06-06-2004, 08:25 PM
"The threat from Saddam was in his WMD capabilities and programs, the ability with precursors to manufacturer, and use or distribute."
That's a slippery slope indeed, since just about any semi-modern nation with a chemistry set and an agricultural sector has those capabilities. However, what's almost hilarious is that we haven't even found any evidence of *that*. No facilities were "mysterious", no facilites had any trace of NBC production, no facilities appeared to be recently "scrubbed". No trucks were found with the much-feared mobile labs, no trucks were found with stockpiled weapons, no trucks were found with the kind of cleaning equipment needed to perform these emergency cleanup operations. No ready-to-assemble stockpiles of precursor materials were found, no yellowcake stored up in a warehouse somewhere, nothing. They weren't found during inspections, and they haven't been found after the war. It now seems likely that they will never be found. Even David Kay, the cowboy-inspector drivin' across the desert in those spiffy UN SUVs who insisted that they must have them has since concluded that the intelligence was just plain wrong.
What does that make the notion that they must have posessed these capabilities? Pure conjecture. The "Saddam had WMD" hypothesis is quickly coming to resemble the "god of the gaps" argument: there are an infinite number of ways to explain why we haven't found anything, or why we'll never find anything, so, no matter how insignificant the chances get, people can always maintain that he had weapons. There is no way to disprove this hypothesis, only to point out that it is becoming increasingly unlikely. If you care to keep maintaining it, there is no possible disproof, but it is becoming increasingly worthless as a casus belli.
"You mean the US congress?"
I mean the UN Security Council. The US congress determines only if a war is legal within the US, not whether it is legal in the world.
Jester
That's a slippery slope indeed, since just about any semi-modern nation with a chemistry set and an agricultural sector has those capabilities. However, what's almost hilarious is that we haven't even found any evidence of *that*. No facilities were "mysterious", no facilites had any trace of NBC production, no facilities appeared to be recently "scrubbed". No trucks were found with the much-feared mobile labs, no trucks were found with stockpiled weapons, no trucks were found with the kind of cleaning equipment needed to perform these emergency cleanup operations. No ready-to-assemble stockpiles of precursor materials were found, no yellowcake stored up in a warehouse somewhere, nothing. They weren't found during inspections, and they haven't been found after the war. It now seems likely that they will never be found. Even David Kay, the cowboy-inspector drivin' across the desert in those spiffy UN SUVs who insisted that they must have them has since concluded that the intelligence was just plain wrong.
What does that make the notion that they must have posessed these capabilities? Pure conjecture. The "Saddam had WMD" hypothesis is quickly coming to resemble the "god of the gaps" argument: there are an infinite number of ways to explain why we haven't found anything, or why we'll never find anything, so, no matter how insignificant the chances get, people can always maintain that he had weapons. There is no way to disprove this hypothesis, only to point out that it is becoming increasingly unlikely. If you care to keep maintaining it, there is no possible disproof, but it is becoming increasingly worthless as a casus belli.
"You mean the US congress?"
I mean the UN Security Council. The US congress determines only if a war is legal within the US, not whether it is legal in the world.
Jester