06-05-2004, 03:09 PM
Quote: Ahem... The "UN" is the United Nations,
The Security Council ? The General Assembly ? The Secretary General ? UNMOVIC ? Hans Blix ? Or someone else ?
I suppose you mean Hans Blix. He is not "the UN", he can not even speak on behalf of the UN. He can give his personal opinion, and that's about it.
Quote:and "WMD's" would be weapons of mass destruction,
And this means what exactly ? Biological, chemical and nuclear weapons ? Does the term "WMD" also include systems that can be used to launch these weapons ? And production facilities for these weapons ?
The terms "WMDs" and "illegal weapons" are not synonymous. Iraq was not only disallowed to possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (that is what is commonly called "WMD", I think), but all weapon systems that fit certain criteria (certain medium-range missiles, for example).
You assume that Hussein destroyed his illegal weapons, in absence of the UN inspectors, and that his only fault was that he did not document that well enough.
I think it is much more safe to assume that the documentation was not there because the weapons were never destroyed. I just don't think Hussein is *that* stupid. It must have been pretty clear to the Iraqis that destroying the weapons and not being able to prove it would lead to the same results as not destroying them at all.
That you cannot find the weapons today does not mean that they do not (or maybe did not) exist. Maybe they are just very well hidden. Or maybe they have been destroyed during the war.
I read parts of the UNMOVIC report in print, not on the net, so I don't have a link. I think it is probably accessible somewhere at the UN website, though.