- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'd love to see the citations for this as it runs contrary to the report from the ISG which judged it likely that these had been destroyed.Zyphlin said:... that many of the weapons Saddam possessed during the first gulf war was likely still located within the country.
Simon W. Moon said:What if instead of having a gun, bullets etc if the man had a machine shop and material that could be used to make a gun, bullets etc instead of one that had already been manufactured? That seems to be a more accurate analogy.
Simon W. Moon said:While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.
Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.
ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
What was being addressed was this " ... that many of the weapons Saddam possessed during the first gulf war was likely still located within the country."oldreliable67 said:What if we put a different emphasis on these findings? With this emphasis, do these findings not become more consistent with the "we know we had'em, but we don't know what he did with'em" school of thought?
Simon W. Moon said:The parts that you quoted don't deal with the likelihood "that many of the weapons Saddam possessed during the first gulf war" were still in country.
What if instead of having a gun, bullets etc if the man had a machine shop and material that could be used to make a gun, bullets etc instead of one that had already been manufactured? That seems to be a more accurate analogy.
[General disclaimer about the nearly universal uselessness of argument by analogy as by it's nature it only ever convinces those predisposed.]oldreliable67 said:How do you think th reevised emphasis squares with that hypothesis?
Given that owning of a device capable of doing lethal harm is illegal 1...
There's evidence that he has continuing interest in guns,4and he has a machine shop which is a significant dual-use capability readily useful for a gun if he chose to use it to pursue gunsmithing, his most important gunsmithing asset, the scientific know-how of his previous experience, 5 and some gunsmithing-related patterns, 7 and not enough evidence to document the destruction of all of his guns 6 instead of a gun that had already been manufactured?
Is the man guilty of having a "device capable of doing lethal harm" because he had all the pieces to do so and merely had to put them together to have the final product? 2
Is the man innocent because though he had the seperate parts and the means to combine them, they were not combined and therefore they were not a "device capable of doing lethal harm" 3
[General disclaimer about the nearly universal uselessness of argument by analogy as by it's nature it only ever convinces those predisposed.]
That the Iraq situation is like a guy's house and the govt is like the US led coalition and that the WMd situ is like what was described, etc.oldreliable67 said:Sorry to be so obtuse, but what analogy?
For you? I would not mind at all. But the horses are yelling at me right now. so it'll have to wait.oldreliable67 said:Would you mind being a bit more explicit ... ?
Israel has had nuclear weapons for many decades... well before the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was promulgated. The IAEA has determined that Iran is in violation of the NPT of which Iran is a signatory nation.robin said:By the same logic should Israel now be attacked because she has nuclear weapons ?
I'm not advocating that BTW. Just testing the logic
Sounds a little beaurocratic to me. I think we should entrust the Iranians with the privalidge of having them for a probationary period of twenty years or so, as was the case with Israel, to see if they can be trusted with them.... but then again.. maybe not. Best keep em out of the club LOLTashah said:Israel has had nuclear weapons for many decades... well before the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was promulgated. The IAEA has determined that Iran is in violation of the NPT of which Iran is a signatory nation.
Personally, I would prefer that the IAEA/EU solve all differences with Iran diplomatically. Nevertheless, I highly doubt the Iranians will willingly abandon their nuclear-weapons objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?