Does the US need to find WMDs?

Consider this less an opportunity to yell in each other's faces and more an opportunity to suggest opinions.

I'm wondering if you think it's necessary for us to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Clearly there's a lot of the country left to search, so I'm not suggesting we won't but merely asking how important it is for us to find some. After all, our legal argument for invading Iraq was based largely on our argument that we had strong evidence, even characterized sometimes as proof, that they had such weapons. Granted that's since morphed into arguments that our liberation is a humanitarian effort to extend democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people, and that's a pretty laudable goal, admittedly, but one that sometimes smacks to me more of PR than policy. Whether that's accurate or rhetoric I leave to you, my question lies elsewhere.

My position is that the United States is founded on the rule of law as being a crucial and fundamental part of our heritage. Thus, regardless of our noble causes, I believe that when we strike out on an endeavor of national policy, we should follow the rules at least to which we've agreed to follow in the past. So, I have to believe that if we argued so strongly in the UN and to the American People about the importance of eliminating Hussein's WMDs, then there's got to be pressure put on our administration to validate their assertions. It occurs to me, that if we don't hold any administration to the responsibility of backing its claims in the long run, then we open our government to fabricating reality for its own purposes.

Now, I'm not so naive to believe an administration has never lied to go to war before, and I'm also not actually accusing this administration of doing that. I simply think we have a right to expect that when our government gives us a reason to go to war, that that reason be valid, legal, legitimate, and defensibly accurate.

Opinions?

I didn''t expect them to find anything yet. We just got two of the top guys incharge of the programme. I think if they don''t find anything at all, I mean paper trail or the stuff its self, then Bush is done.

I think they know they''ll find it.

From a legal standpoint, yes.

The justification for this conflict came from UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which stated that Iraq must disarm itself of WMDs or face ""serious consequences."" The US chose to invoke those serious consequences when it launched its assault on Iraq on March 19. The administration also said that the regime needed to be overthrown in order to disarm Iraq. So, every action taken thus far has been done to rid Iraq of WMDs. What if Iraq doesn''t have them?

Look at it this way, this would be akin to a police officer shooting someone on the belief that they had a gun and were about to use it, but does in fact not.

ADD will kill this.

If and when we do find WMD it will be down the road, past our short attention span. It wont have the sensationalist appeal for journalism to latch onto so it will make its blip and be forgotten. It wont sell any papers. Untill ten years from now,someone writes a controversial insider book and whats old is new again.

Rising tensions with Syria would take priority too. So that could sweep it under the rug also.

If we want to be taken seriously as a country, we have to find the WMD''s that Bush promised were there. Otherwise, we can just kiss foreign opinion goodbye. As well as our morals and ethics as a country.

"asands2" wrote:

As well as our morals and ethics as a country.

Oh no, that went out the window when reality TV started.

Otherwise, we can just kiss foreign opinion goodbye.

Well, I think it may be too late now to bother with that. Even if you did find them, I have a feeling people would say ""The US government planted them there, obviously"".

I too am worried about what Mex said. Personally I hope they will find some. Otherwise we will have several Middle East countries at our throats.

I''m very worried we won''t find any. I''m pretty sure we will, but if not, it really looks bad.
When Colin Powell was at the UN, holding the vial, showing pictures, it was almost proof-positive that Iraq was guilty, so if we come up empty handed....ow.

And yeah, without WMD there goes the whole Syria plan (though the sweet irony that Syria really is the worse offender in these weapons, and we went after the wrong country, is too sweet to resist).

I am not too confident that the big smoking gun they have hoped for will be found, maybe some traces of chemical or biological substances on warheads or in crates, but thats about it I think

Then the government will say that it all got smuggled into Syria and start pressing for a showdown with Damascus.

"Koesj" wrote:

I am not too confident that the big smoking gun they have hoped for will be found, maybe some traces of chemical or biological substances on warheads or in crates, but thats about it I think :?

It''s been a month. We have all have short attenion spans. I think we''ll find the paper trail which is good enough for me. We have two of the top guys and they''ll sing. By hook or by crook, they will be there.

I never thought the Iraqi''s would be dumb enough to let their WMD be found in the first place so don''t start the attention-span thingee. Probably smuggled everything away or maybe its all on the phantom ships sailing the Indian Ocean.

Here''s a question: with all this evidence and intelligence Powell said the US had, why haven''t they searched all those places and found the copious amounts of WMDs that we were promised were there?

Because the evidence came down to: ""here you can see somthing has been taken away"", ""here you hear two Iraqi''s chattering about hiding stuff"" and ""this is what the easily disguised mobile stuff would probably look like"". Impossible to find anything soon without at least a paper trail, I agree on that Ulairi.

with all this evidence and intelligence Powell said the US had, why haven''t they searched all those places and found the copious amounts of WMDs that we were promised were there?

There was an interesting interview with one of the former UN weapon inspectors (from Norway I think) on TV yesterday. He commented on what Powell considered as proof of production of WMD. He stated that most was willingly misinterpreted to fit the claims. Some of the objects that were supposed to be hidded away from the inspectors - such as some mobile labors - were actually surveyed by them. There never was real ''evidence'' of anything, at least not among the documents shown at said UN demonstration.