clulup
Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 191 |
quote: Originally posted by BobbyMike
Just a question.
What evidence would you deem satisfactory?
I'm assuming that you either don't know about the mobile biological weapons labs that they've found, or that you don't believe that those (UN proscribed) labs are evidence of an ongoing biolocal weapons program.
Do any of you realize that we're not talking about nuclear warheads here? The US/UK said that Iraq had a program to develop such weapons, but that they didn't think they had reached that level yet.
Contrary to what has been said here:
" First, it is not that easy to destroy WMD, second it would leave traces. And regarding smuggling: Who would be interested in WMD, after they had proven to be useless - they certainly did not help Saddam in any way for the past decade, did they? "
etc., It would be very easy to smuggle (or destroy) such weapons out of Iraq. They managed to drive several tractor trailers of cash out of Bagdhad, why couldn't they manage to do they same for biological weapons, esp. given the very porous Syrian border?
As to the second part of the question - don't you think that the same kind of people that would fly a planeload of civilians into a building would have a use for biological weapons? Ask the Japanese how it feels to be attacked by terrorists armed with biological weapons.
As to this interesting charge:
"Saddam and his cronies may have been able to smuggle most if not all of the WMD to other countries. This option is possible b/c the woeful inability of US/coalition forces to scure Iraqi borders during and immediately after the war. Many critics state that while the US only needed ttwo divisons to defeat Bagdad, the number of troops to stabilize the country is woefully inadequate. Thus many argue this lack of manpower could also have contributed to the possibilty of WMD being smuggled across the borders to neighboring countries. However, many opponents of the war fear that American "neo-cons" will use this justification to widen the conflict or start another campaign in someplace like Iran."
The US/UK doesn't have enough manpower in all it's military forces to completely lock down an area the size of the state of California. If you compare this situation to the old Eastern Bloc you could put a wall completely around Iraq, and people would still find a way through. Many ( ) think that Saddam had these agents removed/hidden from the country before the war. If there are any left in the country they will be found, if they were removed to another country it will take longer, but they still will be found.
I find it very interesting that so many people were more than willing to give the UN process more than 12+ years to resolve this issue (which they never managed to do), but they can't wait 1 year for the US/UK to resolve it.
A bit of a bias showing?
Regarding the Japanese: Indeed they were attacked by terrorists using biological weapons (anthrax and botulism), but it did not work. The only time when it worked was when the US anthrax was used against US citizens - Maybe the US should start destroying their own anthrax first before trying to do it in other places?). I guess what you mean was the Sarin attack in 1995, but that was chemical, not biological.
How would you destroy chemical or biological weapons? Make a camp fire and throw the bottles, gas tanks, germ powder etc. into the fire? Blow up the warehouse in which the WMD are stored? And all that would not leave traces (like people being poisoned, getting ill), no volunteer trying to get rich by telling the US troops where it happened? In theory you could be right, however....
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that no one claimed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, but that does not change anything. Regarding the labs that were found: You are jumping to conclusions. That the things found ever had anything to do with biological weapons is just another unsubstantiated claim. You seem very eager to believe what the administration is insinuating. It's just like the Saddam-Al Qaida link: it is very far from proven, most likely false, and yet the majority of the people in the US believe it. VERY eager to believe what the authorities tell them....
Fact is the Bush administration claimed to be certain Saddam has/had WMD, used this a the main reason for the war, and (so far) utterly failed to substantiate that claim.
|