no WMDs, then there might be no way that saddam could “comply” with 1441 as you say. It is quite possible that most of the material was disposed long ago without proper documentation. This was all that was really holding up the inspectors who wanted bits of paper saying X was disposed of at Y date. There seemed to be no other real hold up apart from minor niggles like the missiles and the balsawood drone, both of which the Iraqis actually declared properly. There was also the issue of interviews with personel, which occured, though under not optimal conditions. There was no nuclear program.

71

Here’s a rundown of what I think will happen for each possible post-war weapons search scenario.

We find conclusive evidence of WMDs:

Bush is vindicated in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans, though die-hard peaceniks still say that either the weapons were planted, or that it doesn’t matter, because War Is Never The Answer. Bush wins a second term by a landslide. The international community doesn’t care, and continues to view the US as a reckless cowboy. All this is irrelevant to the Iraqis, who are just glad to be rid of Saddam, and to the Arab Street, who hates the US as much as ever.
We find inconclusive evidence, but still enough to point towards the likelihood that Saddam had WMDs:

Bush isn’t necessarily vindicated, but suffers little public backlash. His election chances are determined by whether or not the economy rebounds sufficiently by 11/04. Peaceniks in the US and abroad say “I told you so.” The international community continues to see Bush as a reckless cowboy. The Iraqis don’t care, because they’re rid of Saddam. The Arab Street continues to say we’re the devil.

We find no evidence of WMDs whatsoever:

Bush suffers tremendous public backlash, and his defeat in '04 is a given. Peaceniks say “I told you so.” The international community uses this as more evidence that the US is a big bully. The Iraqis still don’t care, and the Arabs still hate us.
Basically, I think the only thing that will be affected by the WMDs we find (or don’t find) is Bush’s election chances. The Europeans et al think we’re assholes regardless of what we do, the Arabs will hate us for the forseeable future regardless of what we do, and the Iraqis could give a damn one way or the other.

Personally, if we find nothing, I won’t lose any sleep over it. Even if Saddam never had any weapons and never planned to, he was a brutally evil man, and the world is better without him in it. If I turn in my neighbor because I think he’s a terrorist, and I later find that he wasn’t a terrorist, he just abused and molested his children repeatedly, I’m still going to be glad he’s in prison, and that his children are now safe.

And as for concerns that nations the world over will use this as an excuse to “pre-emptively” invade other nations, that’s just plain silly. Does anybody really think that N Korea doesn’t invade S Korea because of concerns over what the UN thinks? They don’t invade because they know the US would pound them into paste. The people who give a damn about what the “international community” thinks are not the same people who we should be worried are going to declare war on other nations.
Jeff

72

The point that I didn’t feel the need to articulate was: maybe we shouldn’t have shot the guy in the first place, when it’s a gamble whether or not the gun would be found.

I was not suggesting it did. However, your second analogy seemed to imply that generally, any search is justified after the fact by finding evidence of wrongdoing. That the 4th amendment exists implies that it’s wrong to search without justificiation, and that evidence discovered by an unjustified search is not justified post facto. At the very least, gambling on this on the international stage while holding to the principle domestically implies a vast hypocrisy. If what we’re arguing about is the morality of an unjustified invasion, then morally I can’t accept post facto justification. It may work in the court of public opinion, but in no other.

Not when there are other means of preventing such an attack. And now we’ve accepted the greater danger set by the Bush Administration. Penny-wise, pound-foolish, as far risk/benefit calculations go.

73

Continuing to beat the hell out of this analogy…

When a man is waving something around that looks like a gun, and refuses to put it down after having been told repeatedly, the officers are justified in shooting him. If it later turns out the man was waving a toy gun, or a banana, or whatnot, then it’s his own damned fault that he got shot.

Saddam has been waving his gun around for a decade. He may say it’s just a banana, but he’s refusing to let us look closely enough to be sure. It’s time to shoot the derned fool. If it turns out he was waving a banana all along, then that’s a demonstration of why it’s stupid to play mind games when war is at stake.

Jeff

74

It doesnt really matter to me whether the whole world doesnt agree with me. If WoMD are found, it would just mean the whole world was foolishly endangering itself and I would still be right regardless of the world’s opinion.

Well, the guy happens to be a known felon, was ordered to cooperate and was belligerant. We had to shoot this guy anyways, might as well do it now before he has his gun pointed at us with our pants down.

The problem with using good guy/bad guy analogy is the courts. In the area of International law, there is no one court, no one adjudicator that decised what can and cannot be done. The USA as well as other great nations are not subject to international law. We are (technically) a world where nations, big and small, are equal, but reality is that the bigger more advanced nation is more able to enforce their will. The UN is supposed to equalize the power of the one powerful nation by an allianace of many smaller nations. However, it does not give the right for the many smaller nations to push the bigger nations around either. There is no “judge” to decide whether a nation is justified or not, there is only the court of world opinion. Thats why my scenario works.

Do you know how many ships berth in New York Harbor or the Port of Los Angeles? Do you know how many containers are in those super cargo ships? Do you know that the Coast Guard and port authority do not search each and everyone of those containers which is why illegal aliens, drugs and all sorts of contraband go thru those places regularly.

I believe that Iraq doesnt have a “nucular” bomb. If we did not have this war, I do believe that it would have a nuke in 3 to 6 years among other WoMD like Vx and biologicals. One nuke in one of those containers could wipe out half of Manhattan or a third of Los Angeles.

I dont think we are “pound foolish”. Just think of it as conservatively cautious.

75

He’s going to get away with it, isn’t he? Weapons of Mass Destruction or no, Bush is going to come out of this smelling like a rose. What a coup. A bj in the Oval Office pale’s in comparison.
Of course, there is the economy.
Peace,
mangeorge

76

If only. As much as I dislike the prospect of Fearless Misleader stumbling into such, it is, in fact, the most optimistic scenario. Wildly optimistic.

77

Of course, a critical difference in this case is that the cops are shooting through a crowded street, killing civilians in the process.

78

Doesnt change the fact that it’s still the mans fault. When all is said and done, Saddam is dead and/or gone. Ollie and Oday are gone, Iraqis may be mixed as to love or hate the USA but they will be peaceful for a year or so, the french will eat their words about the UN thing because the US/Britain/Austrailia will administer Iraq and all that goes with it, and all Bush will have to do is a little spin control. Its not like he wasnt going to do that anyway on an election year.

:cool: :smiley: :cool:

Yah, you betcha! :wink:

and as for the economy. There are telltale signs that this economy will take off like a rocket as soon as this war is done. If WoMD are found in Iraq, its pretty much Bush for another 4 years.

79

There are? Please, pray tell, share them with us! Got all these silly ass economists and stuff with all thier grim forebodings, they must not have talked with you, and gotten the good news!

Oh, and will Fearless Misleader get around to explaining all the lies? Would kind of like to have that cleared up as well. If you’re not too busy.

80

Absolutely… Why not? :slight_smile:

http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id={5E791B6D-E4DF-477B-81EC-67DDF659F22E}

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P44110.asp

The sooner the war ends, the sooner we get back to normal business.