Whose point to prove? (WoMD and the war on Iraq)

Great Debates
1

Iraq claims it has no programes to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction (WoMD) and produces a 12,000 page dossier that proports to be a “full disclosure” of the countries weapons/chemical/nuclear programmes - the US and UK dismiss this idea, saying that Iraq must come clean or face war. The question that keeps going around in my head is “How do you prove the abscence of something?”

Proving that Iraq has WoMD should be easy - find them.

Proving that they don’t will be impossible - whatever the weapons inspectors do, the US/UK powers will simply allege that Iraq is hiding the WoMD and that they know that Iraw has them and is coming to sort Saddam out anyway…

So, your thoughts? How could Iraq (assuming it is telling the truth - which I grant you is a bit of a stretch) convince the world that it has “come clean”?

Some recent news links (just in case you need them):
Iraq denies WoMD (again)
Hans Blix: We cannot be sure that they don’t have any…
Powell: Declaration is “Flagrent” violation of UN resolution

Grim

2

Um, by allowing UN inspectors complete and comprehensive and unlimited access to any place in Iraq they care to look, including the presidential palaces, closets, bathrooms, etc.?

3

grimpixie, under the UNSC resolutions, the Iraqis do not have to prove a negative. Instead, the burden is on them to affirmatively prove that the WoMD that they have admitted having in the past, as well as the WoMD that UNSCOM uncovered, has been destroyed.

Sua

4

“the burden is on them to affirmatively prove…”
Of course if the Iraqi’s record keeping on chemical weapons is as bad as the Americans record keeping, that also will be an impossible task.
http://www.mackinac.org/features/debate/2001/National/Articles/ridding.htm

5

Does the United States allow inspectors to do the same here? Sauce for the goose and all that (no offense intended).

6

Um, isn’t the whole point that Iraq says they don’t have any WOMD, and other people say they do?

Uncle Sam has never made any bones about possessing WOMD–Yep, we sure do, here’s where we keep the nukes, here’s where the chemical and biological weapons are. It’s not particularly secret, hence whether we allow U.N. inspectors free access isn’t an issue.

7

Absolutely. The next time the United States goes to war with the UN and loses, I’m sure we will be required to disarm and allow international monitoring by inspectors.

Sua

8

The Iraqis cut a deal to end the shooting in 1991. It’s now incumbent upon them to live up to the deal.

It amazes me that lots of people seem to ignore this fact in the current debate.

9

But the people who say Iraq does have WoMD don’t have actual proof, do they? UN documents from the inspections up to 1998 (cited by Sua Sponte in this thread) give strong proof that the Iraqi nuclear program (and its missiles) was completely eliminated, and the CW program, if not eliminated, then severely compromised.

That was four years ago. The Iraqi economy hasn’t recovered at all, and the sanctions on any goods that might be “dual use” seem to have effectively prevented these programs from being restarted. So now the inspections are nothing more than a humiliation campaign by the US to goad Iraq into saying “No, we won’t let you look there” so they can finally say “Ah ha! You’re hiding WoMD in there, aren’t you? OK, bend over and kiss your asses goodbye, 'cos we’re gonna bomb you back to the Pleistocene.”

Well, it would certainly be the first time a real threat to civilization was removed.

10

But if Iraq truly doesn’t have anything to hide, why all the stonewalling on the inspections? When the cops pull you over for speeding and ask you, “Mind if we look in the trunk?”, if you’ve got a clear conscience, and if you’re smart, you say, “Sure, go ahead.”

It would be dumb to say, “Fuck you, officer, no way am I letting you look in the trunk.” Why not just let him look?

That’s what I’m not getting…

11

In your hypothetical, maybe because you’ve done nothing wrong and don’t appreciate being treated as though you have? I know of nobody who likes that sort of treatment (well, very few, anyway).

I’m not saying that Saddam/Iraq is being honest here. Frankly, I don’t know one way or the other, though there are lots of reasons to doubt. And I agree that Saddam is being pretty dumb… but then, I never was impressed by his intelligence.

What I am saying is that, in the context of this discussion, a lack of enthusiasm about opening one’s country up for a strip-search is hardly proof of guilt. In fact, given recent U.S. rhetoric, I’d be even more given to suspect wrongdoing if the U.N. inspectors were welcomed with open arms. But that’s me. shrug

12

That not quite the whole truth. Uncle Sam doesn’t know where he put many of his chemical WMD’s:

-The Other US Chemical Weapons Disposal Program
It’s a good thing we don’t face a 3 week deadline.
Shall we go to war with Iraq because Saddam doesn’t maintain better records than we ourselves are capable of keeping ? IMHO, that’d be carrying this “burden of proof” schtick to the point of depravity.

13

WMD is a shuck.

In the first Gulf War, things made sense. Iraq grabbed Kuwait, and thats a bad thing. The US decided, for reasons of hisotrical neccesity (oil), moral clarity (oil), and international law (oil) that Iraq had to cough it up. The UN, as much as that amorphous collection has an identity and an opinion, agreed. Rightly so, no argument there. The UN sanctioned the US to be the cop, and the US took the job, pinned the star to its chest, and went to it.

Wars over. Time for the settlement terms. The real issue, of course, was getting Iraq to cough up Kuwait. But the US largely got to dictate terms, and the UN more or less nodded, sure, sure, sign it and lets go. Gotta give back Kuwait. Right. Gotta disarm. Whatever. Gotta clean his room and walk the dog. Fine.

Ten years go by, not much happens, everybody pretty much forgets about Iraq. Easy to do, he isn’t doing much of anything to anybody. Gabon don’t care. Belgium don’t care. Upper Volta don’t care.

Then, on October 12th of last year, in comes the Buckaroo. Jumping up and down, throwing a hissy fit. Saddam hasn’t complied with UN resolutions. The UN blinks and thinks “Who ever did? Not Israel. Not Russia. Not the USA. So?”

After a while it begins to sink in. The USA has lost its marbles, they want to go a re-fight the same war again. But Iraq doesn’t have Kuwait. Doesn’t matter, Saddam didn’t clean his room like he promised, we have to go to war. Belgium looked over at France and said “Huh?”

Now, if this was really the big hairy ass deal that GeeDubya made it out to be, then everybody would have been jumping up and down and yelling “Yeah! That right! He’s gotta do that!”

Remember hearing about anybody but the UK doing that?

So the UN looks at this mess and thinks “Geez, the American are fucking serious about this bullshit! Well, they’re nuts, but they’re big as hell, maybe we can humor them for a while and they’ll calm down. War’s pretty yucky, maybe if we stall for time, it’ll blow over. Or maybe we can get this under our control somehow.”

Syria said exactly that, to explain its otherwise inexplicable vote on the Security Council: maybe, just maybe, with inspectors and all, we can get some kind of control of the situation. So, yeah, ok, we’ll send in the inspectors, that’ll take some time.

The catch is: if the WMD is really to be the caussus belli, then the UN is the determining authority. If the treaty with the UN is the issue, then UN is the one who decides whether war is the correct response or not. According to that view, even if the inspectors find 10,000 tons of mustard gas, that does not automaticly mean war, the UN can consider it, and say, “Nah. Too nice a day for a war. Chinga lo”

But all along, every step of the way, GeeDubya has said, time and again, the US reserves the right to unilateral action. The US is not about to cede any authority to the UN. Never has, never will.

The UN is hoping the forlorn hope that the final deliberation will be its own, they are deluded into hoping that if they say “No” the US will say “Well, we disagree, but your the Boss”. Fat chance.

GeeDubya is perfectly content to let the inspectors do thier thing, we arent ready for war anyway. Will be in a month or so. And then we will go to war. If the dreaded WMD’s are found, so much the better, looks nice in the papers. If they aren’t found, or the UN doesn’t think thats important enough to go to war over…

The an American destroyer, cruising in international sand in the Godforsaken Desert will be attacked by a Iraqi PT boat armed with nuclear anthrax.

Or something. Doesn’t matter. We’re going to war.

WMD’s are a shuck.

14

I must be missing something. Since the inspections started up again, I don’t think I’ve heard about the Iraqis standing in the way of the UN inspectors at all, at any facility. At most, there have been some 10-minute delays while they went to find the guy with the keys.

Can you point us to any incidents of stonewalling?

15

Huh? Your point doesn’t make sense in the light of Desert Storm and all those UN resolutions against Iraq.

What’s the point for your tit-for-tat comment? Within the realm of international law, the UN and the current crisis, your point makes no sense.

16

Er, has Hussein been trying to gum up the inspections? I was under the impression that he was being pretty cooperative with the inspectors.

Of course, the American media always says ‘the inspectors found nothing today, and Iraq claims to have no weapons, but [rolls eyes].’

When everyone enters the situation with the presumption that Iraq is lying - and they have to prove a negative to correct that - it’s a really hard situation for you if you’re actually telling the truth, isn’t it?

17

WTH is everyone caught up on this "prove a negative crap? Sua Explained that they do not have to prove a negative. They have to prove a positive. They have to prove something they did. Not something they didn’t do.

Cop: “Do you have the gun you used to kill him?”

Criminal: “Nope, I got rid of it.”

Cop: “Prove it. It has to be where you threw it, or something left if you destroyed it.”

Criminal: “F*** YOU, I can’t prove a negative!!!”

Cop: “!??!?!?! So you didn’t ‘get rid of it’?”

Criminal: “…”

18

Perhaps it is the way things are being reported, but I have had the impression that the inspectors are not looking for evidence of the destruction of WoMD as much as they are for the prescence of the weapons themselves.

Grim

19

An interesting take on the weapons inspector charade:The List

20

I’m a bit confused, then - what’s the purpose of the inspectors?

If Iraq claims to have destroyed WMD, and gives the paperwork involved, but doesn’t have video of the actual destruction (or whatever we require), but the UN inspectors can’t find WMD, then what happens? War anyway? If so, what’s the point of the inspectors? Just to see if we can stumble across WMDs?