March 08, 2003
Iraq Questions
I'm just going to write about one thing, because I've read a lot of articles and haven't seen this question asked, haven't seen someone discuss it, and it really pisses me off that I don't see anyone discussing this one, simple, overwhelmingly obvious question:How do we know if Iraq has disarmed or not?
Bush says, "It would be obvious." Or, he volunteers doublespeak: "We wouldn't because they'd be hiding them."
Asked a slightly different way: What's to keep Bush from saying that Iraq hasn't disarmed even if they have?
Or: If we're so convinced that they haven't, why aren't we offering proof?
It just comes across like, "We demand you to follow our standards, standards that we won't communicate to you so we have the option of telling you when you're not following them."
Not to defend Iraq or anything. But this approach doesn't exactly build credibility. All someone would have to do is ask the question to prove this whole thing is pretense. This has nothing to do with getting Iraq to voluntarily disarm. It insults everyone's intelligence, which is why Bush has no credibility. It's 100% impossible for Iraq to disarm voluntarily in Bush's eyes.
Posted by Curt at March 8, 2003 12:59 AM
During one of Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council he did have to offer proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were in violation of the UN agreement.
I don't think ANYONE doubts he has the weapons, not even France and Germany. I think the point everyone disagrees over is Iraq's level of cooperation. Technically, they have not complied fully with the UN demands, but because they are slowly cooperating...giving up SOME of their weapons of mass destruction they once denied having months ago countries are hesitant to wage war on them....except the USA of course. Right or wrong...I don't know.
I agree with Deborah. The missiles Iraq is destroying right now are a good example. They never reported having these missiles, the missiles are against the UN resolution, and only after the missiles were found were they destroyed. There's no credible reason to believe that they would have been reported and destroyed of Iraq's own accord. However, I agree with your point too, Curt. In George's press conference of Thursday night, he said that he'd know if Iraq was disarming because they'd be turning in a report that's thousands upon thousands of pages instead of hundereds. That begs the assumption that Iraq keeps as detailed reports as we do of their military activity. Maybe they're just not prodigious writers. Arabic is really, really hard to write by hand.
Posted by: damon at March 8, 2003 07:25 AMBut, they did declare the missiles in their report, at least that's what I heard. They didn't declare they went over the mileage limit, but the missiles were designed to not go over the mileage limit, they only happened to due to lighter payload.
And the proof hinged on two things: those aluminum tubes, and the conversations they were alleged to have about trying to buy nuclear weapons, both of which it turns out were falsified/forged.
Again, both things I heard, but they weren't from sources like indymedia... more like the Guardian. Anyway, maybe I missed something, but I haven't actually read anything that mentions proof they have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Those missiles aren't WMD anyway. They're less powerful than the scud missiles from '91.
Anyway, both comments miss my point - my point isn't whether Iraq has them or whether they are or aren't disarming. It's whether they have any legitimate reason to believe they'd be believed if they did fully disarm. They don't. They have no motivation to disarm; all it would mean is that they'd have less weapons when they are invaded.
Posted by: Curt at March 8, 2003 12:15 PMWe have to give them a chance, we've been bombing them for so many years that I doubt they could keep track of anything.
The key reaction for me was that when the missiles were being destroyed I thought Bush would be happy - but no, he said it was propaganda.
What has this got to do with removing Saddam anyway?
Posted by: John Keogh at March 8, 2003 02:11 PMCome on Deborah! What weapons? All Powell had to show was low-quality satellite images of who-knows-what. There is more evidence for leprachauns.
Posted by: John Keogh at March 8, 2003 02:18 PMHere's a thought: Assuming we go to war, the burden of proof of the existence of bio and chemical weapons is suddenly on our shoulders. What happens if we DON'T FIND ANY? As sad as I am about the state of affairs, as troubled as I am about our relationship to the rest of the world as a nation, when I imagine George in the Oval Office listening to reports of how 260,000 of the best trained military not being able to find anything, I admit it: I laugh a little. And then my heart goes back to being broken.
Posted by: damon at March 8, 2003 05:58 PMHere's where I may be a bit more conspiracy theorist than you. I am dead positive that even if we don't find any, we'll "find" some.
Thought of another way to put it. Damon, you contrasted from an implicit point that right now, the burden of proof is on Iraq that they don't have something.
This takes us back to logic class. Unless a negative can be expressed in terms of a positive, it's impossible to prove a negative. It's just impossible.
Like, you could prove to me that you're not a girl, because you're able to prove you're a guy. But, you can't ever, ever, ever prove to me that you've never seen a goat.
Posted by: Curt at March 8, 2003 06:48 PM