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?

By your scenario, he doesn't need four to five months. We have to wait until we are certain, you said. Further, from your feelings it is apparent you think there are no weapons, and that the ones currently found were forgotten about. We cannot act on the fear of 30,000 pages of nuclear planning, because we must be absolutely certain. You also said, remember, that you think Saddam will eventually try to pout these plans into use.

So, by your own admission, Saddam has as long as it takes him to build a nuclear weapon -- or get so close it doesn't really matter -- before anyone can try to act against him. By the time he has a nuke, of course, it won't really matter. We can hope he struts it around and doesn't act, because it will be incomparably harder (nearly impossible) to do anything against him.

And remember N. Korea: we can't always be sure. By the time we are sure, we've been deterred.

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).

No. (b) is still possible when (a) is wrong. That is the logical fallacy. You see, we might find out Saddam has WMD, and attack him. But (b) can still happen under that scenario, which is why I pointed out to you the illogic in it. Do you understand: the sugar factory might always have been used for storing sugar, and US planes can bomb it; in that situation, our over all possession of intell can still be correct (that he has weapons) but our specific intell (that the sugar factory is storing them) may be wrong.

You were using (b) as an example as to why we should not act in the overall situation, but it is entirely possible that (b) can occur even if Saddam suddenly comes on CNN, admits to having weapons, and declares his intent to invade New Zealand.

This isn't something I'm going to argue into the ground. It should be pretty obvious.

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.

Sure. There is a chance.

... 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.

A weapons defence system needs to be set up. Saddam probably wouldn't launch these at a US MDS that he knows is going to knock them out. Rather, he'll launch them at Israel, or maybe Saudi Arabia.

Also, in the Gulf War he launched missiles at Israel, you will remember. The US tried to destroy those before they hit, but couldn't stop even a one.

Your faith in MDS is pretty big. I'm not sure how good we can do versus these types of missiles.

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

Of course they aren't.

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"?

Not really. My point was to show that -- by your very own comments -- you were saying we should wait until he had nuclear capability.

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?

Regardless, they had a weapons inspector saying that there was no such residue at this supposed destruction site. It doesn't make much difference overall, though, because UN inspectors have still found no proof that all those chemical agents had been destroyed.

If Iraq truly wanted to disarm, doesn't it make sense that, by now, it would have taken the inspectors to correct destruction sites, gave them containers to hold dirt samples in, and held an umbrela over their head so the sun wouldn't shine too brightly? Blix and CO. said at the UN that they still don't know what happened to the anthrax, sarin gas, and so forth.

Draw your own conclusions. But draw them after the facts, not before.

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.

Give me a break. Then the word does not even apply to missiles. The US probably has thousands of "obsolete" missiles (not longer in use) if by "use" we mean mounted on a silo, ready to launch.

What you meant by obsolete was that they were no longer effective.

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.

Hehehe. What I'm saying, is that as soon is the US gives them funding, Saddam will give them the axe.

I have never heard of this group, so I do not know that they are legit or not. Obviously, I would much rather see them take Saddam down in a political coup. Forgive me if I don't see it happening, no matter the amount of funding.

This how I would most like to see the conflict resolved: Saddam being removed from within Iraq with a minimum loss of life.

How do you see that happening? And how do you define "minimum loss of life"? Fifty dead? 100-200?


I may or may not respond. I tire of these threads when they go on into infinity. It is nothing personal, and regards,



Fan


Here be Myth