In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And the case that S.H. was a near-term threat to the world this time (as
opposed to 1990-1, when it was pretty clear) is weakening by the day.

It's not clear that the case is actually weakining, unless you only
look at the simple-minded 'no evidence, no justification for invasion'
angle. (Which is the only angle the popular press is playing.)

Which would be because except for people enganing in revisionist plug-up
of a campaign of lying, they still remember that this was the reason brought
both in UN and otherwise.

The popular press is playing this angle because the other is somewhat
more complex to explain and leaves the press short of breathless
soundbites.

There is no other angle - for the UN resolution to be relevant inthe matter,
there would have needed to be a second one authorising use of force over
the failure to comply with the first. Such did not exist and hence there
is no angle. UNless you mean teh falsified and bogus data presented to
UN.



There is however ample evidence that Saddam had a bomb program in the
past, and maintained an active interest in obtaining WMD. There is
ample evidence that he actively interfered with the UN inspectors
trying to get at the truth of the matter. There is evidence emerging
of a mothballed program of ongoing WMD research.

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.

Hmm... UN Inspectors need to talk to scientist/technocrat 'X' in
order to determine what he has or has not done or did.. Iraq prevents
the UN inspectors from speaking to him.

Hmm... UN inspectors need to visit location 'Y' to determine if in
fact WMD related activities did or did not take place there.. Iraq
prevents the UN inspectors from visiting the location.

So either talking to expert 'X' or visting facility 'Y' would have allowed
them to find evidence of the WMD's? I don't see how any credibility can be
attributed to that, as it would presuppose the ability of WMDs to
mirraculously appear.


Hmm... Seems it's pretty easy to interfere with finding what was not
there in the first place, by not allowing the inspectors acess to the
information they need to confirm the presence or absence of an
activity.


Saddam appears to have taken the unusual tack of trying to appear
'dangerous', without actually having the means to back it up. He
gambled, again, that the US lacked the will to carry out it's intent,
and failed as he did before.

Which just means that the right location for at least a certain amount of
US administrtaion is in jail - and probably for a long term.

A nice non-sequiter that utterly fails to adress the point under
discussion.

Not at all - it addresses the 'US lack of will to carry through its
intent' point - the US had the intent of having a war with Iraq and
occupying it, which it first tried to achieve via presenting the UN
security council with known bogus information and then having failed
to pursue this course, held an illegal war causing massive civilian
causalities. For which those responsible should be appropriately
persecuted.


D.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++