Saddam is not going to attack the US unprovoked. What we are more concerned about, is Iraq attaining nuclear capability; if this happens, he will be able to deter any military action against himself, and also (in effect) hold an entire region hostage.

This is a valid concern, but will Saddam really have time to complete a nuclear armament program in the four to five months the weapons inspectors are requesting? Especially considering the close scrutiny he is and would be under?

Are you portesting because it will do no harm, or because you truly feel the war is wrong?

Definitely the latter. The former, I stated only because I believed it aided my argument. Perhaps I was wrong.

In (a), any action taken against Iraq may be wrong, because there may be no WMD. In (B), Iraq may have WMD, but could have moved them, or they could have not been there in the first place. The qualifying statement (not in full possession of the facts) applies differently to each statement. Your linkage of examples is illogical.

As I understand it, you think that the facts that Bush is not in possession of in (a) relate to the existence of WMD, and in (b) to the location/state of weapons that do exist

What I meant in (b) was that Bush may attack a facility that is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN used for storing sugar, the facts he is not in possession of being in regards both to the existence of weapons at all and to their supposed location. This would be more consistent with (a).

It is just as possible that not acting within 4-5 months could potentially be harmful. In fact, there is no reason for you to be able to say which will be less harmful, acting, or not acting.

But if we act then harm is a certainty, whereas if we do not act there is a chance that no harm will be caused.

There is no reason to assume the former. 12yr old missiles are probably quite common in many armies across the world, and Iraq is probably not churning out missile after missile.

Granted...

What weapons defence system has been implemented to stop these particular weapons?

... but as I understood it, the missiles were pretty simplistic even when they were new. I don't know the specific current state of the U.S. missile defence program, but if it can't even fend of weapons like these than they've got much bigger problems than just Saddam.

It has the warhead, the warhead is just not chemcially active (that is, all that is lacking are the chemical agents).

Well, OK, but my original point still pretty much stands: The missiles aren't much use without chemicals to go in them.

Saddam is going to try to build a nuke, he won't tell us when he's doing it, and we should wait until we're absolutely certain. The only time we can be certain is when he has it. For this, see N. Korea. Spy planes and sattelite photos aren't always conclusive (remember your sugar factory example, our info may be wrong), and we need to be certain.

This is quite a conundrum: On the one hand, waiting until we're certain could mean waiting unitl it's too late. On the other hand, where do we draw the line between "not enough suspicion" and "enough suspicion"?

The US is not under UN obligation not to go to war with Iraq. Iraq is under UN obligation to disarm.

(Waves white flag) Okay, I admit defeat on this point at least.

Records. Sites where things have been destroyed. Scientists can check these sites for residue. In case you're wondering, inspectors had not found this residue in at least one site since they recently went back.

If an Iraqi scientist was going to try to pass a fake weapons site off as a real one, wouldn't it make sense to lace the area with fake chemical residue, given that this is the first thing the weapons inspectors would look for?

They have warheads. They are not obsolete.

The Macquarie dictionary defines "obsolete" as "fallen into disuse or not longer in use". It does not mean they do not work. Given that I am arguing that the weapons were indeed forgotten about, I think this definition fits.

And, as Saddam kills his political opponents (Including his own family members, such as a son) I'm sure they'd last long.

Well, they've survived long enough to come to the attention of a reporter for an Australian university newspaper (my source). If he can find out about them, then surely Saddam knows about them, but he either will not or cannot destroy them. Whatever chance they have of surviving and making a difference against Saddam is only going to be increased by the U.S. funding them.

This how I would most like to see the conflict resolved: Saddam being removed from within Iraq with a minimum loss of life. Perhaps the odds are against them, but shouldn't the U.S. and her allies try every other plausible course of action, especially this one, before going to war?


Patternweaver fan-club member

Rule? You better believe I do.