Bergman
New member
"Is it reasonably possible that he has or will develop such means?"
Not only reasonably possible, absolutely certain. As has almost every other country, political group, or even moderately educated schoolboy with a big chemistry set.
It was fairly clear from the Inspectors report that Saddam had no neuclear capability at present but did have some residual chemical and biological weaponry available.
This was left over from before the Gulf War Mk1. The case presented by Blix was that Iraq was unable to account for the weaponry that it had after the Gulf War but now claims not to have.
It is evident then that Iraq has had capability to carry out chemical attacks on Isreal and (through proxies) on US and UK for something over 12 years. He has not, to my knowledge done that. Even during the Gulf War he did not use these weapons against US, UK or other allied forces. One must ask why.
I would suggest his reason for such restraint was not any particular moral reluctance on his part, he used them liberally on Kurds and Iranians. More likely it was the certain knowledge that if he did use them then something far worse would happen to Iraq.
The theory of deterrence.
It worked against USSR and Iraq in 1991, why not against Iraq now?
Certainly can't deter suicide bombers, but Saddam is not suicidal.
The whole point of Bush's position is that he intends to invade Iraq whether or not there is a UN mandate to do so. That must put UN in impossible position. Any mandate would be seen by much of the world as bowing to US strength, refusal of mandate would show UN as impotent to prevent any invasion, thus giving green light to any other country who felt ambitious.
How important is it that Saddam is seen to "lose face"? Exactly whose life is that worth?
If there is a solution that gets rid of him without him "losing face" them for Gods sake lets go for it.
The UN Inspectors did not produce any evidence of links to Al Qaeda and as someone else pointed out a secular Muslim state would be an anathema to UBL and his fundamentalist groups.
What exactly is mean by "links to" Al Qaeda. A number of people arrested in UK said to have such links, is it then fair to say UK has links to Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda is a loose grouping of people with similar ideals, it is not an organisation as we would understand it. It does not recognise states or feel alliegance to states as we do. It is driven by a deeply felt belief in Islam or at least their version of Islam and little else. Difficult for a Westerner to understand, completely different view of world and different set of priorities.
Only other point to make is about intelligence services. I would hesitate to put too much faith in their capabilities. They failed totally to warn of 9/11, in fact they have failed to warn of most terrorist attacks, and many conventional ones, the Falkland Invasion being perhaps the most obvious. Its worth remembering that for 50 years the Intelligence Services (SIS and CIA) were almost solely devoted to the Soviet Union and their Satellites. Their Structure, training and whole ethos was based on this threat. They are not well placed to deal with something like Al Qaeda that does not fit this mould. Al Qaeda do not have large pieces of hardware vulnerable to technical surveillance, they are small and widely distributed so virtualy impossible to infiltrate, they are not geographically driven, owe allegance to no state, and do not have geographical ambitions.
Worst of all, what they do have is an idea, a belief, and breaking that belief cannot be done by napalm bombs and artillery. If UBL and every last one of his fanatics were killed tommorow it is inevitable that others would replace him and the belief would continue.
In the end Communism was not destroyed by going to war with USSR, or by killing Communists, it was brought down by destroying itself with its own irrational behaviour. All we had to do was stand firm and refuse to give in to it - and refuse to over react either.
Not only reasonably possible, absolutely certain. As has almost every other country, political group, or even moderately educated schoolboy with a big chemistry set.
It was fairly clear from the Inspectors report that Saddam had no neuclear capability at present but did have some residual chemical and biological weaponry available.
This was left over from before the Gulf War Mk1. The case presented by Blix was that Iraq was unable to account for the weaponry that it had after the Gulf War but now claims not to have.
It is evident then that Iraq has had capability to carry out chemical attacks on Isreal and (through proxies) on US and UK for something over 12 years. He has not, to my knowledge done that. Even during the Gulf War he did not use these weapons against US, UK or other allied forces. One must ask why.
I would suggest his reason for such restraint was not any particular moral reluctance on his part, he used them liberally on Kurds and Iranians. More likely it was the certain knowledge that if he did use them then something far worse would happen to Iraq.
The theory of deterrence.
It worked against USSR and Iraq in 1991, why not against Iraq now?
Certainly can't deter suicide bombers, but Saddam is not suicidal.
The whole point of Bush's position is that he intends to invade Iraq whether or not there is a UN mandate to do so. That must put UN in impossible position. Any mandate would be seen by much of the world as bowing to US strength, refusal of mandate would show UN as impotent to prevent any invasion, thus giving green light to any other country who felt ambitious.
How important is it that Saddam is seen to "lose face"? Exactly whose life is that worth?
If there is a solution that gets rid of him without him "losing face" them for Gods sake lets go for it.
The UN Inspectors did not produce any evidence of links to Al Qaeda and as someone else pointed out a secular Muslim state would be an anathema to UBL and his fundamentalist groups.
What exactly is mean by "links to" Al Qaeda. A number of people arrested in UK said to have such links, is it then fair to say UK has links to Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda is a loose grouping of people with similar ideals, it is not an organisation as we would understand it. It does not recognise states or feel alliegance to states as we do. It is driven by a deeply felt belief in Islam or at least their version of Islam and little else. Difficult for a Westerner to understand, completely different view of world and different set of priorities.
Only other point to make is about intelligence services. I would hesitate to put too much faith in their capabilities. They failed totally to warn of 9/11, in fact they have failed to warn of most terrorist attacks, and many conventional ones, the Falkland Invasion being perhaps the most obvious. Its worth remembering that for 50 years the Intelligence Services (SIS and CIA) were almost solely devoted to the Soviet Union and their Satellites. Their Structure, training and whole ethos was based on this threat. They are not well placed to deal with something like Al Qaeda that does not fit this mould. Al Qaeda do not have large pieces of hardware vulnerable to technical surveillance, they are small and widely distributed so virtualy impossible to infiltrate, they are not geographically driven, owe allegance to no state, and do not have geographical ambitions.
Worst of all, what they do have is an idea, a belief, and breaking that belief cannot be done by napalm bombs and artillery. If UBL and every last one of his fanatics were killed tommorow it is inevitable that others would replace him and the belief would continue.
In the end Communism was not destroyed by going to war with USSR, or by killing Communists, it was brought down by destroying itself with its own irrational behaviour. All we had to do was stand firm and refuse to give in to it - and refuse to over react either.
