So arrest us and put your dictator who gassed thousands back in power you f***ing worhless soul.

To whom exactly are you speaking?

just guessing, but that comment was probably directed at the Guardian and/or said backbenchers

It's a bizarre comment . . . "arrest us"? This American sadly suspects that the other American interpreted "MP" as "military police" . . .

It's been said before, but it's funny how the UN weapon inspectors were supposed to be given months and months and months, yet it's been 3 weeks and already we hear complaints. 3 weeks and most of that involved you know, fighting a war.

Damn, it wasn't until recently the Australians disovered most of the Iraqi Air Force hidden. Something like 50 planes. Fairly big planes.

Agreed, Jeremy. But our friends on the left beg you: please do not spoil this dialogue with facts and logic.

Just because we're Americans doesn't mean we're so daft as to not know that in this instance, MP is member of parliment. :) The statement looks like it was directed outward, at the people who were eager to announce that the war was illegal (reguardless of if it was or wasn't)

Iraq has 432,162 square kilometers of land according to the CIA factbook. The United Kingdom has 241,590 square miles of land area, which is slightly more than half. Let's say I wanted to hide 5 747s in the United Kingdom- and I had oh, say, 12 years to hide them, with a big cruch in the last oh, 4. A 747 weights about 200,000 pounds or so, so 7 of them would be 700 tons, which is a fairly large amount of airplane. But, were I to hide them in England, dismanteling them, burrying them, hiding bits and pieces of them whereever I felt was safest, do you think that he would be able to get 1000 people together and find even a gasket in a months time? Weapons will be found, but there's a lot of desert out there that will need to be searched.

The search is really just getting started, if our troops just randomly stumbled over them on the way to baghdad, we could have just let the inspections continue, they would have probably found something in a few weeks.

Right now we're finding the people. This was a paranoid government, not many people know more than the least amount they can know about what they're doing when they're working in these programs. The people who did know stuff are very loyal, or we would have already had a high level defection before now. Saddam proved a dangerous man to cross, as disagreeing with him could be a death sentance.

Give them time to secure the country, and search it, and you'll find the weapons you were looking for. It's just going to take more pacience than some politicians seam capibile of mustering.

Yes, my comment was directed at the 'moralists' who claim America waged an 'illegal' war. (Doesn't seem so confusing to me either...)

All the "But it's hard to search a country that big" stuff is just a lame excuse which ignores the specific claims made by the UK and US administrations that they knew where and what WMD was in Iraq. If that was the case, then the sites should be listed and their contents detailed.

With no WMD turning up, then it damages the credibility of any claims the administrations make in future. And it sets a difficult precedent if you fall back to human rights issues, namely that it opens the door to any nation to wage war on another without UN approval. Now, the US with it's own weapons of mass destruction, may not have an issue with this, but then they aren't on the potential recieving end of those WMD. The message being sent out? "Get your WMD programmes up and running; you will need them... look what happens to countries who don't have them or don't use them...."

The U.S. and U.K. never claimed they knew where the Iraqi WMD were located, all they had was a list of 1,000 _suspected_ WMD sites.

One thing is clear about WMD, we've destroyed and overran almost all Iraqi artillery or missile batteries around Baghdad and elsewhere and we haven’t discovered any WMD shells or missiles. Remember all our preparations for their being used on our troops? Saddam said before the war that he used to have WMD but he destroyed them. It would be just like him to do something clever like that. For once he tells the truth and then he de-legitimizes our war.

A thousand suspected sites. Hey, that's an easy game to play; I suspect um a zillion sites.

Sorry, but I've watched the leader of my country say they had specific detailed information about the locations of WMD programmes which they couldn't disclose because it would endanger their sources (Hey, isn't that just like oooh CNN, oh but it's for our own good so thats ok then)...

Now, we're supposed to believe they can't find a thing and that it's incredibly well hidden... and their old intelligence is apparently irrelevant to the current search.

There is another scenario; the "intelligence" was a result of a psyops campaign from Iraq, to cover the WMD they'd destroyed in the past.

Disingenuous, delinquent carping. Grown ups have had to fight a war. Now grown ups have to search a country the size of California.

And, yeah, Saddam was telling the truth. Just like him.

Just admit that you support the evil piece of sh** (who by the way gassed thousands with WMD) and you hate the west with all the rancid hatred of freedom that you types on the left harbor in your ignorant little minds.

I really don't enjoy putting down responses like that, but you folks on the 'anti-war' left just have to be confronted. You are really unabashedly over on the side of pure evil now. Try to wake up.

Re: Americanstreet

A typical conservative response when presented with disturbing facts: rant, cuss, and call people names. Tell me, how does this forward a freedom inspired, democaratic discussion.

You types were carping that WMD hadn't yet been found before the war was even over. It's not a 'disturbing fact' to anybody with more than a two-digit I.Q. that it takes time to fight a war, secure an entire country, round up people with information, and go about carefully searching the entire country for very easy-to-hide, dangerous weapons. Over and above that is the small fact that this regime that you are lamenting the demise of has already killed thousands with WMD and has imprisoned millions and tortured and murdered tens of thousands if not more. You are on the evil, freedom-hating side of history, and some of us have a clue. Go back into your dark hole and suffer over this defeat. You are frankly worthless and not even worth generic courtesy.

The weapons would be found. Anon_brit and lefty_patriot, you're both being more than a little bit childish and unimaginative here.

(1) For you to believe that there are no WMD means that you believe Saddam Hussein, after refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors and destroy already identified tons (leaving the unidentified tons) of WMD and WMD materials willingly chose to disarm after they left. And then refused to confirm that he had disarmed and furthermore denied that he ever had the weapons to begin with! That is ludicrous.

(2) Secondly, remember that in 1995 - 1996, UNSCOM, after 4 - 5 years of inspections, was about to declare Iraq free of WMD when Saddam's sons-in-law defected and told the world that Saddam was decieving them. It was then that the UN finally discovered the aforementioned tons of WMD and WMD materials, including VX, Botulinum, Anthrax growth media, etc. A lot of which were left undestroyed when Saddam ended co-operation with UNSCOM in 1998.

(3) Remember, again, that UNSCOM officials had evidence that Saddam was very likely to have continued on producing WMDs even while they were operating in-country. Remember that UN weapons inspectors were not even aware that there was a huge underground complex under the Tuwaitha compex above ground.

(4) Upon the realization that Bush was serious about ridding Iraq of WMD, does it not seem at least plausible to you that Saddam may have ordered his WMD stocks hidden? He has a huge country in which to do so and is almost Stalin-like in his level of secrecy. Has it not occured to you that America may have known where the stuff WAS but the stuff may have been moved? The CIA is not omniscient, you know.

(5) Considering that it has barely been a month since this war started, and that adequate security was not established until just about last week, aren't you being a bit impatient? "Are we there yet?!" Does it make sense to you that a regime with things to hide would place those things where an invading army would trip over them?

Think about it. By the way, if weapons were discovered tomorrow, why do I get the feeling that you guys would say they were planted?

Excellent summation, Martin.

I lurk a lot on pages like these, and day by day it's more and more difficult to muster the energy to post reasoned arguments that the left "say" they want to hear after someone slaps them down for their whining. As Martin just pointed, if we find actual WMD the left will say it was planted. They don't respond to reasoned arguments, they ignore evidence, and they certainly don't operate from the same world view a lot of us do.
So, why bother? *sighs heavily* I'm just gonna go attend my State Guard meeting and sign up for rifle practice...
(By the way: isn't the term WMD rather idiotic? A can of nerve gas, while very nasty stuff, hardly deserves to be in the same class as a nuclear device. I move that we go ahead and call 'em CBN... or is it NBC? Hmm... I see that would be even more confusing.. NEVER MIND ;-)

Susie beat me to it! Way to go!

When did Blair ever say he knew specific locations? A quote and a date please!

I'm one who had hoped we could back inspections with real threats of present force (I'm concerned now that the genie's out of the bottle and across the border, and the next place we see VX is in an Israeli train station or shopping mall, courtesy of our friends in Damascus), but even _I_ recognize that the Hussein regime didn't credibly disarm itself. We know they had 'em, they couldn't account for all of 'em, and they were highly uncooperative even in their interactions with the UNMOVIC folks. The war was the "serious consequences" apparently we took more seriously than the UN did.

The failure to cooperate in certifying Iraq WMD-free was the cause of the war, not the presence of any particular WMD. What short memories we have!

their`re there, it`ll take time to find `em,just found 50+ planes,seems if we "KNEW" they were there seems one of those smart bombs would have found them. The wussies will do and say ANYTHING to prove their opinion,patience will prove the cause was just.IF YOU ALLIES DONT WANT TONY BLAIR,PLEASE SEND HIM HEAR,WE WOULD BE DAMN PROUD TO HAVE HIM,and let you join up with the rest of the eu.MIGHT WANT TO BE CAREFUL THE SLEEPING GIANT IS AWAKE AND IN A PRETTY FOWL MOOD.I REMEMBER 9/11 ALL TO VIVID,MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO CHECK OUT THE HISTORY BOOKS AND THE BATTLE OF LONDON,NOT A WAR MONGER,BUT WE YANKS FEEL OUR BACKS ARE AGAINIST THE WALL,AND ALL THE BENIDIC ARONLDS ARE COMING OUT OF THE SLIM...

It's Saddam's revenge. When the U.S army crossed the border, the Iraqis destroyed all their WMD (and maybe even much earlier). That's why Al-Sa'adi keeps repeating that history will prove him right about the non-existence of WMD in Iraq.

Saddam was trying to win a propaganda war, not a military one. Destroying the WMD is damaging to the credibility of the U.S, while using them would prove the U.S right and a terrifying WMD attack would even gain the U.S. sympathy. Saddam certainly would't want to do that.

If a) the existence of WMD cannot be proven, and b) Saddam was apparently not prepared to use WMD against the U.S. army even when they committed aggression against Iraq, U.S. justifications for the war - based on Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions, and possession of and willingness to use WMD - becomes empty rhetoric.

Misinformation of parliament is normally speaking a ground for impeachment in civilized countries, so Bush and Blair are committed to producing evidence for their claims. But it is reasonable to give them a few more weeks.

Intelligence services all over the world will want to keep an eye on what the U.S. and U.K. government are trying to purchase or transport to Iraq.

Wrong..wrong...wrong...!!!! We don't have to find WMD''s!!!!! U.N.R 1441 stated that if Iraq did not Fully Cooperate, it would face "Serious Consequences". Even Bilx said they were not fully cooperating. Henceforth, Even if no WMD's are found, the fact that Iraq didn't not fully cooperate is the justification for war. Read the 1441 Res. lefties!!!!!

for Jeremy: a little homework

Q: How many UNSCOM inspectors were there -- say to the nearest ten?

See what you come up with.

Q: How many US WMD personnel are there tasked with the Specific mission of finding WMDs?

A: Let's do a quick count, but the total is sure to increase.

* Chemical Weapons Exploitation Teams that went in with the troops during the attack: 3,000

* Special Operations personnel that went in 4-6 weeks earlier: (Only estimates are available -- the details remain classified) 400-600. Their mission was broader, but they were tasked with looking for WMD emplacements, noting and securing them until the attack was underway.

* Czech CW teams -- 50

* Australian CW teams en route -- 500

* Additional US personnel now en route -- 1,000

* Existing artillery regiment redirected to WMD exploration -- ~1500

* Number of UNSCOM personnel (!) hired last week to add to the WMD search -- 10-15.

Now -- stop for a moment and think this through, and put a timeline on it: If the UNSCOM force was to take "months and months" with most estimates being till sometime late in this year, we now have a force on the ground that is at least ten times larger at the moment, and will more than double again here shortly.

Yet what is the timeline now set for the hugely increased WMD force?

Months and months, probably until the end of the year, if you listen to Pentagon sources.

And our forces in the discussion have something the UNSCOM forces never had -- a reward/bribe of US$200,000 for any Iraqi who can point out the actual location of WMDs anywhere in Iraq.

Total number of WMDs actually found in over a month by a force ten times larger than UNSCOM?

None.

Keep your comparisons honest here.

(I'm at a horse show most of the day. Sorry I can't chime in more, but I actually Have A Life elsewhere. Y'all have fun here -- keep counting those WMDs we're finding.)

It's been asked before, but it bears repeating: why do those on the left, whose agenda is increasingly becoming nothing more than a fervent hope that the U.S. suffer failures and pain, refuse to answer the most basic questions about this issue? To wit, if Saddam truly did not possess WMD, where did they go? And if they were destroyed, why would he not simply present the evidence?

The answer, of course, is that to answer those questions through the application of fact and reason would yield results that do not square with liberal propaganda. For example, if you are Saddam and you have 200,000 hostile troops on your border, don't you think it would be a fairly easy, no-brainer proposition to show that you destroyed your weapons if, indeed, that is what you did? One thing we know about totalitarian regimes -- and, as we can see, Saddam's regime is no exception -- is that they are document factories; their need to memorialize every trivial fact is pathological. It strains logic to imagine that they made an exception for the destruction of their WMD, something that, on the contrary, they would have a direct interest in documenting to show compliance with the 1991 cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. resolutions. We know the weapons are there. Did liberals believe that they would be out in the open with huge neon signs pointing to them? Did they think the weapons would be in the places we had previously publically identified? Or, let's flip the equation: let's suppose that Saddam Hussein actually DID destroy all of his WMD following Gulf War I. That would leave as the only explanation for his actions in the past several months a gamble that forcing this issue to the forefront would create an international rift that would eventually cause the U.S. to back down not only on this issue but on sanctions, too. If so, he was playing fast and loose with the lives of his own countrymen, whom he surely knew would be annihilated by the U.S. military if he lost his bet . . . and then, to make matters worse, once it became clear that he had played a losing hand, he exhorted his troops and ordinary citizens to fight -- upon pain of death at the hands of fellow Iraqis -- fanatically against the Americans, thereby ensuring the destruction of even more of them. Add that up, and you have one of the most cynical and diabolical acts in recent memory, one that must be laid squarely at Saddam's feet, and would simply be further evidence that his removal could come none too soon. Finally, one wonders: if this were the case, could the U.S. afford to call his bluff? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

The whole "we haven't found WMD" thing is nothing more than the new chimera being employed by the left; when the weapons turn up, they will, true to form, refuse to acknowledge that they are, yet again, wrong, and they will simply move on to the next attack.

"Read the 1441 Res. lefties"

I am trying to think where it is the right that supports the widest possible application of law. It is the right that more often argues for the narrowest definitions.

Most experts in international law and the UN do not think 1441 provided use of force in this case. This is why AFTER 1441 we listed out our" proof" of Iraqi WMD. That proof is now known to inlcude fogeries (the Nigerian letter), and specific cites now known to have been free of WMD.

If security council resolutuions are intepreted the way you just did, the security council has authorized any country to take military action against Israel and Turkey. Is 1441 the first UN resoluiton you ever read? The US itself has historically argued against the terms it just applied to 1441.

I think the greater good was served. Everyone does. But searches without warrant and gun laws do the "greater good" as well. this is like haveing a dispicable pornographer as the poster child for first amendment law.

To all those who said UN resolution 1441 meant that the US/UK could invade without the support of the security council, sorry, but that wasn't what 1441 said; it said it would go back to the Security Council.

To those who think that it's all leftie propaganda, grow up, it's a serious question; where are the WMDs? If you just want to splutter and bluster and abuse anyone who asks that question, then I wonder what breed of democracy you believe in; I'm guessing it's not one where people can ask those tough questions of their democratically accountable leaders?

www and anonymous brit:

I don't know about Turkey, but Israel has never been the subject of a Chapter VII resolution, in other words, one that is binding and enforceable. 1441 is a Chapter VII resolution, as are most (if not all) of the previous resolutions against Iraq. Chapter VI resolutions are more like suggestions, made to all sides, and in all but two cases, the Israelis have complied with what has been asked of them but the Arabs have not, (nor have they in the other two cases mentioned).

Nobody disputes that WMDs are a serious issue. Everybody wants to find them. Do you seriously believe they don't exist? Do you ever ask yourself why a country where malaria is endemic has stockpiles of bug repellant (never mind the atropine)?

Moreover, do you seriously believe that your freedom to engage in political disputation is threatened by the existence of people whose opinions and prejudices are different from yours? Exactly what sort of democracy do you believe in?

And leaving these and like points of order, if you will, aside for the moment, have you stopped to look around and ask yourself if the Iraqis would be better off if the war had not occurred and Saddam was still in power? How many dead Iraqis, how many tortured and raped per day, is your high regard for your self-proclaimed good intentions worth?

Hussein and his cronies had twelve years to hide the stuff, yet some people feel justified in complaining when we can't find it after three weeks. During most of which we've been a little busy, you know, fighting a war.

The reports I've read stated that most of the people on the ground devoted to the WMD issue were not those trained in looking, but rather securing and cleaning up after things were found.

And as for the war being illegal, utter nonsense. Wars do not require the blessing of the UN in the first place, and Resolution 1441 did not require going back to the Security Council for permission to do anything. The very existence of 1441 recognized that Hussein was in violation.

Now the discussion is getting somewhere. Thanks for the lessening of insults.

Four points:
1) Saddam could have well hidden the WMD. I hope they find them deeply buried and not in a mobile lab somewhere. It would be too easy to claim they were planted (and too easy to plant them).
2) There is no evidence he was preparing to use WMD on British & US forces.
3) Tony Blair is the the head of the Labor Party, a socialist party. That makes him not only far left, but a liberal and a hawk to boot. People are complicated, aren't they?
4) I like the results of the war, but I thought it was overkill. What ever happend to covert operations?

I like the results of the war, but I thought it was overkill. What ever happend to covert operations?

You mean assasinations? I thought the Left was seriously against that sort of thing. Covert operations to destroy WMD? That would be absurd considering the size of Iraq (and so the width of the spread of distribution) and the fact that such a large force to deal with the issue would be far too large to be "covert".

There is no evidence he was preparing to use WMD on British & US forces.

You have no idea whether that is true or not. Considering how centralized the chain of command is in the Iraqi military, the possibility is high that the US decapitation attack might have seriously damaged Saddam's ability to send orders down the wire. Commanders in charge may simply have decided to not fire. Saddam, having hid his WMD may have placed them in areas that made them impossible to deploy within a short period of time ... etc.

Don:

UNSCOM almost declared Iraq free of WMD until a defector told them what they were missing. This was after five years. Second, the search really only began a week ago. You'd be here claiming the weapons were planted soon enough, worry not.

Assassination is but one of many of options short of war. We used proxies in Afghanistan to good effect. The Kurds, backed by our Air Force and special operations is an option. During the cold war we used to be good at this kind of stuff.

By no evidence, I mean there has been no WMD shells or missles found on the battlefield, where is could have been readily used by Iraqi commanders. If it was available, it would have to be hidden somewhere close by so it could be utilized, which remains a remote possibility.

Traditionally, the American left has been more anti-dictator than the right. Internationally this is not always the case (e.g. Castro).

What about all the lefty support for Stalin and Ho Chi Minh? I attend an state university and I have to elbow people with Che buttons on their backpacks out of the way to get anywhere.

What about lefty support for the Sandinistas? What about Chomsky's assertion that the massacres committed by Pol Pot were just antiCommunist propaganda?

It's not just Castro.

As for Don, he can repeat his "no proof" mantra as much as he likes; but his standards of proof are going up, he says. I think that his standard will always just be slightly higher than what weve we've uncovered at the time...

He never has given a satisfactory explanation of Iraq's behavior over the last eight years, if it is true that they have no WMD it seems rather odd... but he has his horses to see to, so he doesn't have time to think about those things.

Traditionally, the American left has been more anti-dictator than the right. Internationally this is not always the case (e.g. Castro).

Nah ... I don't think the Left has the moral high ground when it comes to opposing dictators. There are too many examples of Leftists fetishizing dickies for this to actually work.

At least, the Right has never had a period when it was normal to wear buttons with Pinochet or Franco on them.

The Left on the other hand ... Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Dae-Jung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mingh, Stalin, Castro, Chavez (already has a fan club), the Sandinistas ... And now, Saddam ... leader of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party of Iraq.

Tradition obviously doesn't mean as much as it used to ...

Traditionally, the American left has been more anti-dictator than the right. Internationally this is not always the case (e.g. Castro).

Nah ... I don't think the Left has the moral high ground when it comes to opposing dictators. There are too many examples of Leftists fetishizing dickies for this to actually work.

At least, the Right has never had a period when it was normal to wear buttons with Pinochet or Franco on them.

The Left on the other hand ... Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Dae-Jung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mingh, Stalin, Castro, Chavez (already has a fan club), the Sandinistas ... And now, Saddam ... leader of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party of Iraq.

Tradition obviously doesn't mean as much as it used to ...

We in Britain don't give a monkey's toss any more about the legalities surrounding WMDs.

Saddam was offered under Res 1441 a final chance to cooperate. He patently failed to cooperate.

There may be WMDs there. There may be WMDs shipped out, maybe to Syria.

It's all tough shit now. A new morality has taken over. A wider audience now understands the depravity of Saddam's dictatorship.

THAT will sustain the credibility of the US and UK Governments, and the will of the American street and the Brit street.

We know the whining, the bleating, the false-moralising will carry on.

But we don't give a monkey's toss.

Hey, Johninlondon, stop talking for "We in Britain" as if you were the pseudoofficial measurement of public opinion.

Resolution 1441 was a two stage resolution.

http://www.un.int/usa/02_187.htm

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no ?hidden triggers? and no ?automaticity? with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.    The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed.  And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed.  If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."

Ambassador John Negroponte

In other words, 1441 does *not* apply to the Coalition invasion; it was not staged under the auspices of 1441 but despite of 1441.

It was because of this two-stage element of 1441 that it got the unanimous support of the UN security council, including Syria.

This isn't "false moralising" or "bleating", just setting the facts straight.

The other fact is we are still looking for weapons.

Steve; Have a look at the UK Dossier on Iraq as published and lauded by Blair. It details sites and programmes. Ok, they copied chunks of it from elsewhere and the nuclear programme stuff turns out to have been derived from badly forged documents which the intel community looked at and dismissed as forgeries. But it was pointing the finger at specific sites.

Democracy is only threatened by people who do not want to partake in open reasoned debate. That is why the name-calling, abuse or threatening the lives (or wishing death upon them) of persons who take a different position is a threat to democracy. If you believe in democracy, you have to cherish the opinion that opposes yours, not demonise it, and continue to press your opinion in a reasoned rational manner. To not do so is to betray democracy.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

Let me summarize what is presented here.

In 1991 Iraq says there is no BW program. In July of 1995 Iraq admits to having an offensive BW program but denies that anything is weaponized.

In August of 1995 General Hussein Kamel defected and informed UNSCOM that Iraq had been concealing documentation on BW and missile programs. Iraq withdrew its THIRD Full, Final and Complete disclosure (in all there were FIVE) and admits to having a weaponized and far more extensive BW program than anyone thought. Iraq then also provided some documentation about its VX and nuclear weapons programs.

In November of 1995 Jordan intercepted illegal missile shipments that Iraq denied it was receiving... but some were found dumped in the Tigris, and UNSCOM confirmed that Iraq was receiving them.

In June of 1996 UNSCOM destroyed the main BW facility. Soon after, Iraq started blocking access to sites. In one case the delay was 17 hours.

In September of 1997 UNSCOM caught--AND VIDEOTAPED--Iraqis burning documents at a site they were blocking UNSCOM's access to. In October 1997 UNSCOM destroyed CW equipment that Iraq did not admit to having until May of 1997 (it was used for VX).

In 1998 UNSCOM found VX decomposition products on fragments of Iraqi warheads. Iraq stopped cooperating completely in October and UNSCOM left Iraq in December, saying that "the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities."

Let's repeat after Don: there is no Proof of WMD in Iraq.

This pattern of behavior doesn't suggest anything, does it Don? Since every time Iraq deceived the inspectors, the inspectors found out something one way or another, obviously the inspectors found everything, didn't they Don?

Don's faith in the veracity of Saddam Hussein's regime, despite its history of nearly continual deception, would be touching, if it weren't revolting.

Anonymous Brit, did you even READ what you posted?

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."

Get that? DOES NOT CONSTRAIN ANY MEMBER STATE FROM ACTING...TO ENFORCE RELEVANT UN RESOLUTIONS.

I read it, it says "Enforce relevant UN resolutions". 1441 is not the relevant UN resolution. And enforcement without authorisation is called vigilantism. 1441 does not *authorise* member states from acting.

Negroponte was stating the US's position that it would ignore 1441 if it did not resolve on a timetable (unspecified in 1441) and take action.

1441 as it stood required the security council to formulate and authorise the "serious consequences".

The simple fact; 1441 is not the UN resolution you are looking for. It does not authorise action and has no automatic element in it or hidden triggers, as specified by Negroponte.

Now, if you want to find an appropriate resolution...

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

... this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

Anon_brit, read it again. Since the resolution does not constrain (i.e. forbid) any state from acting if Iraq continues to defy the inspectors (which Iraq did), the Coalition has legal cover.

Sorry, Annonymous Brit:

Resolution 1441 defines "relevant resolutions" as 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 718, 986, 1284, and 1382. 687 sets out the terms for the ceasefire, one of which is disarmament and submission to inspections to enforce same... which is enough in itself--because 678 authorizes "all necessary means" to enforce all SUBSEQUENT relevant resolutions.

It declares Iraq in material breach of 687, which is cause enough for war with Iraq.

It also says: (paragraph 4) that false statements or omissions or failure at any time to cooperate fully is itself material breach of 1441. It says nothing about the Security Council meeting to determine material breach; only that such breach will be REPORTED to the Council as per paragraph 11 and 12;

which say only that the inspectors will report to the Security Council, and that the Security Council will meet then to discuss the situation.

NOWHERE does it say there needs to be a second resolution to authorize further action. NOWHERE.

All 1441 says is that Iraq is ALREADY in breach of all of the relevant UN resolutions, and that Iraq is being given one last chance, and that if Iraq does not cooperate fully, that will reported to the Security Council. It does not say what is to happen at that meeting.

NOWHERE does it rescind anything in the previous resolutions, which were already enough.

So, what do you think "Serious consequences" were to be? More inspections? A stern letter?

Doesn't matter, because 1441 wasn't necessary to back US action--the previous 16 would have done fine. 678 itself was sufficient, because it authorizes action against Iraq under all subsequent relevant resolutions... and 1441 says 678 is relevant to it.

Re: Martin Knight

"Nah ... I don't think the Left has the moral high ground when it comes to opposing dictators. There are too many examples of Leftists fetishizing dickies for this to actually work.

At least, the Right has never had a period when it was normal to wear buttons with Pinochet or Franco on them."

Point well taken. The left has always been at its worse when trying to defend or glorify a communist tyrant. However, the communist tyrants you listed (Castro, Ho, Sandinistas, etc.) came to power after overthowing US backed right wing dictators. The failure of these leaders was in establishing a democracy after the victory.

Not to stray too far off topic but the question now is what kind of democratically elected government will win in Iraq. It's not socialist vs capitalist anymore, but Islamist vs secular. The early pols are not looking good. Remember democracy also gave the world Hitler.

Democracy also gave the world George W. Bush. Or did it?

Gabriel, So what you are saying is Negroponte lied when he said there was no automaticity and no hidden trigger.

Backflipping to previous resolutions to justify the skipping of 1441's process as sold to the UNSC just demonstrates 1441 is not a justifying resolution.

In your (and the UK government's legal interpretation) 1441 just comes out as a legal shell game. And if no second resolution was needed, how come the UK PM staked much on getting that second resolution.

And Martin, sorry, but basic UN law supercedes your presumption; and that says war is only allowed in self defence. So, when did Iraq attack the US? (Potential to attack, possibility of attack don't count)...

Anonymous Brit, you are just playing word games. There is no "automaticity" in the sense that the UN is REQUIRED to attack Iraq. Rather, 687 says any Member State can use any necessary means. if Iraq is not complying with 687 or subsequent relevant resolutions (of which 1441 is one of 15), to enforce such compliance. It says we CAN, not we MUST. That is why Negroponte said there was no automaticity.

Why do you say that the older resolutions are no longer in force? What is your basis for saying that? How was 1441's process skipped? It was FOLLOWED. Iraq provided its declaration, the inspectors reported on it, not once but SEVERAL times, and the Security Council met several times to discuss it. Nowhere in 1441 does it say what the Security Council has to do next.

I'm sorry that you choose to read things into 1441 that aren't there but I don't know what to tell you about that. And it's inconsistent of you to put so much emphasis on one resolution and just ignore 16 others of equal or more weight and applicability. You're the one making 1441 and other resolutions "legal shell games". After all, if 17 unresolved, still-in-force resolutions aren't enough to justify enforcing any of them, why not an 18th or 19th or 200th? People like you say that the Security Council has to pass a resolution, then pass another one enforcing the previous one, and then another one enforcing that one. It is a game that goes on forever and the US and Tony Blair didn't feel like playing when it became clear that the game was rigged.

The UK staked so much on getting a second resolution because of people like you decided, arbitrarily, without bothering to read and understand the relevant resolutions, that there should be one. Slightly different reason for the US; WE thought it was unnecessary and that 1441 was unnecessary, but we thought it couldn't hurt to have them. Blair should have realized that the people who were going to oppose the war--France, Russia, China, Germany, Syria, leftists, were going to oppose it no matter how many resolutions were passed.

Oh, and you're wrong about the UN saying that war is only legal in self defence, because Chapter VII is concerned with Breaches of the peace, THREATS to the peace, and acts of aggression--as is made clear in its TITLE. You obviously didn't even bother to read that. Chapter VII also says that enforcement of SC resolutions is carried out by Member Nations, not by the SC.

If you bother to read anything you mention, you find that we had the PERMISSION, not the REQUIREMENT, to enforce the 17 resolutions against Iraq.

It's patently clear that you made up your mind already and you are just hunting for little snippets in UN documents that support your position, ignoring all the pieces that don't.

Oh, and Lefty Patriot, what is it about the Electoral College system you don't understand yet? Popular vote never decides presidential elections, and all the Supreme Court did was refuse to allow yet another recount. Which was done anyway, and found for Bush. At the time that happened, in mid-2001 both the President and Al Gore said they had no interest in the results of the final super-duper recount and that they had already long accepted the State of Florida's electoral commission findings, which the Supreme Court chose not to challenge.

Gabriel Hanna & Annon Brit:

I'll readily confess to not having near your knowledge of the UN process. However, itsn't the enforcement of UN resolutions something the UN has to do, not individual member nations? Shouldn't UN troops be ones to deal with Saddam?

By-the-way, I understand the Electoral College process just fine. It's not democratic and it's inconsistent. Some states it's winner take all, other states it's split the votes. It's a relic from colonial times when there was a fear of the "common man" making bad decisions. It needs to be eliminated. If the tables had been turned and George W. was left holding the short end of the stick, how loud would the howls have been?

for Gabriel:

What is a "decomposition fragment" of a nerve gas with an organophosphate base, d'ya suppose?

It is a residue. It indicates that something previously had been around -- it does Not indicate that the something is still around.

It would not come as a surprise to find a "decomposition fragment" after something had decomposed, doncha see? And if it's decomposed, then it's not a nerve gas, if you follow the thought here.

But wait -- there's more!

A "decomposition fragment" of an organophosphate-based nerve gas would be very much like the "decomposition fragment" of an organophosphate-based pesticide. Now -- follow along here Very carefully, so as not to lose the point:

Here of late, we've had several munitions test positive for organophosphates at varying locations. There was an immediate Hue and Cry about that -- with much ranting from the Wingnut sorts that Now We've Done Found The Smoking Gun! Even Faux News got into the act.

Only one problem -- we kept discovering insect spray.

Now, ask yourself why we might discover insect spray on munitions? I don't know how it works for you, but back when I was in Viet Nam, we had an ammunition bunker relatively near-by (which is not to say we were right on top of it, but within a few hundred meters or so.

Monthly at least, we would wander off to it and hit it with a blast of pesticides -- and those were organophosphate-based at the time. (This would have been well before the US ban on such stuff for OTC sales and all.) When we'd hit it, our bug spray would even kill the cockroaches -- and that's no easy task! Then it'd be good for about another month, and we'd have to hit it again.

We now, with something like 5k-6k on-the-ground personnel dedicated to nothing other than searching for WMDs and especially the CW sort, have several times found Utterly Conclusive Evidence of insect spray! Which is a testament to the sensitivity of the electronic devices that are looking for it, but not to the sensibility of those that report every single one of those "finds" as a "possible WMD." That includes the military and the reporters -- who are equally culpable in repeating this story with no basis for about a month now.

An unanswered question ought not to presume a specific sort of answer. A "decomposition fragment" of an organophosphate cannot be identified as evidence that a nerve gas based on that chemistry presently exists. It's a fragment because it no longer exists!

Meanwhile, now that the horse show is over (it went reasonably well, though I find them boring), we can return and tally up all the WMDs that have been found as the result of the Iraq Invasion thus far:

So -- what's the latest tally there, Gabriel? What does Your count show?

The official count was and remains: Nothing, as of 1600 PDT Sunday.

The insect spray doesn't count. You could stand to bone up some on CWs generally and nerve gasses specifically.

Don, UNSCOM concluded that it was VX. THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU. Read what they say for yourself. I posted the links enough times already.

The Iraqis said that the warheads had been in contact with nothing but alcohol. THEY LIED.

The burden of proof has alwasy been on Iraq, because they CONTINUALLY LIED about what they had. EVERY TIME we found something, there turned out to be SOMETHING MORE.

Explain that, Don. Explain why you think that the inspectors found everything there was to find. Explain why, if so, Iraq refused to cooperate.

Explain why the Iraqi regime is more to be trusted than UNSCOM. I want to hear nothing else from you other than that explanation.

Lefty patriot, almost every state follows "winner-take-all". The popular vote and electoral college vote have disagreed now four times--each time there has been unpleasantness. So, yes, there is ALWAYS carping from the loser when this happens, there is ALWAYS a short-lived movement to reform the elcetoral college, and we ALWAYS forget about it soon afterward, because we are basically satisfied with it.

You could say that the fact that the states, rather than the people, elect the President is undemocratic, but so is electing Congressmen to make decisions for us and so is the Supreme Court, to whom most people look to preserve democracy. It all depends on just how much direct input the people need to have in day-to-day decisions--the current level is apparently satisfactory enough that there are no serious efforst to change it, now that Senators are elected by the people of their states instead of by state legislatures.

So you see, the system used to be less democratic, and now it is as democratic as people want it to be, or they'd change it like they did before.

Gabriel, I have not said older resolutions were not in force. If you have to create a straw man, try using some straw. I have stated that 1441 was not an authorising resolution from the UN.

The problem with using the older resolutions is that the objectives of the earlier resolutions was the peace and security of Kuwait, not regime change in Iraq (unless you know of a UN resolution which says that).

What I find sad is your position that the UN isn't about avoiding war and that you read the UN charter as a checklist of things to show and tell before declaring war.

The problem is that the things that were in the "show and tell" show at the UN aren't turning up. The things which were asserted to be there, the things that were meant to compose the threat. If they aren't there, the entire "material breach" house of cards collapses, and ripples back through all the 'enabling' resolutions. I know you must be praying for WMDs to turn up; without them appearing, your entire position collapses.

for Gabriel:

UNSCOM found precursors that indicated the past presence of VX. That is not an issue -- past presence of VX was known in the first pass. It's the Present presence of VX that's at issue here.

Get past all your "THEY LIED" expostulations and deal with the Facts as (a) they were known prior to the attack and (b) are known now.

In both of those cases, there is No, repeat No Actual Knowledbe of even One WMD in Iraq. None -- not anywhere. That was clearly not the case that Dubya and Powell were making in the runup to the attack.

Now the administration is attempting to reverse course on the earlier oversell of the CAPD from WMDs. Recall when, prior to the attack, the Coalition of Cheerleading Sycophants was excoriating the UNSCOM folks (whom you now apparently conclude really Did have some technical knowledge, which is also a change from previous pronouncements) for saying the WMD inspection effort might take months? You do recall that, I trust. And the ADHD folks in the administration were saying that Months Is Too Long, there is a Clear and Present Danger, and We Must Attack Now to remove it. Remember that too?

What are Gen Franks and Rumsfeld saying as of today. Gen Franks is saying that it might take a year, and that provided that his 10x larger dedicated inspection force (when compared to UNSCOM) is fully fielded and backed up with a $200,000 bribe/reward to any Iraqi who can show them anything at all! Rumsfeld has said "We won't find it ourselves" but suggests that perhaps the "reward" might work, and some Iraqi will "lead" us to some WMDs in return for the payoff.

Quite the change from a mere six weeks ago, yes?

Now, focus your all-too-narrow perceptual mailing tube on the appropriate items here:

* Back when we said we "Knew" there were WMDs in Iraq, and used that "knowledge" as a primary justification for the attack, the Truth is we "knew" no such thing! We were blowing smoke.

* Now, more than a month later, with a large force fielded, as of 0830PDT today, we still "know" nothing about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

Whatever niggling you want to do about who said what, when, to whom, what they really meant to or should have said -- those two observations stand out from all else.

We went to war claiming Knowledge of WMDs.

But we Simply.Never.Had.It.

We claimed there was a CAPD from the WMDs.

There.Was.Not.

And that's just a Fact.

Now we're inventing new stories, spins and undersell approaches as fast as we can, and the Coalition of Sycophantic Cheerleaders is buying into them as fast as they can find them.

Which is to be expected, but is still funny.

Meanwhile, the Scorecard of Found WMDs reads:

Nothing.