where are the WMD?

As it stands, they're in major danger of looking like war-mad tyrants if there turns out to be no WMD. Although it may be that Saddam sold them to terrorists or something at the beginning of the war.And there's the problem. The war was supposedly to prevent the profileration of chemical and biological weapons - enough with the "mass destruction", as Robin Cook said, no informed parties believe that Iraq has weapons capable of mass destruction of a city or substantial population.Perhaps there were none in the first place, in which case the US goverment are simply liars: but don't think this will be glossed over - there are long long memories in the Middle East. Worse, the weapons may have been smuggled out to Syria or Iran, and thence to who knows where, in which case the war has totally failed.Or perhaps, as the Iraqi science minister claims they were destroyed in the first days of the war. Yeh, right.

You're three possibilities are all reasonable, but still with some difficulty.

quote:

---

1. The military has been terribly embarassed over premature announcements in the past, and is keeping this one more controlled until they figure out exactly what they've got.

---

They have indeed made announcements about potential finds several times over the last few weeks. I'm not sure the military learn that quickly!

quote:

---

2. This really IS the "big one", and the military wants to follow up and find all the goodies before going public.

---

I think if this was "the big one" we would not even know the guy was in custody. I realize it could be construed as a terribly clever and devious double-bluff, but again, I am not convinced that the "intelligence community" is teribbly good at that sort of thing at all.

quote:

---

3. This is the first step in a disinformation campaign, where the US government will "plant" evidence to "prove" Hussein had all those bad things prior to the war, providing justification for the invasion. I've actually heard this proposed by a number of otherwise rational people.

---

Well, Rumsfeld supplied the anthrax culture in the first place, so he doesn't need to "plant" any, he just needs to find some of his former microscopic buddies for a reunion. Personally I can imagine them planting chemical or biological weapons as a last resort, but frankly I think it unlikely unless they really come up with nothing at all. And I do not believe that will happen.Iraq admitted having had chemical and biological weapons - the US, after all, supplied and encouraged them. They also claimed to have largely decommissioned them. The US only needs to discover such decommissioned facilities in whatever state and declare them to be the smoking gun. In the fog of war and its aftermath, withoout any independent overview, this should be sufficient.Whatever, it would take a lot to convince me that Iraq had any chemical or biological capabilities which provided sufficient justification for war.

quote:

---

I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam

---

No it's not. Opposing the war because you believe taking human life to be wrong under any and all circumstances is hardly endorsing Saddam.

quote:

---

Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?

---

But if that so-called power involves taking human life? I could not do the moral calculus involved.

quote:

---

I don't see how opposing war without a better idea isn't the same as supporting such a regime.

---

No. One can oppose the war and the regime. Many pacifists opposed the apartheid South African regime very actively but never would endorse Mandela's campaign. When it comes to evil regimes, they never stand alone.I heard a debate on French radio the other day, where a French finance ministry official claimed that the US had spent more money on each day of the recent campaign than they had in policing or enforcing sanctions ever since the Kuwait invasion. I cannot vouvh for the accuracy of those figures, but they sound as if they may be in the ballpark, don't you think? I am not convinced that the West was ever serious about removing Hussein or curtailing his abuses of his own people until September 11th brought home to the US that the troubles of the Middle East could actually affect Americans with terrible directness.Nor do I think for one moment that the suffering of the Iraqi people played a part in motivating the recent war. America and Britain have historically supported despicable regimes whenever it suited them - there is no reason to believe they could not have "accomodated" Saddam's human rights abuses in their Realpolitik if they felt that appropriate. Rumsfeld, for one, would have been playing the same old song: one he has practised to perfection over the years. America surely went to war for America.

quote:

---

To me, the sanctions themselves were highly morally questionable.

---

Oh sure. But I think the French claim does point up a serious flaw in the "no alternative to war" argument.