Weapon evidence not needed says Hoon

[cinch]

So Israel doesn't have any nukes, then?

It's slightly different when you have American nuclear scientists at your disposal. Iraq would basically be going into the endeavour solo, which would make creating a successful nuclear weapon much more challenging.

I still say that if the Iraqis had WMDs, we'd have seen them at one point. Not by inspectors, but by satellite. JFK used satellite imagery to convincingly show missiles in Cuba 40 years ago, why can't this administration (or the last) do the same now? Or a few years ago?

Any imagery they've shown us lately has been weak, at best.

Blah.

[Spiffor]

I wonder why US/UK authorities still lie as blatantly on Iraqi WMD. We all know WMD have nothing to do in this war. Why don't they just admit it is clearly realpolitik which will cause the bloodbath ?

[Edan]

Iraq would basically be going into the endeavour solo, which would make creating a successful nuclear weapon much more challenging.

How hard is it to build a nuclear weapon, once you have the radioactive material? Not very.

I still say that if the Iraqis had WMDs, we'd have seen them at one point. Not by inspectors, but by satellite. JFK used satellite imagery to convincingly show missiles in Cuba 40 years ago,

You misspelled reconnocense flights. Those images weren't taken by satellites.

why can't this administration (or the last) do the same now? Or a few years ago?

Satellites aren't very good at taking pictures underground or of people concentrating on hiding the weapons from prying eyes. Besides, what makes you think that *we* would/should have access to the intelligence reports, anyway?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
We all know WMD have nothing to do in this war.

We do?

[Tripledoc]

The lamest casus belli in the history of mankind?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Edan
We do?

Erm, at least those of us who aren't only exposed to CNN or FoxNews
I'll change my mind when the US/UK will be kind enough to give their super duper proofs to the UN (after all, it will save much time, since the UN is clearly looking for what the US and UK know for suuuuuch a long time)

[cinch]

You misspelled reconnocense flights. Those images weren't taken by satellites.

I take full responsibility for being an idiot here.

How hard is it to build a nuclear weapon, once you have the radioactive material? Not very.

Oh yeah, you just slap some uranium on a slab of metal and you're set! Having the technology to build a nuke (which I believe they don't) is one thing, but building one that'll work properly in action is another.

Besides, what makes you think that *we* would/should have access to the intelligence reports, anyway?

Because the people should be the ones who decide whether a government goes to war or not?

HYPOTHETICALLY speaking: even if the Iraqis had WMDs, what gives us the right to attack them? Because they may, MAY, decide to attack us in the future (even though they would gain nothing and lose everything from doing so)? The Bush policy of pre-emptive strike would legitimize Pearl Harbor. Which is ridiculous.

[Edan]

Oh yeah, you just slap some uranium on a slab of metal and you're set! Having the technology to build a nuke (which I believe they don't) is one thing, but building one that'll work properly in action is another.

No, it's not as easy as slapping a bunch of stuff together, but neither is it as hard as you make it out to be.

Because the people should be the ones who decide whether a government goes to war or not?

So you think civilians should have access to classified documents? I wonder why I get the feeling that this is a bad idea.

HYPOTHETICALLY speaking: even if the Iraqis had WMDs, what gives us the right to attack them?

The ceasefire treaty they signed. If they fail to follow there side of the conditions, that gives adequate reason for a resumption of hostilities. Thats why they are called "ceasefire" treaties.

[Az]

Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam! Saddam!

*cheers*

[cinch]

So you think civilians should have access to classified documents? I wonder why I get the feeling that this is a bad idea.

The PROOF of why we're going to war shouldn't be classified.

The ceasefire treaty they signed. If they fail to follow there side of the conditions, that gives adequate reason for a resumption of hostilities. Thats why they are called "ceasefire" treaties.

I disagree, but I'll cede the argument to you. After all that was only a 'hypothetical' situation, was it not?

[Edan]

The PROOF of why we're going to war shouldn't be classified.

Classified from whom? If either the inspection team or the UN security council decide that Iraq has violated the conditions, that would be proof enough for me - would that not be enough for you?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Edan
You misspelled reconnocense flights.

You mean reconnaissance.

[Az]

I've noticed that too, but thought that to be some kind of private joke.

[cinch]

Classified from whom?

The citizenry! If the gubment has info proving that Iraq has WMDs, why not show it to the populace, and have them all convinced? Why keep that info classified? What good would that do?

If either the inspection team or the UN security council decide that Iraq has violated the conditions, that would be proof enough for me - would that not be enough for you?

I doubt that would happen, but if the inspectors or whomever come across something really meaningful, that would certainly affect my opinion. The UN would have to make their case just as much as I'm saying the Americans should have to.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
You mean reconnaissance.

I didn't say I didn't misspell it too.