A lot of this you'll have already heard, just as I've already heard all of your arguments. But the MB is boring, now, so I figured I'd see what we could hash out.

Possibly there isn't. But the weapons inspectors still haven't finished their work, so the decision about going to war should be put off, at the very least, until they have. That is, if the U.S. and co. wants to give the impression that they are not eager to go to war, as they say they aren't. (Sending 130000 troops to the Persian Gulf isn't helping this image either.)

How long do you want the weapons inspectors to stay? You say they have yet to finish their work, then imply later in the post that they have nothing to work for.

You said: And then round about the same time, the U.S. government started pressuring Iraq to disarm with very little proof that they hadn't already? Funny that...

And this: Yes, they were DESIGNED to deliver chemical weapons. There was nothing in them when they were found. This, combined with their age (12 years old, if memory serves) and the fact that they were found in a disused storage facility suggests that they were just plain forgotten about.

The insinuation in your post is that Iraq has already disarmed, so there is no need for inspectors. Yet (you say) we should wait for inspectors to finish their job. If there is nothing of importance for inspectors to find (other than sixteen chemical weapons warheads), then they should just be pulled out now. Are you for indefinite inspections (as there is nothing for inspectors to find, but they should be allowed to finish their job) or an end to inspections now? IF not, what is your timetable?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US disobeying the UN in going ahead with plans for war without their backing?

Hehehehe, let us play fill in the blank.

You said.: Saddam may also possess PLANS for nuclear weapons, but this does not mean for certain that he is actually building or going to build any.

I will say.: Bush may also possess PLANS for war with Iraq, but this does not mean for certain that he is actually going to go to war.

I will deal directly with those nuclear plans below.

Yes, they were DESIGNED to deliver chemical weapons. There was nothing in them when they were found. This, combined with their age (12 years old, if memory serves) and the fact that they were found in a disused storage facility suggests that they were just plain forgotten about. Plus there were only four of them, and while any chemical warheads at all are bad news, that's not really enough to conduct a war with.

More have been found, and had been found at the time of your post. The number is at sixteen, or was the last I knew. I do not know why you think the age of the missles would be indicative of their inability to carry chemical weapons, or would detract from their importance. Perhaps they were put in that disused facility not due to forgetfulness, but rather due to design. As I said, more were found, also in small numbers. A few here, a few there, and before you know it you've got nearly twenty. How many more warheads do you think Saddam's regime has "forgotten", because, of course, they "don't have any" in the first place?

Saddam would be overjoyed if we all accepted that the warheads were "forgotten", but I am not willing to go this route. Do you truly believe that? (<-- That is a direct question, please answer it).

Further, the lack of chemicals inside the warhead is indicative of nothing other than that there are not chemicals inside the warhead. My understanding is that you do not load the warhead until you are ready to use it.

Saddam may also possess PLANS for nuclear weapons, but this does not mean for certain that he is actually building or going to build any. It suggests so strongly, I admit, but if you are going to war you have to be certain.

Saddam did not actually have these plans on his person, but since you used his name, so will I, simply for the sake of ease. Iraq is not supposed to be researching how to build a nuclear weapon; this is not something you do for a hobby. You possess plans for something with the intention of acquiring materials, or because you would like to acquire materials. Literature on the history of nuclear science is one thing, plans to build a nuclear weapon is another.

You speak of certainty, so too will I. When can you be certain that a regime which wishes to possess nuclear weapons -- but is not allowed to -- has them? Do you wait until you are certain, or do you act to make sure it does not happen?

Kinda like the US government, huh?

So you believe the "defiance" of the US government is akin to the defiance of Saddam's Regime. Okay, good to know.

Please, no straw men, I get hayfever. I never said that I had no problem with that. America didn't though, once. In 1972, Saddam signed a treaty of “friendship and co-operation” with Moscow. The U.S. didn’t like this, and neither did most of the western world, so when, in 1974, he began a program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, we were falling over ourselves to oblige. To quote “The Pelican”, a university newspaper: “An American company supplied him with plans for building chemical weapons plants, the British sold his regime biological and chemical weapons protective suits and the French sold him helicopters and a nuclear reactor. The West sought to wean his administration off its relationship with the Soviet Union.”

And when Saddam attacked Iran in 1979, the US government supplied intelligence and weapons TO BOTH SIDES, though the dealings with Iran were kept quiet. It was only after the conflict, when Saddam owed the U.S. US$65000000000+ that they “became aware” of his human rights record and treatment of the Kurds.

(All information for the response to this particular quote was obtained from the article “Acid Ba’ath” by Giovanni Torre, The Pelican, Edition 8, Volume 73, a publication from the Student Guild of the University of Western Australia.)

Yes, the respective governments were wrong, very wrong. Such errors of judgement should be fixed.

9/11? Hey, yeah, what happened with that? Wasn't the U.S. trying hunt down Osama Bin Laden? But no-one could find him? And then round about the same time, the U.S. government started pressuring Iraq to disarm with very little proof that they hadn't already? Funny that...

Iraq has no proof that they have disarmed, as they would not allow inspectors back into Iraq after Desert Fox. At this time, the UN inspectors had not finished destroying the various chemical agents still in Iraq. Iraq says they have destroyed these agents, but can give no proof of doing so. The US is not under UN sanction to show proof of Iraqi disarmament, Iraq is to show proof of its disarmament.

I hope the rest of the world isn't THAT hard to convince. But all the evidence the U.S. has so far are the aforementioned chemical warheads and some aerial photos of installations they "believed" to contain weapons of mass destruction (these are the photos that the U.S. used to instigate the weapons inspections in the first place). The installations photographed have hence been investigated and found not to contain any such weapons.

Yes. Of course, it is interesting what an Iraqi official said this week: there can be no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, because they don't have any. Wonderful. Yet, there should be proof of the destruction of such weapons and agents. Further, if Iraq has none, then they didn't have those sixteen weapons at all; because, of course, such weapons do not exist at all in Iraq.

His comment is really just a pre-dismissal of the evidence that Powell will give to the Security Council later this month.

{QUOTE}If Saddam HAS to be dealt with, then why hasn't he been before now? QUOTE}

Good question. So do you think we should deal with him, or no?



Regards,


Fan