I was curious what the other people here thought about the situation with Iraq. I have found that there is very little informed debate on Iraq; most of the debate on both sides in regurgitated rhetorical nonsense. In contrast, I've found the people in this forum are generally far above average intelligence and able to have a civil debate.

I'm going to start by stating how I see the situation in Iraq. Here are the rules for response:

1. No ad hominem attacks. That means: attack the argument, not the person.
2. Do not invent strawman arguments to tear down. You don't want to put words in somebody's mouth if they didn't say them.
3. Only use informed and supported arguments; I don't want to hear "Bush SUXORS!" or "Kill the towelheads!"
4. Stay on topic. Who should have won the ballot count in Florida is entirely irrelevant.
5. Ignore any miscreants who violate these rules, even if they engage in a personal attack against you.

I think we did a good job with the discussion on SUVs and several of the others. If this devolves into a flamewar, I'll be the first to ask that it be locked or deleted.

-Biscuits

We are in an entirely undesirable situation, both for the United States, the European nations, and Iraq.

The case that Iraq has Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons has already been proven, in 1992. If you don't believe me, consult your history books. Iraq was given the equivalent of a court order to disarm and prove to the world that it had. It is now Iraq's job to conclusively follow that order and show the world that it has complied. Saddam Hussien refuses to do this. All the nandering about "proving your innocence" is irrelevant. Once the case has already been made against you, you need to provide a convincing case for "reasonable doubt."

Saddam knows that it is only by keeping his people unified against an outside enemy that he can keep them united under his leadership. He is going to do everything to hold onto power, so it will only be on the verge of war that he will consider destroying his powerful weapons (right now a powerful bargaining tool) and only then if he believes that it is more likely to keep him in power than the alternative.

Because of Saddam's unreasonable stance, his people were suffering horribly from the embargoes. The United States has tried various means of forcing an end to this issue including bombing Iraq several times, tightening parts of the embargo, angry words. France (one of Iraq's largest trading partners) and several other countries have been pressing for some time to have the embargoes dropped, partly for humanitarian reasons and partly for economic ones. They have weakened parts of it, especially the limits on infrastructure and food products. During all this, Iraq's myriad neighbors have intensive smuggling programs on the borders, bypassing much of the embargoes and threatening the whole program with irrelevance. The entire system would have collapsed in a few years. Still, it did not have to be handled now or in this fashion. W was extremely unwise in both his presentation and timing, causing the United States extreme damage while hindering the possibility of beneficial resolution short of war.

Because of Bush bringing Iraq back to the forefront of world affairs, the world now has to act in a short time-frame. If Iraq is not convinced to disarm, then it will show the world that the U.N., E.U., U.S., etc. are not serious about our nonproliferation agreements. Already, because we are dragging our feet, Iran and North Korea have restarted their nuclear programs. The longer we leave Iraq in noncompliance, the less likely it will be that we can save these international treaties. As soon as Iran, North Korea and pals have NBC, their neighbors will get them and so on. Pretty soon, it will be impossible to intervene in world affairs for any member of the U.N., including our European allies. The Nuclear Umbrella will be rendered meaningless and Pax Americana will be a distant memory. There is a likelihood that this could lead to a renewed period of world conflict. After all, who is going to be willing to stop the next genocide or save Kuwait the next time it is invaded?

Iraq is not a direct threat to the United States. They have links to terrorism, but they are not a significant contributor to them in world affairs. They are an oil-rich country, but this war is not entirely about oil. The reason it has to be convincingly threatened, and if, God forbid, it becomes necessary, fought soon, is for the sake of world peace in every country, including France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China. For the United States (and Britain), we have to follow through with our stated intentions. Not only that, but we have to play the lead in disarming Iraq. The other countries are not willing to let the nonproliferation agreements die, but, if the United States is going to insist on fighting this war with or without them, that is exactly what they may do. None of these nations like Hyperpowers and by hampering the United States, they damage its international power while enhancing their own. It is a risky game to be sure, since the more they isolate the U.S., the more the isolate themselves. Most people suspect that France, Russia, China, and Belgium will belgrudgingly accept a war in the end, after doing their damnedest to damage the U.S power. Germany is likely going to be the odd man out since they are the only country to completely rule out support for force in any form.

-Biscuits

My first thought on the subject is and always has been why, all of a sudden, did Iraq become a concern? The Gulf ``War'' was a decade ago, we heard nothing out of it for that entire decade, then, suddenly, it becomes an issue a few months after Sept. 11, 2001. I have yet to hear any evidence that Iraq's position changed around that time, nor that any contraband was found.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, I'm starting to honestly feel that this is all a big smokescreen. For what, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe for the fact that we've been unable to find Osama bin Laden. Maybe so that it becomes easier to curtail US civil liberties.

I also find the discrepancy between how we're dealing with Iraq and North Korea interesting. N. Korea has made blatant threats, and we're still well inside diplomacy as a tactic. Iraq has done, as far as I can tell, nothing, yet we're threatening the use of nuclear weapons against them.

Also, preventative attacks are explicitly against international law. Someone in the US government apparently claimed that it would be okay since we're talling them about it first. Did it make it okay when your school bully told you that he was going to pound you after school? I don't think so.

(In partial violation of point 4, it really embarrasses me on every level for GWB to claim that Saddam went after his daddy, especially considering that GHWB is the person most responsible for putting Saddam in power in the first place, back when he was the Director of the CIA.)

The Iraqi embargoes were failing, so it had to come to a head in the next few years. I don't know why it had to be done so suddenly. I think it has been handled exceedingly poorly, but I think it is important to look at what we should do now. We can choose not to go to war with Iraq, but only if we are willing to accept those consequences as well:

1. A blow will be struck for peaceful resolution in world affairs, changing U.S. and world politics for ever.
2. The Bush and Blair administrations will be impotent and voted out of office next election.
3. The United States will forfeit much of its power as a world leader by showing that it does not have the conviction to follow through on its CLEARLY stated course of action. This is true regardless of how fallacious you may believe that conviction to be.
4. France and Germany will be considered two of the new great powers.
5. The U.N. will be saved, but by refusing to deal with the Iraq issue, it will be largely impotent. It is also likely to go bankrupt if the United States quits funding it, unless the rest of the world ponies up the cash.
6. The Arabs will still hate us just as much for threatening war as if we had actually followed through, possibly more so because we had shown weakness
7. The United States will still be seen as unilateralist.
8. All nonproliferation regimes will be rendered totally impotent. Already, North Korea and Iran have restarted their nuclear programs.
9. No country in the world will be able to interfere in genocides or unprovoked invasions without the threat of WMD.
10. There will be a renewed period of world conflict with little anybody can do.

The world would keep on spinning if we don't go to war. Some nations may be willing to live with these consequences. Taking the whole picture into consideration, even doubting some of the justifications, are you willing to deal with these very real consequences in exchange for the very real consequences of war?

-Biscuits

Okay we go in and kill saddam what is going to happen afterwards will the world just bog off and leave the country to its own devices. Now either the country will become a nice cosy democracy which i doudt or someone similar or worse than saddam will take over. At worst it will be some religious extremist who will then do his greatest to take out america or however.

The gulf states are not know for being democracies i am not too sure if any of them are.

As to relgious extremeists i am against them no matter what the religion be, be it muslim, christian, shiek or manchester united.

So yes go in and take out the allegid treat but afterwards what happens and also if we do attack iraq what suprises are waiting for us in our own back yards.

On a more personnel note i am based on oil tankers and we can all guess where they visit lots. So if you want me i'll be hiding in the spare liner

1. This is a good thing
2. I'm not sure that's true. I can't speak to UK politics, but I'm not sure about Bush. Certainly there is a massive amount of protest about his actions, but they're not likely to vote for him under any circumstances. Of the rest (of which I am not a part), I don't have a good handle on whether they want war or they want a resolution to this situation (which I still believe was largely the fault of the Bush administration, if not outright engineered by it).
3. I'm not sure that the loss of power follows, nor, if it did, that that would be a bad thing. Canada is not a major world power, and you don't see terrorists going after it, even though it has a largely similar world view. But I think that the international community knows that the US is an elected republic, and that these actions are largely based on the current administration, not as part of public support. If Bush were reelected next time (let's hope not), then that might come into play as a show of public support for his own private war.
4. I don't know that diplomacy alone, or the resolution to not fight, can make one a world power. Maybe it ought to.
5. I think that you're flat-out incorrect about the UN. It was well publicized a year or two ago that the US has been consistently failing to pay its UN dues. So I don't think that not receiving money it's already not receiving will have a great impact.
6. At this point, the majority of the Arabic and Islamic Asian community already hates us, for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. I don't think that anything we do at this point is going to have an effect. As I already implied, tying Iraq to terrorism with little to no evidence was just stupid, and just makes it seem like we're focusing our attentions on the international Islamic community, while nearly ignoring the probably greater threat in North Korea.
7. That point is irrelevant. You're arguing that these are the consequences of not attacking, and your point is that it won't make a difference. Maybe you're saying that that is an invalid reason not to attack, in which case, you're right, but I don't think it's really significant.
8. I'd hate to see a world where every Tom, Dick, and Harry has nuclear weapons, but I still think that it's somewhat disingenuous for the US to say, essentially, ``Now that we have nuclear weapons, along with our friends, we think it's time that no one else gets to have them.'' That's like taking your ball and going home. You and I would both like to say that the countries that have them now (barring India and Pakistan and North Korea, if they have them) are unlikely to attack another country, but the US is getting ready to attack Iraq without either provocation or international support. In addition, I don't think that popular support is necessarily the proper way to determine these things. Many awful things have been done under the auspices of popular support.
9. This is the TD&H argument from before. I simply don't have an answer for this. I assume that you're saying that human rights issues are certainly an appropriate reason for intervention (possibly amongst other reasons), and I agree. But I don't know how you can prevent this. How many formerly Soviet nuclear weapons are wandering around the world right now? We don't know. And there's no need to test. You only have to get it right once. So there's no way to find out who's doing anything, really, unless they want you to know about it.
10. I don't know that this is necessarily the case, but it's certainly a greater possibility than it was before, but, I don't think that, at this point, not attacking will have any effect on this.

After what happened to the USS Cole, I think you'd better stick closer to the core of the ship.

Basically, I think there are two main reasons to go to war:
1. U.S. prestige. If we fail to follow through on our stated intentions, it makes us look weak. The world won't see this as a disagreement with an administration, the United States seeing reason, or anything of the sort. They will see it as the United States backing down under foreign power and our enemies (and some of our allies) will celebrate it as a great victory.
2. The non-proliferation treaties will be worthless except as toilet paper. Our last chance at salvaging them is to convince Iraq to disarm and this will not be possible without, at the least, an imminent and convincing threat of war. If we succeed here, we can at least make progress against North Korea and Iran, but if we don't, there is no way we are going to convince them of anything.

I think that it is highly probably that, shortly after the CWC, BWC, NPA, etc. are discredited that these countries will have Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons (NBC). Furthermore, I think it will destabilizing for these countries to have these weapons, which will enable them to engage in wars against their neighbors without fear of retaliation. They can also engage in genocides and other atrocities without repercussions. Usually, the mere threat of force is all that is needed and right now we protect all of our allies under what is known as the "Nuclear Umbrella." A lot of people say the United States shouldn't be the world's policeman. If we let these countries have NBC (well, they can have the broadcaster), then we CAN'T be the world's policeman, in any situation.

In essense, my argument for a war in Iraq is that a stitch in time saves nine. I believe that war should only be used as a last resort, but through rhetoric from all sides, the U.S., France, Iraq, etc., it has become necessary and to refuse to do so would have devastating consequences.

-Biscuits

As a soldier about to deploy to the SW Asian Theater I'd like to add my two cents.

1. Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the past and cannot demonstrate conclusively in the present that they do not possess WMD capabilities today.

2. Iraq has used WMD on both their own people as well as against Iran (perhaps against the US during the 91 campaign though that is a topic for debate which I care not to get into).

3a. Iraq supports terrorism. If you doubt this you must have had your head in the sand. A perfect example is the $25,000 checks that go to Palestinian terrorists' families after they blow themselves up attacking Israeli interests/people.

3b. Iraq supports terrorism. There are countless "conicidental" meetings between players in the Iraqi government and members of several terrorist organizations, to include Al Qaeda. Most intelligence sources appear to agree that Iraq implicitly (if not explicity) has permitted Al Qaeda and other like-minded terrorist groups to operate from within Iraq territories (both in Iraq proper as well as areas under "Kurdish" influence.

4. Iraq refuses to cooperate and plays a game of brinksmanship in order to pit the world political bodies and their member states against one another. This tactic has served Iraq well and led to the eventual withdrawal of all UN inspection teams in 1998. Iraq continues this tactic to this day. For example Iraq's two missiles both violate the UN agreements post-1991 and yet not one day ago Tariq Aziz stated Iraq will not destroy the missiles.

The above comments are generally accepted facts. Now I have my own view of why the French and Germans in particular have been stalling. I have a sneaky suspicion that much of what will be found in Iraq will have been French and German industry supplied contraband.

Anyways, I'm ready and willing to go. I think it's the right thing to do and if you disagree with me that's okay. Those that serve in the armed forces are serving (whether they know it or not!) to you can disagree with this nation openly and vehemently if you like.

Basically, I think there are two main reasons to go to war:
1. U.S. prestige. If we fail to follow through on our stated intentions, it makes us look weak. The world won't see this as a disagreement with an administration, the United States seeing reason, or anything of the sort. They will see it as the United States backing down under foreign power and our enemies (and some of our allies) will celebrate it as a great victory.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see any justification for ever allowing *pride* to start a war. It would be far better to allow Saddam to "plant one on the USs' chin" because the US takes the moral high road than to cause un-necessary loss of life just to avoid it.

Note that I'm not saying that the US shouldn't go to war, just that pride should never be a motive.

I have no doubt that Saddam is an evil man, nor that Iraq would be far better off without him. I have yet to be convinced that he presents an imminent threat to the US. (Beyond the SAM sites lighting up planes flying over Iraq's sovereign territory of course).

I believe that the US has to go down the UN route. Completely. Of course, we know that Saddam will make every delaying play in the book, but ultimately I believe that the backing of the UN is neccessary to prevent further anti-US sentiments in the future, both among allies and foes. The September 11th attacks on the WTC brought forward an amazing amount of goodwill to the US from around the globe. I think that it is important to realise that much of this has been squandered, and to wonder what could have been done to prevent that.

I do have to wonder about France and Germany though. Assuming for one moment that US and UK intelligence conclusively shows a pressing need for a war in Iraq, what are France playing at? You could wonder whether France has something to hide - they have been one of Iraq's most important economic partners for many years. You could wonder about the fact that France has had highly advanced NBC weapons capabilities too. Of course, this is just 'me' wondering out aloud...
And look at France's history. Twice in the 20th Century they believed that there was no threat directed against them. Twice they were wrong. Twice it took significant sacrifices by allies to save them. Twice, the USA joining the war was a hugely significant factor in their liberation. Is their memory only as long as their last bank statement?
Now Germany, of course, might just be trying to get back at the US for both wars. You might also wonder why they don't have some gratitude for the fact that they still speak German and not Russian. (Yes, I know that we're all friends now, but there would have been significant casualties in Germany had the USSR ever invaded.)

Perhaps it truely is that neither France or Germany have been persuaded as to the need for war.

Personally, I haven't been persuaded. But then, I am not privy to any of the intel that my tax payments help provide. I do have to observe that the increasing amount of media propaganda in the US is really getting on my wick. At least with the internet I can find other sources so that I can stay better informed. But for the whole part, I think that GWB is conveniently using Iraq to cover up for a lack of definitive success in bringing Osama to justice, and for other domestic deficiencies.

The one thing that does add a lot of credance (in my eyes) as to the need for war is the fact that Tony Boy is so up for a game of soldiers. He has generally been regarded as a vote-pleaser, taking the route most likely to win his party the next election. And make no doubt about it, going to war without the UN could well lose him the next election, unless something happens that proves beyond any doubt that he was correct to do so.

I would largely be inclined to agree with you genixia, except for two things. First, that is not the only reason or even the most important. Also, there are a lot of things tied up in U.S. prestige, such as our international economic clout and political clout. I probably should not have even mentioned it because the debate will invariably get sidetracked.

-Biscuits

Also, there are a lot of things tied up in U.S. prestige, such as our international economic clout and political clout. I probably should not have even mentioned it because the debate will invariably get sidetracked.

No reason it should; We don't have any

A perfect example is the $25,000 checks that go to Palestinian terrorists' families after they blow themselves up attacking Israeli interests/people.

I realize that this is a tangent, and we shouldn't follow it, and while I understand your point totally, you have to wonder:

If a Palestinian bombs an Israeli mall, and then the Israeli government shells and runs tanks over Palestinian residential areas, and then a Palestinian bombs an Israeli mall, and then the Israeli government shells ....

Who's the terrorist?

And if you want to go down that road...

Why doesn't Iraq petition the UN to disarm the USA, since the USA is funding Israel to the tune of $3.4B per year, has nuclear weapons (and a history of using them), biological agents (that have been 'used' on their own citizens) and missiles with a range that exceeds 150km?

I have to wonder what Bush is really up to. We know that Iraq cannot verify the destruction of the WMD that they use to have. We know that Saddam Hussein sponsors terrorist attacks. We also know (at least until recently) the Saddam was acting more like this was a game than an action with any serious consequences.

I have a few trains of thought on this action.

1) The only way to win a war is by beating the population. If the population is tired of the fighting, the military will follow quickly. The Iraqi population does not want to be occupied. If we occupy, there will need to be soldies on every corner, and HMMWVs on every block. I can almost guarantee that those soldiers will be shot (at) daily. Occupying a hostile nation is not a fun thing to try to accomplish.

2) People seem to forget that we had over 750,000 people stationed as part of Desert Shield. Last numbers I heard were around 150,000. That 750,000 was just to beat them back. It was not to occupy the country. Our weapons are amazingly better than they were 12 years ago, but if we go MOUT (and Saddam would be a moron to try to stand in the sand like he did last time), most of those advantages are non-existant. I really hope that the cockiness because of our techological superiority doesn't put our soldier's lives in danger. The only times we've had problems is when we've underestimated the enemy.

It is possible that Bush is just using the deployment and tough words as a ploy to force Saddam to comply. If so, its already worked as seen by Saddam finally allowing U2 overflights, interviews with scientists, and the ban on WMD (that one cracks me up). That is a very expensive show of force, but our troops don't get as much training (at least our fliers) as they really should. This might just be a giant exercise, but I doubt it.

Something needs to be done. I am for military action as long as we get more soldiers, and more cooperation in the international arena. I don't think it is going to be pretty, but something needs to be done about him.

I feel that Iraq is more of a threat than North Korea is. North Korea only has a single, untested, missile. I can't say if North Korea has a nuclear warhead, but they have not shown a willingness to use it. Iraq has shown a willingness to use WMD on several occasions. They've used chemicals against Iran. They've used both chemical and biological against the Kurds. They've threatened use of WMDs against Israel (since that is the only country they can reach) if the USA interferes.

Sorry about the rambling, and probable incoherence. I just got done with like 14 hours of work (44 hours in the last 4 days or so) and my brain hurts.

They've threatened use of WMDs against Israel (since that is the only country they can reach) if the USA interferes.

Ok, so N.Korea is getting a little off-topic.

But considering that they have just announced that they are considering pulling out of the 1952 armistice with S.Korea (technically they've been at war still for the past 50 years), and the Director of the CIA stated last week that intel points to N.Korea being able to hit the US' west coast, how would that shift your viewpoint?

Genixia, why should that be prefixed with a ?

Seriously.

Other than Saddam being verifiably nuts (I read an interview where Khaddafi called him insane), there's not a lot of difference. I'll admit there's more recent evidence of Iraq doing ``bad'' things, but the US is just as guilty at points in its past, as well.

Of course, I'm playing something of the Devil's Advocate here, but you have to admit there's more than a little hypocrisy involved.

But considering that they have just announced that they are considering pulling out of the 1952 armistice with S.Korea (technically they've been at war still for the past 50 years), and the Director of the CIA stated last week that intel points to N.Korea being able to hit the US' west coast, how would that shift your viewpoint?

I took that into account. Note that they have a single untested missile. Do they have a NBC warhead for that missile? I don't know. Do they have the guidance system required to hit what they aim at from that far away? I seriously doubt it. Would they risk angering North America (not just the US, but I'm willing to bet Canada wouldn't be very happy either) to deliver a single missile? Again, I seriously doubt it. Have they expressed the willingness to use that WMD, not like Saddam has.

Just replace the word "prestige" with "credibility", and the point becomes more clear, at least to me.

-ml

I suspect that US economical and political credibility within the World would be far enhanced if the US simply paid it's UN dues on time, rather than making excuses that their political system won't let them.

Part of me even suspects that GWB is really trying to kill UN credibility as a means of renegotiating the dues.

While we're on the subject of requiring binding UN resolutions to be complied with by member states [which is the underlying rationale for why we can/should go to war with Iraq anytime soon in about half the posts to this thread so far], you have to look no further than the many binding resolutions that the UN has passed regarding Israel pulling out of occupied territories invaded 30+ years ago without justifcation.

This is a point which the US [& UK] governments and of course - Israel, constantly overlook and ignore while berating Iraq and other countries (e.g. North Korea) for acting in the same unilateral way and while at the same threatening this exact same sort of unilateral action that they are so concerned about other states doing said unilateral actions that they want to go to war unilaterally to protect us from such unilateral actions...

With the US - its always a case of "do as I [and/or my friends] say"
not "do as I [and/or my friends] do".

As far as Iraq goes, I and many others "westerners" would have to this to say to W and Blair, "show me the money"!
- if Iraq is full of WMD as you assert, then surely your vast intelligence organisations could come up with some decent evidence to show Sadam doing stuff illegally - in violation of UN resolutions.

If so, where is the evidence?

Its one thing to say Iraq is not complying with UN resolutions - its quite another to show it. Yes Iraq has to prove its innocence, and thus far they have a done a pretty good of job of trying to do that - even Blix hasn't really found anything seriously in breach of the rules yet.

One problem is that as most folks around the world (especially the Middle East/Arab states) see the US [and UK] acting like this:

W & Blair assume that no smoking WMD guns = Iraq is hiding stuff and not the equally plausible scenario - given the evidence to date and/or lack of contrary evidence - that Iraq has possibly destroyed some or all of the guns/WMD etc some time ago and Blix & Co haven't got around to reading or inspecting the paper work about this yet.

In any case the Middle East has one country with proven and known nuclear WMD, currently headed by someone that has shown much of the inhumanity Saddam and others of his ilk showed their own people and neighbouring states, and this country also ignores UN binding resolutions and that the US seems to not care about it...

What Colin Powell showed at the UN was simply a dog and pony sideshow.

I also note the comments from Blair about Iraq aiding and abetting terrorists.

The same can be said about Pakistan - its full of known Al Qaeda terrorists, yet the US is not asserting publicly at least, that Pakistan aids and abets terrorists.

And the underlying (and unclear to many perhaps) cause to all this is of course oil - if Iraq (and the Middle East) had no oil or other natural resources that anyone wanted, would the West care what happened in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or any other Middle Eastern banana republics?

The true answer in that case would be "Probably not".

Nobody much cares about the conflicts in Djibouti, Ethiopia or Eritreia or any one of half a dozen African states - mostly because they don't have oil or much else we need in the West so we ignore the conflicts there and don't care if UN resolutions are ignored.

Anyone who asserts that the coming war in Iraq is not about oil is missing something very important - the whole Middle East is "about oil" whether we like it or not.

And for those countries like Israel that have no/few oil resources, the most important thing to fight about is fresh water.

In response to a piece of rebuttal 3:

In reply to:

---

Canada is not a major world power, and you don't see terrorists going after it, even though it has a largely similar world view.

---

Canada is NOT a world power, and that is precisely the point. Besides, targeting Canada would be essentially the same as targeting the US. The US is not at all likely to sit idly by and watch one of it's closest allies get hammered.

In reply to:

---

1. Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the past and cannot demonstrate conclusively in the present that they do not possess WMD capabilities today.

---

The real problem with this point, "they can't prove they don't have the weapons", is that effectively, they can't prove they don't have the weapons. It seems that every time an inspectors report comes back negative, the US response is "You aren't looking hard enough/in the right place" No proof ever seems to be forthcoming from the so-called intelligence services as to where these weapons are supposed to be hidden, just comments that they are sure they exist.

If the entire country could be conclusively scanned from top to bottom with no results, you get the impression the US would still be saying, "Well, you just didn't put as much effort into looking as Iraq did into hiding the things". There doesn't seem to be any way at all of satisfying someone who has determined that there WILL be a war and they're just looking for a vaguely justifiable excuse. I guess the US is working on the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since this is essentially an unproveable scenario it means there is no way to avoid conflict.

pca

I guess the US is working on the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

In fact, it seems to be working under the assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of hiding evidence.

Let's say I go to your house and prove you have 10,000 pounds of heroin lying around. I get you to agree to dispose of it in my presence, but about 1/2 way through you kick me out of the house.... Now, when asked about what you did with all that heroin, you pretend like you don't know what I am talking about. I KNOW you had that heroin and I KNOW you wouldn't destroy it without making a record of it. The only other two alternatives are that you still have it or you sold it.

That is essentially the situation with Iraq. They haven't even come up with an excuse that is as good as "the dog ate it." We already proved they had this stuff in 1992 and if they can't prove they got rid of it, they still have it. Unfortunately, Iraq is a huge country with tons of places to hide stuff. They had 6 years of experience on how weapons inspectors work to learn how to hide things plus another 5 years to hide things after they left. Our intelligence on them is very spotty (closed country), but their intelligence on weapons inspectors has been telling them where they will be searched in advance.

So, I think it is disingenious to argue that they don't have NBC as it was already conclusively proven in 1992.

I've just been on a rampage shooting a gun at my neighbors. If you see a gun in my hands and I put it behind my back, when you ask "which hand is it in," you are going to expect it to be in one of them. If I then proceed to tell you that is in neither hand and that I have no idea what you are talking about, I would hope that you get suspicious.

-Biscuits

This may give some insight into what France is thinking. Wow!
News analysis: Chirac's outburst exposes contradiction within EU
Google Search on Related Articles

-Biscuits

It doesn't provide any real insight into why France is opposed to attacking Iraq. To suppose that it's just to be anti-American, I think, is a little disingenuous. All it really says is that it's using this opportunity to try to hold sway over the EU, and potentially, NATO. It's more possible that they saw this as an opportunity to grab some power, but I don't think that this is the fight they'd want to pick unless they already disagreed with it on some level.

My thought has always been that it is a power play. The more they oppose the war, the more they weaken the U.S. However, I don't think the French hate America; they oppose "hyperpowers," whoever they may be. If the French are the main obstacle to any of our interests, we will pay more attention to them, as will everybody else.

Also, they gain the potential of dominating the EU. By getting everyone united against the U.S., they take control of Europe. It is a dangerous game, as seen by the reaction of their neighbors. The more they isolate us, the more they isolate themselves. I was not expecting the French to be so blunt, and I am curious if it was planned or real anger.

There are other interests of course. The French are one of the primary trading partners of Iraq, so economic reasons are pretty compelling for them. There are also humanitarian reasons, since the French strongly oppose civilian casualties on moral grounds.

The French are unable to contribute much militarily, since they have less men, ships, planes, etc. than everybody else. Also, since they insist on designing most of them without any foreign cooperation, they are generally inferior to their American/British or Russian/Ukrainian/Indian counterparts. Last war, they only sent an empty aircraft carrier, that was too small for most allied planes to land on anyway. They gain the most power by focusing the world on diplomacy. I think they want to save the nonproliferation regimes as much as we do, but if the Americans and British say we will act with or without the rest of the world, the French don't have to worry about their interests being neglected. And, if Iraq miraculously disarms from diplomacy, the French are on their way back to being a Great Power.

-Biscuits

I think that the French still resent the fact that the US speaks English and not French.

That link was insightful. I find it difficult to believe that Chirac would be deluded enough to believe that France could ever be a superpower again, or that Europe wants to be 'led' by France. (Or Germany for that matter). England and France have been embroiled in so many petty trade disputes in the past couple of decades that the view of the average Brit is that the French are rather self-serving. (eg the one where they wanted English chocolate to be renamed because apparantly their definition of chocolate has to have a certain percentage of cocoa solids. Or that Champagne can only be French. And let's not even start on cheeses.)
Strangely, and I've never met a French person that I didn't like, and they can be very friendly. Visiting France is a pleasure, and simply attempting a conversation in French, regardless of you success, will turn a stranger into a friend. It's only their politics that seems to be affected.
Besides all this, the Europe Commission has a rigid structure of rotating leadership, so any thought that France entertains about being King of Europe is crazy.

...since they have less men, ships, planes, etc. than everybody else. Also, since they insist on designing most of them without any foreign cooperation, they are generally inferior to their American/British or Russian/Ukrainian/Indian counterparts

Remember that a lot of modern European aerospace technology consists of multinational projects. eg Matra/BAe missiles (France and UK), Eurofighter Typhoon (UK, Spain, Germany and Italy), Airbus Industrie (France, Spain, Germany and UK)

Do they have the guidance system required to hit what they aim at from that far away? I seriously doubt it.

The world has changed in the last few years. They do have a guidance system, courtesy of Rand McNally and the United States Government: it's called a Global Positioning System. If techno-geek audiophiles can put GPS into their car stereos, I suspect that the North Koreans can do the same thing with their missiles.

tanstaafl.