Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally!

[Jac de Molay]

If Saddam were left completely to his own devices he would most certainly attempt to dominate the region much like he did in 1991.

And .....get crushed again? If he so much as farts against the wind, he would be dispatched immediately. People are over exaggerating his threat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And .....get crushed again? If he so much as farts against the wind, he would be dispatched immediately. People are over exaggerating his threat.

The problem is that if he built nuclear weaponry, that people would much LESS likely to dispatch him. Look at North Korea. Baby steps are being taken there (and they feel they can take more chances) because of the fear that they ALREADY have a nuke.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


And .....get crushed again? If he so much as farts against the wind, he would be dispatched immediately. People are over exaggerating his threat.

That's why I was sure to include 'without U.S. involvement'. In reality we would of course stop him; I was just trying to instill a little gratitude in the people who think we should stop 'meddling' in Middle Eastern affairs.

[Caligastia]

It's Saddam who is supposed to present evidence anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think it's silly, anyone who needs more proof is a Neville Chamberlain kind of guy.

And you are Joseph McCarthy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lemmy

To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts

Somehow people who followed the government had acces to hard evidence?
As long as there is no evidence released, those people are following their government without any hard evidence.

I assumed there probably was hard evidence, based on my views about the Saddam's beavior.

If you see no hard evidence of saddams WMD there are two possibilities - 1. Saddam has no WMD 2. He does, but hard evidence has not yet surfaced.


If you beleive that Saddam is a rational survivor, who would give up WMD to survive, and you see no hard evidence, you will estimate that 1 is probably true.

If you believe that Saddam is a narcissistic megalomaniac with aspirations to be a modern Salah al din, and you see no hard evidence, you believe that more likely the evidence has not surfaced.

I beleive in statistics this is called a "Bayesian prior"

We could play the above out for different Bayesian priors about GWB, US intel, etc. The theory and results would be similar.

[Jac de Molay]

The problem is that if he built nuclear weaponry, that people would much LESS likely to dispatch him. Look at North Korea.

The only time he's used WMD's was against targets who couldn't respond in kind. Why would he suddenly do otherwise knowing full well that his regime and country would be instantly annihilated? Even bush's own intelligence apparatus indicated that Hussein wouldn't bring the house down around him.

[Darius871]

We cannot respond in kind if we're not 100% certain that Iraq attacked us, hence the argument that he could give WMD to terrorists; his hands would potentially be clean. But that's been said a million times and I'm sure it won't register this time either.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Darius871
It's rumored that much of the evidence are satellite photographs.

Would this be similar to the satellite photos of Mig 17's on the runway at Kabul airport quoted as part of the Taleban's defence capability that turned out not to have moved since the Russians left Afghanistan?

Then again, even Adolf Hitler felt he needed a pretext to invade Poland.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


The only time he's used WMD's was against targets who couldn't respond in kind. Why would he suddenly do otherwise knowing full well that his regime and country would be instantly annihilated? Even bush's own intelligence apparatus indicated that Hussein wouldn't bring the house down around him.

Number 1 - he can send em without a return address, via terrorist
Number 2 - he may be more interested in his historic legacy than in survival - if he used his wmds. and US responded with nukes, that would certainly start the war of civilizations, and be a fine legacy for him
Number 3 - he doesnt think the us would dare to follow through and risk a war of civilizations, so blackmail might work
Number 4 - he uses conventional weapons, and uses his WMD to deter us.
Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

[Jac de Molay]

Number 1 - he can send em without a return address, via terrorist

A man who has been in power for as long as hussein would have very little to gain and everything to lose by going this route. Now, with the entire Western Intelligence apparatus with eyes on him, he's even more likely to go this route??
And why single hussein out for this potential threat when there are many, many countries that are capable of the same thing.? A trumped-up, speculatory threat.

Number 2 - he may be more interested in his historic legacy than in survival - if he used his wmds. and US responded with nukes, that would certainly start the war of civilizations, and be a fine legacy for him

If If If If. You could apply this same rationale to about 4 or five other countries at the moment.

Number 3 - he doesnt think the us would dare to follow through and risk a war of civilizations, so blackmail might work

He also made a gross miscalculation when he thought the US wouldn't respond to his Kuwait invasion. Why would he suddenly think the US wouldn't play ball in the same manner against a greater threat? We stared down someone much bigger and badder in Cuba.

Number 4 - he uses conventional weapons, and uses his WMD to deter us.

see above.

Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

Speculation with no hard evidence in terms of his intelligence profile, or past behaviour, to back this up.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

Actually, Nazi Germany did have WMD's, their scientists discovered the Sarin/Soman/Tabun organo-phosphate nerve gases and produced over 1,000 tons of the stuff. Is Saddam more stupid, destructive or obsessed than Hitler?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

Hitler had the capabilities to produce Chemical Weapons AFAIK and his Minions butchered a lot of people with Zyklon B which can also be used on the battlefield.

What kept Hitler from using them on Allied Troops?
The same what propably will Saddam keep from using them, i.e. the fear of retaliation.

[Lemmy]

although I'll say again that most people for the war didn't trust that he had the information and just couldn't release it. Rather they wanted the administration to present the case entirely before standing for or against it,

How can they be for the war, if, as you said, they still want to see the evidence before standing?
Wouldn't they just don't have an opinion yet, like standing somewhere in the middle?
Now you're making it sound like everyone who waits for the evidence, and is being reasonable, actually is for the war.

[Tripledoc]

A better parallel to the 'Hitler in his bunker' would be if Saddam like Hitler gave the order that all infrastructure in the country should be destroyed lest it fall into enemy hands. Of course the Germans were did not to follow orders. Probably because the proper paperwork was not in place.
For instance it has been speculated by some analysts that Saddam would use some trick to not only set the oilfileds on fire, but also place some deep core explosives to render the oilfields useless for years. This would really hurt the world economy and worst of all it would embarass the United States in the eyes of the world - justified or not.