No evidence of an anthrax-Iraq link. No evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq link. And now no evidence of anything dangerous in those empty warheads in Iraq.
[Hans Blix] warned against over-dramatising the discovery last Thursday of 12 warheads, saying none had produced ‘any evidence’ of containing traces of lethal chemicals. ‘We haven’t found a gun but a little bit of smoke… we must not forget that these were empty things and in all likelihood they never had anything in them.’ Source: ‘I will not be pushed into war by US’ - Blix](The Observer), Helena Smith The Observer, 19 January 2003
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
No evidence of an anthrax-Iraq link. No evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq link. And now no evidence of anything dangerous in those empty warheads in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia:
I'm curious if that is your bottom line. Before, I believe you defended Iraq based upon the fact that the inspectors had found no hidden and unreported weapons. Now that undisclosed weapons designed to carry chemical agents have indeed been found, you seem to be saying that it is nothing because the weapons were not armed YET with the chemical agents.
When the inspectors find undisclosed weapons that actually are armed with the chemical agents, will you take the position that everything is still OK because they were not located near a launch facility? Will it still be OK when they are launched, in the air and headed for Tel Aviv?
UTD: Nadia will only believe that Iraq is in the wrong if and only if Saddam himself asks her to fire the Scud into tel-aviv. Until then..you can keep your silly little logic (which makes sense to everyone else) to yourself you Kuf'r b@stard. :)
Sorry for the delay, MyVoice. To clarify - my bottom line is that, if Iraq is going to be mandated to permit inspections on its soil, as per UN Security Council Resolution 687, then this particular Resolution should be implemented in its entirety. As per paragraph XIV of this Resolution, steps should be taken to ensure regional (i.e., Middle Eastern) disarmament; obligation is hence not just upon one sole country but rather upon the entire region. Let's start with terminating exports of military arms to these countries AND ensure that all countries are being disarmed.
Well Nadia, you don't disarm a whole region all at once. You've got to start somewhere. Iraq is a good place to start. You support starting with Iraq and when we are done, I'll support disarming someone else.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Why is it so difficult to disarm a region? With one stroke you could get rid of the accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.
[/QUOTE]
Gee Nadia, Iraq is a pretty good example of how difficult it is to disarm even a single country don't you think. A united and unanimous Security Council has spent more than a decade in the effort and only has a bunch of dead Iraqis to show for the effort.
Perhaps you have a plan that you could share complete with personnel and financial resource allocations that would successfully disarm the entire region all at once.
>>personnel and financial resource allocations that would successfully disarm the entire region all at once.<<
Gee, maybe the billions upon billions that Bush is funnelling into the NMD programme (that has yet to prove that it can work), as well as the billions into 'homeland security' departments, might go towards a far more worthwhile issue - regional nuclear disarmament.
We will go around in circles pretty soon, MyVoice, as my next argument is going to be that Iraq has already disarmed to a considerable extent and that the Security Council has been shifting its goalposts for over a decade. But i think i have previously engaged in this debate a few gazillion times, with sadly nothing really to show from it.