Weapon evidence not needed says Hoon

[zulu9812]

(as in Geoff Hoon, British Defence Secretary)

quote from AOL:

UN WEAPONS inspectors do not need to find a "smoking gun" proving Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction in order to trigger war, says the Defence Secretary.

Geoff Hoon says it could be enough for the inspection teams led simply to obtain "persuasive evidence" that Saddam Hussein still has nuclear, biological or chemicals weapons to warrant military strikes by Britain and the US.

Mr Hoon's comments will further alarm Labour backbenchers already unhappy at the momentum building behind military action.

"Clearly we believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph.

"We would expect Hans Blix and his team to discover indications of them - a shell or a missile or something clearly prohibited, or documentary evidence," he said.

"They may interview someone who has been working on these programmes who may explain what has been going on.

"It's not literally a smoking gun. It is persuasive evidence that confirms what we believe to be the case - that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

The paper said Mr Hoon made clear that he would be mobilising elements of the 7th Armoured Brigade this week for operations in the Gulf.

It is expected that an announcement will be made - possibly as early as Monday - that up to 14,000 troops, with around 150 Challenger 2 battle tanks, are being placed on standby ready to move.

He acknowledged the "anxieties" in the country, and said that Britain would try to gain a fresh resolution of the United Nations Security Council before military strikes were launched.

Hah! Knew it! We'll go to war regardless of any evidence of WoMDs!

[Az]

wow, you've caught them red-handed.

[Dauphin]

If they attack, and after the invasion no weapons are found, then I hope the whole world kicks up a big stink over the US and UK actions. If however weapons are found, we give them a pat on the back and say "Sorry we didn't trust you".

Neither of these things will happen, but they should.

[Az]

Big Crunch the uncurable romantic.

[Sandman]

If there's no evidence, then that just proves he's hiding something!

[Proteus_MST]

And thats also the difference to North Korea.

With North Korea we already know that it (very propably) has already some Nuclear Warheads and that it can produce up to 6 new Bombs every half year, if the Nuclear Plant is reopened.

So there is no reason to invade North Korea to check if it has Weapons of Mass Destruction, because we already know it has them.

As for Saddam we don´t know if he has WoMDs, he says no, but we can´t trust him, so it is inevitable that we have to invade the country to allow the UN-Inspectors to check evrery inch of the country without Saddam having a chance to hide anything from view.

So we don´t get away without war. If he say he doesn´t have WoMDs, we would have to invade his country to prove the contrary and if he says he has em, we also have to invade the country to punish him

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
If they attack, and after the invasion no weapons are found, then I hope the whole world kicks up a big stink over the US and UK actions. If however weapons are found, we give them a pat on the back and say "Sorry we didn't trust you".

Neither of these things will happen, but they should.

Um, if they invade and weapons are found, its likely because the US planted them there ot say "I told you so".

[mrmitchell]

Tass, I don't know if the Evil Powers of the US range that far, but it's not to be ruled out.

Then again, supposing that there are no weapons found, we can just say we got rid of them ourselves, not wanting such a menace on the world.

[Xian]

So what if SAddam has wepaons?

Keep in mind that the Us has the biggest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and in fact ahs sold them and used them to/in Turkey and Isreal to name just 2 out of many.

What right do they have to stab a former us client in the back? Furhtermore, if we have the right to wage war on them, then dont Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Palestinians, East Timorians etc. all have the right to wage war on us?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

If Saddam has them, he will use them. On US troops.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
If Saddam has them, he will use them. On US troops.

Well, just keep the US troops at home then...

[Kontiki]

UN WEAPONS inspectors do not need to find a "smoking gun" proving Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction in order to trigger war, says the Defence Secretary.

Geoff Hoon says it could be enough for the inspection teams led simply to obtain "persuasive evidence" that Saddam Hussein still has nuclear, biological or chemicals weapons to warrant military strikes by Britain and the US.

Mr Hoon's comments will further alarm Labour backbenchers already unhappy at the momentum building behind military action.

"Clearly we believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph.

"We would expect Hans Blix and his team to discover indications of them - a shell or a missile or something clearly prohibited, or documentary evidence," he said.

What's the difference? How much more of a smoking gun can you find? It's not like the inspectors are going to stumble across a massive ongoing chemical weapons attack or a nuclear test detonation.

[cinch]

Here's what I don't get:

How is it possible for Saddam to have nukes? Chemical weapons, sure, but nuclear weapons, that's a stretch...

I mean, we'd have noticed and have evidence of a test if he ever tried out one of his warheads. That has never happened. You can't use a nuke without testing one first. And that's assuming that he even has the capability to attempt to construct a nuclear weapon.

There is no way Saddam has a missile that is capable of hitting the U.S. Could chemicals or a nuke be brought over covertly, in a terrorist-y way? Yes, but that's irrelevant, as the point here is whether or not the nation of Iraq is posing a threat to America. Which it isn't.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Xian
Keep in mind that the Us has the biggest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and in fact ahs sold them and used them to/in Turkey and Isreal to name just 2 out of many.

When did Turkey or Israel use WoMD?

[Edan]

Originally posted by cinch
Here's what I don't get:

How is it possible for Saddam to have nukes?

Well, he was within 6 months of having one before the Gulf War.

You can't use a nuke without testing one first.

So Israel doesn't have any nukes, then?

Most likely, Saddam will get 3 nuclear weapons before he ttests them. One to use defensively as a last resort. One to use if he needs/wants to (ie offensively or defensively) and one to test to tell the world "Watch out, we're some badass MFs"