Hold on, Mr. President!!

Having recovered somewhat from the shock, I've realised that there's still quite a lot we disagree on TC. Thank god for that, the whole world was feeling like a spooky Waynes World ending.

Anyway, I thought it might just be worth pointing out a few things.

a) Sponsoring Palestinian terror organisations, and sponsoring Al-Quada are different things. You can at least half understand the rational of supporting Palestinian terror if you consider that the US gives Israel $4Billion a year, while the Palestinians get ~$200M a year. The US fund one side of the conflict, some middle eastern countries fund the other.

b) Iran. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, what is wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons? I'm sure there are just as many people in the Middle East frightened by the prospect of Israeli nuclear attack as there are people frightened by the prospect of Iranian nuclear attack.

c) The Saddam-Al-Q links are sketchy at very best. And it's becoming apparent that they *weren't* the tip of an iceberg as Rumsfield wanted us to think. Instead they were just the scraps that he'd managed to piece together.

finally d) You're right about WMD's. To be 100% certain of their existence before the war, you better have had some bloody good intel on the WMD's locations. In fact, we were pretty much lead to believe that this existed. So what happened? Did the US stop looking at that location? I doubt it. Seems more likely that there never was a 100% certainty factor.

Just to add to Doms post.Though I know you won't except his premise that Iran has the same rights as Israel.

The Mobile weapons factory you keep on refering to is not being reported as such here in Britain.I doubt any other country is reporting a Mobile weapons factory having been found.Believe me if it were true our government would be mentioning it at every opportunity.They are not.What does that tell you??

[Edited on 29-5-2003 by John bull 1]

I've said before Afghanistan - Iran - Iraq - Syria.
Big fat pipeline.

Its lovely and all that you've came to your sense's but theres no need to liberal bash just for good measure.

I'm just wondering.... if they supposedly found mobile WMD labs, have they tested them for traces of chemicals or biologicals? I'm thinking that if they did, which they surely had to, and found these traces, we would be hearing about it. If they had found the SLIGHTEST evidence of WMD anywhere in Iraq they would throw it at us in an attempt to end the criticism.

If the Democrats were smart, they would wait a couple of months to make sure nothing shows up and pounce on this issue. But they probably won't since their brains and backbone (Clinton) left in 2000 and what little trace of it was wiped out by 9-11.

Not true, Flinx, Dashel loves to attack, he just attacks without thinking.

Hillary will attack as soon as she is sure its safe.

Wrangle will be in there, too.

Somebody wake Schumer up!

Don't bother waking Teddy up.

What are you talking about, David. I never was asleep, by the way. And they might pull the weapons out of the river soon, My position is to cool their heels until there's no doubt in our minds.

GREAT DANGERS. BRING IT ON . LET THESE CREEPS COME OUT OF THE SEWERS OR WHERE EVER THEY HANG OUT. TO YOU MR. BULL - - - - NUTS.

Reagrdless, TC is a smart guy.

Sad thing is TC< we wont find #. Most the # destroyed in earlier gulf war. Anything else, most likely will be old degraded # left over.

And there are thousands of soldiers over there roasting in the desert heat wondering the same thing: wheres the bad guy, wheres the WMD?

TC, it smells like another vietnam.

Such topics have numerous layers and sub-layers of access and address.
To me it will ultimately be about domestic perceptions: Iraqis and Iranians do not have votes registered, even in Florida.
There have been somewhat alarming attempts to revise perceptions of legality in an international context and one hopes for the sake of Americans that these "revisions" are not accepted as appropriate in a US context: applauding "pre-emptive intervention" can well result in dismissing "probable cause or due process". The farce over WMD is directly related to "habeas corpus".
If one's government can do this to foreigners to the general applause of the masses and the peasants: who's to say that electorate (or a sufficient percentage thereof) will not come to accept, even applaud, this in domestic affairs?

Originally posted by John bull 1

Bob,How much time do you want??

Well, JB, how much time did YOU want for inspections prior to the war. I just love the hyprocrisy coming out of your camp.

Then: give the inspectors more time!
Now: they've had a few weeks and they haven't found anything...


BUT - I don't disagree w/ you JB. They'd better find something, really, they better.

Bob.

"Then: give the inspectors more time!
Now: they've had a few weeks and they haven't found anything...
"

You have not misrepresented my position there but I do not think it is hypocritical.I'd like to explain why.

Before the war I did indeed feel the UN weapons inspector should be give more time.This was to ascertain if the allegations levelled by the UK/US Government were correct.If found to be correct then International concensus would surely of followed and the current strained relations would of been avoided.

The UK/US invaded Iraq regardless without proof.They claimed that they had knowledge of WMD's hidden in Iraq.They even claimed that they knew some of the locations of these weapons.

The UN weapons inspectors needed more time working as they were in an Iraq led by Saddam and his regime.
The US have no such problems.They are working under the US regime in Iraq.They have a free run of the country they are completely unrestricted.Not to mentioned that they are supposed to know where they are anyway.

The UN weapons inspectors were there to check that Saddams declaration to the UN in Nov 2002 was accurate.They should of been given as much time as the UN thought fit.
By pre-empting the Inspectors results,declaring Iraq in Breach of 1441,and invading a sovereign nation(however dispicable)it is incumbant on the US to justify their actions.

There appears to be no proof that Saddams weapons declaration in Nov of last year was anything other than accurate.So Saddam may have complied fully with the UN.
I believe that if the US/UK had evidence that Saddam had breached 1441 then they would of found proof by now.
I'll throw it over to you Bob.How long do you want?How long do you think the International community should have to wait before the US stumps up some evidence?

2months,6months,1year,5years.How long Bob?

The truth is if there were WMD's you can bet your bottom dollar they would of been found by now.Any request for more time can be seen as nothing more than prevarication in the hope the world will lose interest.

The US/UK/Aus went to war without specific UN aproval.It is they that need to show justification.Or the accusation will be levelled that the leaders of those nations misled the world and broke international laws.

JB, I don't disagree with your points. Really, I don't. If I am Bush, or anyone else in his administration that will lose their jobs when Bush is ousted in 04 then finding some weapons would be high on my to do list, don't you think?

Though - I think a weapons program involving wmds' would be a highly secret program, carried out by Saddam's most trusted thugs. Well hidden. Not something you advertise and probably moved around and hidden as much as Saddam. As I said before, I believe in the possibility of these weapons being destroyed around the start of the war. For just a second JB, consider that scenario. Also consider that if Saddam used wmd France threatened to get involved. If Saddam used them he would have instantly united the world against him. Now - if he didn't, and he destroyed them when the war started, attempting to leave no trace then that would really, really hurt Bush - because it's already starting to happen. What a clever move on Saddams part.

Still yet, if that's the scenario Bush and company is going to use; I still want some evidence. Find people that destroyed them, tell us how/where/what/when. Then I want to hear from others to corrobrate that. And surely, after all that information is obtained, there must be some shred of physical evidence.

So, JB, to answer your question I would give them a few more months and no more than that.

I would really like to know the last time Israel directly threatened any country with nukes? It seems there are those who would turn every nation into evil to prove a point! Are there none good and just trying to survive? All nations will survive by all means possible- the Q is, by what way do they go about this?!

Proving sadaam did have WMD may be a lengthy if not futile adventure. I believe what he did have was destroyed. This does not lessen the freedom of protest in Iraq today does it now?

If WMD's have been destroyed the big question is when?

We already know some WMD's were destroyed because the UN weapon's inspectors were taken to sites that they then tested.The Inspectors were surprised at the manner and lack of safety used to destroy them,The destruction of those weapons were not recorded by the Iraqi authorities and the lack of documentation led to concerns by the UN being raised about how much had been destroyed and when they had been destroyed,The UN felt that they had been destroyed years previously while previous inspections were taking place.

My own feeling is that the WMD's were not destroyed just before the war.Why?because this implies the destruction would have had to of been almost simultaneous.Whereas the amount of WMD's the UK/US accused Iraq of having could only have been destroyed in a large program.If ,say,chemical weapons stocks were distributed around the country in special chemical warfare units and destroyed just before the war then the places these stocks were destroyed would still show signs of a hurried destruction.You can't just throw chemical weapons on a fire or poor them down a drain without a great deal of evidence being left.Including alot of sick people in the vicinity.

If WMD stocks were as large as was claimed and an iminent threat it would take longer than a week or a month to destroy them.If the Iraqi's set up a program 6 months before the war then maybe they could of destroyed them all.
But then if they had such a program weren't they complying with the wishes of the international communty.

It is a lose/lose situation for the coalition.If they had WMD's where are they?If they were destroyed they must of been complying.

We know that atleast 90% of Iraqs WMD's were destroyed while the previous UN inspections took place.This could of been more than 90% as the finding of the undocumented destruction site shows.
More may have been destroyed before the new inspections.What the Iraqis thought were the rest were probably hidden.During the last war planes flew to Iran for safe keeping(never to return)it is likely that a neighbouring state may have taken charge of the weapons.
When those old warheads were dug up by the UN probably a further tidying up exercise was undertaken.

It could of course be that those in power took the view that the farce over WMD -seldom challenged, in any case, in the domestic media - would be outweighed by "victory", and -as such -it was a simple gamble. Domestically things are pretty awful in the US, and they would hardly be the first nation or regime to chooses a suitble distraction in international matters.

I think you are quite correct there Estragon,and in the USA that assumption may well turn out to be right.
However,in our parliamentary democracy the Prime Minister and his cabinet must be held to account if they misled our democratically elected representatives.Victory is always preferable to defeat but Peace is always more preferablr to War.
British soldiers believed they were laying their lives on the line to protect the UK and her people.Many died under that illusion.
Bush may get away with it but it is in interests of the entire world that Blair is held to account so that no British PM in the future gives a semblence of international legitimacy to US imperial ambitions.

[Edited on 1-6-2003 by John bull 1]