Do you think the European people would goto war over chemical or biological weapons after the Administration categorically claimed that Saddam is persuing nuclear weapons and has a program working... even when there isn't conclusive evidence proving their claims? We could go to war on this with thin basis, but it isn't what we originally declared. This is the same UN that was hesitant acting upon Iraq for the past 4 years. I'd think they would want something more than chemical warheads, maybe even a second resolution if we do find more proof.
Bush lied. Bush decided last spring to invade and currently is waiting for the troops to get ready. Any weapons that the UN inspection team finds and destroys is a plus, before Bush starts the war.
the resolution, as it was drafted, includes chemical and biological weapons...bush never said exclusively they were looking for nukes...they're looking for weapons of mass destruction in general, which includes chemical and biological weapons.
Blix Not Worried About Found Weapons Jan 17, 8:54 AM (ET) By JOHN LEICESTER PARIS (AP) - Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said he was "not worried" that the inspectors' discovery of 12 warheads designed to carry chemical weapons in southern Iraq on Thursday could trigger a U.S. attack. The warheads, he said, were empty. "There are no chemical weapons inside them. However, clearly they were designed to carry chemical weapons. I think we should destroy them, that's the rules," Blix told a press conference with Chirac and ElBaradei. Blix said he still wasn't sure whether the warheads were mentioned in Iraq's 12,000 weapons declaration, submitted last month, in which Baghdad was required to account for all components of its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. An inspector spokesman in Baghdad said Thursday that the warheads were not declared, while Iraq insisted they had been reported. After finding the warheads, the United Nations initially said 11 were confirmed chemical weapons carriers and a 12th was suspect. Since then the inspectors have confirmed the 12th warhead was a potential chemical weapon component. Blix said he wanted more information from the Iraqis about the warheads. Asked if the find could prompt U.S. military reaction, Blix replied: "What I see from the American reaction is that they too would like to have a little further information about it, and so I'm not so worried." French President Jacques Chirac, whose country holds veto power at the United Nations, said Friday that he supports giving U.N. inspectors more time to determine whether Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. The head of the U.N. nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said it would be worth taking "a few more months" to search if that would prevent a war, adding that he would ask the U.N. Security Council to give inspectors time. Chirac gave his backing to ElBaradei and Blix, ahead of their Jan. 27 report to the United Nations on the results of the new round of intensified inspections, which began in November. The United States has expressed increasing impatience with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, threatening military action. U.S. officials still are unsure whether the warheads represent a a violation of U.N. resolutions. If they are, they could be used to help justify military action. The White House said Thursday it wants to hear more from inspectors about the find. The United States has begun a military build-up in the Persian Gulf, and U.S. officials say no new U.N. resolution is needed to launch military action against Iraq. Chirac on Friday reiterated his stance that the U.N. Security Council should approve any attack, based on weapons inspectors' findings. "The inspectors have asked for more time to go on working," Chirac said. "It is only wise to agree to this request and to give them more time to work to bring about a more detailed response." ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he and Blix would tell the Security Council "we need time to have the inspection take its natural course." War "is the worst case scenario," ElBaradei said. "If we can avoid that, even spending a few more months to complete our job, that is time well spent." ElBaradei's IAEA teams in Iraq are searching for hidden nuclear programs, while Blix leads the agency conducting inspections for biological, chemical and missile programs. Blix and ElBaradei are meeting with Iraqi officials in Baghdad on Sunday and Monday to press for greater cooperation, saying there are many questions left unanswered by Baghdad's weapons declaration. Chirac called on Iraq to step up its cooperation with U.N. inspectors before time runs out. Iraq must provide "indisputable evidence of active cooperation, that's to say doing everything possible," he said.
I'm with No Worries. C'mon, everyone knows that this war is going to happen. It is astonishing how our policy concerning Iraq has morphed over the years. Hell, it changes these days by the moment! When we went to war in 1990, it was supposedly because of Iraqi "aggression" with Kuwait. So Kuwait is liberated. Then we tell Iraq that they cannot possess weapons of mass destruction. What?! It is one thing to slap a country around for invading another country, but another to tell that country that it cannot develop its own weaponry. What happens if Iraq complies then is invaded by Iran? Will be liberate Iraq from Iran? Now Saddam must get out? Ho man, now that's a precedent. No wonder North Korea is freaking out. Only a matter of time before Castro is told to hit the bricks too. Whether or not a country possesses any kind of weapon is not the UN's business (or ours for that matter). If the UN decides that we should give up our nukes, would we?
Imagine, if only Bush would back cloning research, we could install a Bush clone to rule over every country on Earth. Of course, as cloning is still full of mishaps, one Bush would have an enormous head, one Bush would only have one arm, another Bush would have his eyes really close together... oh, I mean further apart. Anyway, you get the idea. It would be awesome.
Demanding that a country that invaded another disarm itself, not from conventional weapons mind you, but WMD? The injustice! The horror! Our policy has morphed, but Iraq's has not. For over 10 years it has sought to develop and hide WMD, against the treaty they signed and UN mandates...oh, but you don't care whether Iraq has WMD, that's right. Funny, the same people in the early '90's who argued 'at least give Iraq time to disarm', which it has failed to do, now claim 'the US policy has morphed...what happened? I'll answer that: 10 years of Iraqi recalcitrance. Saddam's recalcitrance became more of an issue after 9-11. It shows we are just as susceptible (if not more) to terrorism and that there are many willing to murder large numbers of civilians. We don't need a nut with a grudge against us to possess a nuke.
I wasn't one of those people. It isn't anyone's business as long as they aren't harming another country. After all, that is the reason that we went there in the first place. Treaties were made to be broken. Ask North Korea. Oh but we're not concerned about them, really. Nah, paranoia became more of an issue after 9-11. We were no more susceptible to terrorism than we were in the last 10 to 12 years when this Iraq mess started. It boils down to M-O-N-E-Y. Too late...China and Pakistan already have them. Gonna go over there and disarm them?
Originally posted by BlastOff It isn't anyone's business as long as they aren't harming another country. After all, that is the reason that we went there in the first place. Pardon? It isn't anyone's business, unless they harm someone, which they did, so we went there... Treaties were made to be broken. Ask North Korea. Oh but we're not concerned about them, really. Iraq = N Korea? Yeah, right. Differences dealt with in many other posts. Nah, paranoia became more of an issue after 9-11. We were no more susceptible to terrorism than we were in the last 10 to 12 years when this Iraq mess started. It boils down to M-O-N-E-Y. Like the paranoia that we'd be attacked by terrorists? That the World Trade Center towers would be destroyed and the Pentagon hit? Ooops! Which part do you consider paranoia? That: 1) Saddam will possess a nuke ? 2) Saddam will use the nuke to blackmail ? 3) Saddam will use the nuke on the US? 1 and 2 are highly likely. Would you bet your family against 3? Too late...China and Pakistan already have them. Gonna go over there and disarm them? So, does that mean that China is a 'nut' and Pakistan has a grudge against us?
I'd rather attack Iraq when there's proof to those "high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium" or the "special magnet that would be suitable for a gas centrifuge system" that the Administration and Tony Blair touted some of the proof that Iraq was going nuclear. The same proof that his cabinet went on air to discuss in talk shows time right before Congress and eventually the UN Security Council voted action against Iraq. Saddam has already employed chem and bio weapons before, but the prevalent fear was if he possessed a nukes that he could "sell to Al Qaeda" or nuke some civilian towns. Chem and bio weapons are nasty, but not guaranteed tactical kills that a nuclear device would bring. Any country with any form of WMD is serious, but I thought that Iraq was approached in the light that the fears of it going nuclear would make them some feared Middle Easter power. The damage Iraq caused before with it's WMD of chem and bio weapons would pale in comparison if he had nukes. That is what Blair and Bush sold the UN. To go the "easy way" would prove to be a disgenuine effort that a growing public majority already suspects.
easy way?? there is no easy way. but the burden is on saddam to show where ALL of his WMD components went...and to prove he doesn't have them. he's failing.
It hasn't been proved that he has WMD either. For arguments sake, he could've shipped the chemicals out or worse for us, the bio and chem weapons have expired like bad milk because of the sanctions and penalties. My point is that world opinion should strike him down instead of a rushed drive for America to plunge into a war that a sizable portion of the American people would not want without UN approval. Bush's people have said that this is not the "smoking gun". I'm going to hold off this topic until then.
