The Case For War Is Blown Apart

Independent UK ^ | 05-29-03

[SunStar]

How long will it take to locate the weapons? Two months? Six months? A year? And, why is the burden on the U.S. and the UK and not Saddam Hussein and neigboring Arab countries?

[onedoug]

We should now be moving on Syria, Iran and North Korea.

[Alberta's Child]

And, why is the burden on the U.S. and the UK and not Saddam Hussein and neigboring Arab countries?

The U.S. and the U.K. claimed that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and the neighboring Arab countries claimed that they did not. Hence, the burden of proof is on the U.S. and the U.K.

Making an accusation and then telling the target of that accusation to refute it (instead of providing supporting evidence yourself) is the epitome of "grasping for straws."

[Poohbah]

The U.S. and the U.K. claimed that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Based on incomplete intelligence and Iraqi intransigence towards inspections that they agreed to as the price of a ceasefire in 1991.

It was incumbent on Iraq to demonstrate that they had disarmed. They did not do so.

[dirtboy]

Hence, the burden of proof is on the U.S. and the U.K.

No, it was not, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and subsequent UN agreements. It was the responsibility of Iraq to come absolutely clean about its WMD programs.

Try again.

[hchutch]

Well, what were those mobile labs we recently found? I don't think they were for making baby milk.

[NeoCaveman]

It was incumbent on Iraq to demonstrate that they had disarmed. They did not do so.

Exactly the burden of proof was on Saddam. He did not live up to the cease-fire agreements of 1991 hence hostilities resumed.

[Alberta's Child]

What do the "neighboring Arab countries" have to do with the 1991 U.N. cease-fire resolution?

I remember a time when anyone who thumbed his nose at the United Nations was seen as a champion of some of the principles that conservatives hold dear.

[Stone Mountain]

And, why is the burden on the U.S. and the UK and not Saddam Hussein and neigboring Arab countries?

Because the US and UK claimed there were WMD there and used that as a justification to attack Iraq? We made the claim; we should be able to substantiate it.

[Alberta's Child]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."

[Stone Mountain]

Well, what were those mobile labs we recently found? I don't think they were for making baby milk.

Probably not, but all those labs show (at most) is that Iraq had at some point a biological weapons program. But we knew that already since we had supplied them with a bunch of biological weapons when they were fighting Iran.

[Alberta's Child]

Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

[dirtboy]

What do the "neighboring Arab countries" have to do with the 1991 U.N. cease-fire resolution?

What does "neighboring Arab countries" have anything to do with what I posted?

I remember a time when anyone who thumbed his nose at the United Nations was seen as a champion of some of the principles that conservatives hold dear.

I figure that smart folks use the globalist idiots' methods and words against them. Kinda like aikido.

The point is, Saddam had shown time and time again that he was a threat to regional peace and showed a long-term tendency to support terrorism. Prior to 9/11, we didn't care much. Afterwards, it became important. Saddam gave us the lever by not adhering to U.N. requirements. We used it. End of story.

[Stone Mountain]

It was the responsibility of Iraq to come absolutely clean about its WMD programs.

Well, Iraq said that they had destroyed all their WMD. IF they hadn't, then we should be able to show that.

[Dead Dog]

Maybe in the arena of public debate.

The bottom line is that Iraq was under a cease fire agreement, they were in breach of that agreement, and so the cease fire was lifted. WMD are just one of many reasons they were attacked.

[dirtboy]

Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

Trained, well-equipped military personnel have a very high chance of surviving a chemical or bio attack. Those weapons are most effective nowadays against civilian populations, such as the Tokyo sarin attacks or the gassing of the Kurds. In other words, they're nasty terror weapons, hence the need to ensure that Saddam no longer had them, since Saddam was not willing to prove that himself.

[DannyTN]

He was openly funding and bragging about funding terrorists.

WMD was one of several claims made against Iraq by the US at the UN.

That the WMD programs were or were not to the readiness stage to launch attacks is not the only justification for taking Saddam out. It's just the only thing that the liberal left can find to attack.

[dirtboy]

Well, Iraq said that they had destroyed all their WMD. IF they hadn't, then we should be able to show that.

Three points - Iraq had a stealth atomic weapons program in place for years that was never detected by inspectors. Second, Saddam was always playing games with the inspection process, even when he was told this was his last chance. And third, he could have easily, prior to the invasion, destroyed or buried his weapons where we can't find them. It really doesn't matter, as he was in noncompliance with the terms of the cease fire and subsequent resolutions for years, and that was a justification to remove him.

[hchutch]

Anyone who thinks that those mobile labs were perfectly legitimate items ("baby milk factories") or that Saddam Hussein should have been left alone is TERMINALLY naive, if you want my opinion.

Those labs were NOT innocent. Their mobility alone suggests their nature was something closer to nefarious. These mobile labs were MENTIONED by the Secretary of State. Obviously, they may have been cleaned up, but gee, if it is a legit research facility, why have the thing be a mobile facility that could be shifted around? It suggests that whetever was going on in the labs was NOT something that Saddam wanted the world to find out about.