Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

[Kodiak]

Read about Blix's report here

Does this mean Iraq doesn't have any WMD, or just that they've successfully hid them from inspectors thus far?

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...

 

[rikzilla]

Read about Blix's report here

Does this mean Iraq doesn't have any WMD, or just that they've successfully hid them from inspectors thus far?

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...

Anyone willing to cut Saddam more slack than GWB is no skeptic.
Simple as that.
-z

 

[armageddonman]

Re: Re: Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

Anyone willing to cut Saddam more slack than GWB is no skeptic.
Simple as that.
-z

Well, I'd rather believe the weapon inspectors than GWB and his friends.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

Well, I'd rather believe the weapon inspectors than GWB and his friends.

You're missing the point. The inspectors haven't said that Iraq has no WMD, but that they were unsuccessful at finding any WMD in Iraq.

Nobody here is disputing what the inspectors said they have, or have not, seen...

The fact remains that just because the inspectors haven't found WMD doesn't mean that they aren't there.

Again, it comes down to who do you trust more? The coalition led by the Bush Administration, or Saddam's Regime?

 

[aerocontrols]

Well, I'd rather believe the weapon inspectors than GWB and his friends.

No one that I'm aware of is calling them liars.

They say they haven't found much. Warheads, missiles, etc... but not much.

It's not a choice between believing the inspectors (We can't find anything) and believing the Bush Admin. (No you cant. But it's there) since the two statements are not contradictory.

Iraq's statements, on the other hand, do conflict with the Bush Administration.

MattJ

 

[armageddonman]

The thing is that the US government is claiming that Iraq has WMDs. The inspectors haven't found any, still the US claim there are WMDs. If the US has information about were these alleged WMDs are (as they have been claiming this for MONTHS), WHY aren't they providing these information to the inspectors? Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on?
There are a lot of open questions that should be answered BEFORE a war is started.

 

[Thanz]

It's not a choice between believing the inspectors (We can't find anything) and believing the Bush Admin. (No you cant. But it's there) since the two statements are not contradictory.

MattJ

But how does the Bush admin. know that they are there? Why can't they communicate this info to the inspectors so that they can find it?

I don't trust Saddam any farther than I could thorw him, but I have to take an agnostic position here. Just because Bush says it is so, does not make it so. I need a bit more evidence.

Further, this can't just be about WMD. NK has nukes, and is repudiating treaties. Kim Jong Il is a not exactly a great guy, either. Why the willingness to negotiate with NK, but not Iraq?

 

[Kodiak]

If the US has information about were these alleged WMDs are (as they have been claiming this for MONTHS), WHY aren't they providing these information to the inspectors?

Why are you assuming they haven't?

Also, what keeps the Iraqi's from moving their illegal weapons around? After all, it is exactly what Saddam did with his SCUD's during the gulf war. If memory serves, we couldn't find those weapons either. That fact didn't keep Saddam from raining SCUDs down on Israel and Saudi Arabia though, did it?

Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on?

Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger.

 

[armageddonman]

Why are you assuming they haven't?

Because the inspectors haven't found any WMDs.

 

[armageddonman]

Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger. [/B]

So, where is the evidence? SUBSTANTIAL evidence. The US have been claiming for MONTHS to know where WMDs are hidden. If that is true, why haven't the inspectors found any of them?

 

[Segnosaur]

It should be noted that although Blix has said they haven't found anything, and are cooperating, there are a few problems:

- They did find empty warheads for delivering chemical weapons
- He admitted that they have rockets which can travel more than 150 km (against instructions from the U.N.)

So, they are technically in breach of the U.N. resolution.

 

[Segnosaur]

So, where is the evidence? SUBSTANTIAL evidence. The US have been claiming for MONTHS to know where WMDs are hidden. If that is true, why haven't the inspectors found any of them?

A couple of possibilities:
- Iraq is good at hiding them
- The inspectors are incompetent
- The U.S. knows where they are, but they don't want to tell the inspectors, because either 1) They believe Iraq will find out ahead of time and move them, 2) They will compromise information sources (Hey, inspectors, our secret informant Akbar told us there was bad stuff here. Woops, he just vanished.) 3) They need to know where they are to target them in any upcoming war 4) They know that some people will say "yes, its evidence, but is it SUBSTANTIAL evidence. (Nothing short of Sadam sitting on top of a nuclear bomb in the middle of the U.N. chambers will convince people that he has something illegal.)

It should be known that in the last round of inspections, they were not able to find any evidence of Iraq's nuclear program, until a defector told them exactly where to look. (And that took several years.) The inspectors haven't been able to interview scientists privately, or take them outside Iraq. Why should we have faith in the inspector's abilities to find things when they missed stuff before?

 

[aerocontrols]

So, they are technically in breach of the U.N. resolution.

I agree, but I don't know where the 'technically' comes from.

How is a technical breach different from a regular breach?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Utter demogogic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Administration repeatedly claimed that it has positive proof of Iraqi WMD. There are numerous ways in which they could support this claim without compromising their intelligence sources. The fact that they have not done so, means that the administration is failing to make a case for its claim -- a case it must make, because it's the one making a positive existential assertion.

To put it simply, I have no faith in Bush administration, or any administration. before I accept anyone's claim, I want evidence. Bush has failed to provide such, to the best of my knowledge.

You try to make this an issue of faith -- but a choice between having faith in Saddam or The Shrub is no choice at all.

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...

My condolences on having given up skepticism on this issue, and fallen back on faith.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

You try to make this an issue of faith -- but a choice between having faith in Saddam or The Shrub is no choice at all.

The issue is whether you believe Iraq should be invaded or not. Now, for most people that decision is based on whether they think Iraq poses a threat to world peace and has WMD or not. (There may be some that think Iraq does not have WMD but should be invaded anyways, based on their human rights record; however, I doubt there are many people who feel that way.)

Now, if there were no practical considerations, we could wait forever for the inspectors to either find something, or to go through ever square inch of Iraqi territory. But, there are practical considerations (current sanctions are touch on the Iraqi people, Iraq cannot be invaded in the summer because the chem/bio suits are impractcal in hot weather, the president is only on a 4 year term and has limited time to implement his agenda, etc.)

So, we have to make a decision now, based on imperfect information. And, unfortunately, that decision boils down to "who do you trust more". I don't fully trust either myself, but I think Bush is a little less un-trustworthy.

My condolences on having given up skepticism on this issue, and fallen back on faith.

I'm sorry, but calling this a matter of 'faith' is unfair. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow. Is that faith? No, its based on past history, scientific analysis, etc. The sun may actually go out tomorrow, but I feel the chance of it coming up is actually pretty good.

I can't guarantte 100% that Iraq has WMD, but I feel the chances are better that he does than he doesn't. And that's not faith, that's an analysis based on:
- Current inspections (chem warheads discovered, among other things, which were illegal)
- Iraqi interferrence during the current round of inspections
- Past history (hiding WMD/nuclear weapons during last round of inspections). If they did it before, they may do it again.

So, I am making my decision not based on 'faith' but on what I've seen/read. And what I've seen/read indicates that the Shrub is closer to the truth than Saddam is.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree, but I don't know where the 'technically' comes from.

How is a technical breach different from a regular breach?

Well, you're right, a breach is a breach.

I guess I was using the term 'technical breach' to refer to them finding something illegal but minor (such as empty chem warheads) as apposed to a 'regualar breach' where they find something major (a Nuke with Israel's name on it, or letter containing antrax addressed to the white house).

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

Kodiak

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Utter demogogic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Administration repeatedly claimed that it has positive proof of Iraqi WMD. There are numerous ways in which they could support this claim without compromising their intelligence sources. The fact that they have not done so, means that the administration is failing to make a case for its claim -- a case it must make, because it's the one making a positive existential assertion.

To put it simply, I have no faith in Bush administration, or any administration. before I accept anyone's claim, I want evidence. Bush has failed to provide such, to the best of my knowledge.

You try to make this an issue of faith -- but a choice between having faith in Saddam or The Shrub is no choice at all.

My condolences on having given up skepticism on this issue, and fallen back on faith.

Ah, your typical professional reply...

So ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is the best refute you can come up with?

Just because they haven't provided you with their "positive proof" doesn't mean they do not indeed have it.

All of the member nations of NATO (except 3) think that Bush has made his case...

The fact that they have not done so means they have not done so for you.

Reread my posts please. I said it was a matter of trust. You are the one trying to manipulate the issue with your "faith" spin...

Nice straw man there at the end. If you were as fervent a skeptic as you claim, you'd be just as skeptical of you own position on this issue.

Diplomacy and statecraft are subtle arts and, as such, logic and skepticism will not always serve you well.

 

[aerocontrols]

All of the member nations of NATO (except 3) think that Bush has made his case...

Let's also show a little skepticism for what the '3' say

Germany's opposition party says Germany knows Saddam has WMD.

Presuming that they do, exhortations for Bush to 'make his case' will not impress me.

MattJ

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Re: Re: Re: Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

Kodiak

So ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is the best refute you can come up with?

Only if you are so dumb that you can't read past the first line of the post. Or are you perhaps discovering that lying is easier that thinking?

Just because they haven't provided you with their "positive proof" doesn't mean they do not indeed have it.

Oh, so there was more than just '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" to my post? Why, I never!

Of course the fact that they haven't provided us with proof, doesn't mean that they don't have it; but the only proof that can be applied to consideration is the proof that we know. I can claim to be able to prove that I am prince of Wales, but until I provide such a proof, my claim is unsupported.

All of the member nations of NATO (except 3) think that Bush has made his case...

Wait, am i seeing an argument from majority -- especially related to a field where self-interest is the primary governing factor? the fact that other NATO members toe Shrub's line doesn't mean that he supported his claims, just as France and germany's refusal don't mean Saddam has no WMD.

The fact that they have not done so means they have not done so for you.

OK, I am willing to be corrected. Where has Shrub supported his claims of having proog for Iraqi WMD?

Reread my posts please. I said it was a matter of trust. You are the one trying to manipulate the issue with your "faith" spin...

trust without evidence -- which is all we have -- is faith. You are the one engaging in spin by using loaded words like "trust" (of course we should "trust" our Commander in Chief, we elected him!)

Well, you know what? As I general principle, I don't trust people to resolve issues where they are in conflict of interest. This applies to almost any situation involving political power, and it certainly applies to the current situation.

Nice straw man there at the end. If you were as fervent a skeptic as you claim, you'd be just as skeptical of you own position on this issue.

Did you notice the little passage about positive existential claim there, bucko?

But I am skeptical. I don't believe that Saddam has been proven to have WMD, nor do I believe the opposite. We are uncertain, all of us -- and in the face of uncertainty, going to war is by far not the best option IMO.

Diplomacy and statecraft are subtle arts and, as such, logic and skepticism will not always serve you well.

Yup. Politics requires lying. News at 11.

 

[corplinx]

All those liters of anthrax they had, they uhhh..... sold them as bottles of olive oil from the holy land. Yeah. No WMD here, no proof. We just know they _had_ them, not that they _have_ them. To assume they still have them is soooooooo farfetched.