U.N. says 'no sign of WMD in Iraq'

Great Debates
1

I suppose it would depend on what you think of the United Nations, as illustrated in this entertaining thread, but today a U.N. inspector confirmed that they see no direct evidence that Iraq has or is building weapons of mass destruction.

Salon wire: U.N. inspector: no sign of weapons

Unless the Bush Administration and the U.N. are looking at different photos or evidence (are they?), it would seem that care as we progress is most advisable. It’s not even a matter of whose evidence is more convincing, but has now become a matter of whose interpretation you want to believe. Lacking more convincing evidence from the Bush team, who are we supposed to believe more?

I think I’ll believe the side of the issue that isn’t already beating the war drums. This reaffirms my belief that we should follow Powell’s lead and work harder to get inspectors into Iraq.

Thoughts?

2

Lack of external evidence through satellite photos and such is pretty meaningless, don’t you think? After all, Iraq knows the U.S. watches them by satellite, so why would they build their facilities out in the open?

The fact is, there haven’t been weapons inspectors inside Iraq for four years. But there is plenty of indirect evidence that Saddam is building up his WMD - for example, the shipment of Uranium-refining centrifuge parts that were just intercepted on their way to Iraq.

3

Avalonian, let me ask you a question- why do you think Saddam hasn’t let UN inspectors in yet?

4

Ohmighod! Satellite photos don’t show Saddam’s WMD capability? I’m so disillusioned.
I mean hell, I agree that we should be getting the inspectors back in and the UN involved if military intervention should result.

But for fuck’s sake, give the US intelligence agencies credit for having resources a little more thorough than flyovers.

5

Taking the signs down was good thinking. As if anybody really knows.

Chemical and biological weapons are easy to hide – in Iraq. Good God, they have thousands of square miles to hide them in.

I posted this in the pit. Nobody seemed to notice. Here are some satellite photos, if you are interested. I think I see the problem. A nuclear facility looks pretty much like a squash court from the air. A little nuclear bomb joke. I slay myself.

6

squash court

Ha, ha, ha, huh, hunh, unh, cough, boo, hoo, crap. I’m sure Saddam is unaware of the Manhattan Project, what with it being 60 years ago and all. Hush hush.

7

I’ll give them that credit, andros, the second they are moved by their Muse (or whatever) to share that information with us. Until then, they’ve used up all their credit with me. Is one piece of concrete proof too much to ask before this country is committed to war?

And Mojo, there are any number of reasons why Saddam might not be letting the inspectors in. One is certainly that he actually is building WMD. Another, just as likely, is simply that he’s an arrogant prig and feels he doesn’t need to let the inspectors in if he isn’t doing anything wrong. shrug Would you call that an inaccurate characterization? Also possible is that he is doing something else he shouldn’t be, completely unrelated to WMD.

Either option is equally likely, and more besides. I require more proof one way or the other. The entire problem here is that from what we know so far, all the war talk is speculation. You speculate one thing, i speculate another… probably, neither of us is right, but how are we to know?

The only way we’ll ever know is if we are given accurate, clear, confirmed information from a reliable source. So far, that’s all we’re really lacking. I find it unfortunate that we can’t count on our own government officials to supply this.

8

It doesn’t matter. Evidence is entirely convincing, but the lack of evidence is equally convincing to a man who’s mind is made up, as Our Leaders fact-free performance with Tony the Poodle Blair underlines. If we see the evidence, it is proof. If we don’t see the evidence, it proves only that it has been successfully hidden.

His mind (such as it were) is made up. Allies or not, UN or not, evidence or lack of evidence, are all the same. Mr. Bush will have his war, regardless. I don’t think even an utter slaughter of the right at the polls come November will stop him.

All that is required is an incident. Start the war, and the support of the American people is assured. Our politicians are too spineless and craven to risk being seen as not “supporting our troops”. When the drums start beating, uncomfortable questions go unvoiced.

As a pessimist, I am happiest when events prove me wrong. I hope I am wrong.

9

Reason #4 Saddam might be keeping UN inspectors out (this is a good one):

He’s deliberately baiting the US into a war in which they would be seen as the aggressors and, once he shows that he was never doing anything wrong in the first place, he the hapless victim. I don’t think “he asked for it” will suffice as an excuse in this instance, do you?

I hope you’re wrong, too, elucidator. Hell, I hope we’re both wrong.

10

OK, so some people are arguing that Saddam may not be trying desperately to produce WMDs as fast as possible. I think that is a little naive. Let’s assume the best about our acquisitive, brutal, paranoid absolute dictator. Maybe he was not trying as fast as possible back in, say, 1998 when there were UN inspectors. But, now? That is just wishful (fatal) thinking. He had a nuclear program in the early 1980s, remember? Israel bombed it.

He has chemical and biological agents certainly. He’s used them. The production facilities are puny compared to nuclear weapons.

Bolding mine.
As for the OP and the direct question: Hell yes, I want inspectors in Iraq. Pronto. Saddam had the BCs of the NBCs before, and we are wishing and tapping our heels together hoping he does not now. We have no intel. on the ground apparently,* and satellite intel. - as always - is inconclusive.

Yes, I want proof. I don’t want the proof to come in the form of an actual WMD being used on a neighboring country or the United States. Thanks to Bush’s sabre-rattling, now Saddam knows his time may be up.

Yes, Bush is inept, likely personally motivated, and may be getting bad advice. And, yes, Saddam is racing as fast as possible to build any kind of nasty killing device he can. If he gets nukes, the likely target is the United States. Sometimes what is likely reality sucks even more than made up partisan fantasies.

#4 The Hapless Victim strategy (Avalonian): One problem, he would be dead by the time it could do him any good. Knowing what we know about his past capabilities, does this even pass the smell test?

*If we did, the case would already have been made.

11

Without prejudice to the OP, and with a personal opinion that he *does/i] have them in abundance, ask yourself: would the US let UN weapons inspectors in? I seriously doubt it.

12

Why won’t SH let the inspectors in? Well, for many reasons. First because he probably thinks he can get away with it and that enhances his standing before his people. Standing up to the Great Satan can gain you many points in some parts of the world. Baiting the Great Satan and resisting the Great Satan are the signs of a great leader in those parts. Then there are probably many other reasons, among them the fact that the US infiltrated spies in the inspection teams managing to piss off the allies and give Iraq a reason to terminate the whole exercise.

If the world community, represented by the UN, feels threatened and demands free inspections and this is denied and then they resolve to use military force, that is one thing with which you may agree or disagree but at least it is the consensus of the nations of the world. But for the US to unilaterally start a war of agression against another country would be a huge step back in international relations. It would be admitting that wars of agression are justified if a country feels threatened, or even if it just says it feels threatened.

Starting a war of agression unilaterally has grave consequences for many other countries whose opinions would be ignored. This can only create more problems for the US.

As for the “WMD” and what threat they may pose I think it is greatly exagerated. To begin with they would be a much more direct threat to the Iraqi people or their neighbors than to the US. Secondly, nerve gas may be horrible but it is not a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has used them in the war against Iran with US help in the form of intelligence so let’s not be so righteous about them now.

With respect to bilogical and nuclear weapons, SH knows he is toast if he uses them and this surely will keep him from using them. But put him in a corner where he has nothing to lose and he may be tempted to use them which may make this agression a self fulfilling scenario.

The US and the USSR managed to coexist for quite some years on the principle that it didn’t matter who started it, the end result for both would be pretty bad. In this case I also think attcking Iraq unilaterally will cause more harm than good to everybody involved and not involved.

13

Saddam won’t let inspectors back in because last time they went in the mission was leant on and became a spying mission for the US. At least according to Scott Ritter. Now, I know that Ritter has been shown to be untrustworthy in his assertions in other threads, so perhaps this isn’t true either.

Maybe a better reason is that the US has explicitly said that readmission of inspectors is not enough and they want regime change in Iraq. So Saddam will be attacked if he lets them in and attacked if he doesn’t. Where’s the incentive to let them in?

14

“bilogical weapons”? I guess Microsoft and Intel make those.

At any rate, the UN may have a point demanding free access for inspectors and threatening to use force otherwise but the USA requiring Saddam Hussein to get out is just plain bullying.

Once the US attacks it can use the old quote:

(A very dangerous animal, when attacked it will defend itself.)

15

That was a bad translation. This would be closer to the original: “This animal is very evil, when attacked it defends itself”.

16

I’ve been looking for this story for a while. Supposedly Saddam got bio. weapons from the United States. OK, that was bad / stupid / shortsighted / inhuman perhaps. Now, what to do?

Maybe if we wish, meditate, and speculate a little harder all the materials will be gone.

17

Oh please. First off that is an April 1998 issue. We’ve already had weapons inspectors in since then Second, if The Progressive had bothered to check with a Microbiologist they would have know that none of the organisms provided, (without further clarification from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) about the strains shipped) are in and of themselves dangerous.

Bacillus Anthracis highly susceptible to antibiotics. Wild -type generally not considered extraordinary dangerous.

Clostridium Botulinum the bacteria itself is not considered dangerous, just the purified toxin. Purification and weponization of the toxin has not yet been successful, especially on a large scale sine the bacteria is an anaerobe, which makes it extremely difficult to cultivate.

Histoplasma Capsulatum (spelled incorrectly in the article), although it does cause disease, is only toxic in 5% of the victims. Not a very high virulence. Certainly not a very good choice for a biological weapon.

Brucella Melitensis is the causitive agent in Brucellosis. Brucella Melitensis IRC is found in raw milk, and causes chronic, not acute disease. Also not a very good biological weapon.

Clostridium Perfringens another anaerobe causing “food poisoning”. See comments for Clostridium Botulinum

Clostridium tetani anaerobe. Causative agent in tetanus. Not terribly dangerous. See other Clostridium spp.

E. coli except for the verotoxic o157:H7 (with no evidence this was the strain that was shipped) isn’t especially dangerous.

As for the last comment; Who cares? None of that stuff is especially dangerous. Moreover, none of it is even stuff that you wouldn’t expect to find in a standard food testing lab anywhere in the US.

ATCC routinely ships this material throughout the US and the world. They are a necessary part of any Microbiology laboratory. Remember, almost any bacteria can be pathogenic. This does not mean that they bioweapons, or even potential bioweapons.

I certainly hope Bush doesn’t try to use this kind of misinformation as justification for a war.

18

genuine question:

Assume that all that GWB has claimed is true, that Iraq was only months away from WOMD way back when, that he’s got a method of delivery etc, that he’s actively supporting OBL,

what’s stopped him from using them already? or giving them to OBL to use?

19

I don’t think that Saddam would just nuke anybody at random for no reason. He’s f**king insane, but he knows that if he nukes the US, or Israel, or anybody else, we would vaporize Iraq. But what if, for example, there is a successful coup, and he knows that he’s going to lose power? Why not lob a few nukes at the US and Israel, and maybe select parts of Iraq while he’s at it, and perhaps Iran? Hell, he’s not going to be in control anymore, so screw the world.

Right now, Saddam has nothing to gain from nuking a few people. What’s scary is the idea of him having nothing to lose.

Another possibility is that he doesn’t use them himself, but instead gives them to terrorists to use. If he’s careful, he could give them to, say, al Qaeda, without anyone knowing. al Qaeda certainly has nothing to lose.

And here’s a couple genuine questions of my own:

  • People keep saying that until we have “proof” that Saddam is building nukes, war is unjustifiable. What would constitute proof? Could several elements of circumstantial evidence suffice?

  • People also keep saying that we need UN agreement before we attack Iraq, unilateralism is bad, etc. The assumption here is that if a war is morally justifiable and a wise idea, the UN will give the go-ahead, and all will be kosher. But say it is somehow established (by whatever means) that attacking Iraq is morally justifiable, a good idea in the long term, feasible, yadda yadda, and the UN (or “world community” if you prefer) still says no. At what point would we be justified in telling the UN to piss off, and attacking Iraq anyway?
    Jeff

20

Avalonian:

“They,” that is the intelligence community, don’t have the authority to tell us anything. It’s not their job to tell us.

I agree completely that the administration must share with the American people some evidence before it can successfully sell them a war. But my only point is simply to remember that flyovers are not even remotely the be-all and end-all of intel gathering resources.

IOW, again, the fact that the flyover didn’t show anything means precisely dick.