It doesn't take a Hero.

So who was it? I clicked the link and got the Washington Post demanding to know who I am.

LOL, Stormin Norman.

Like Dean Rusk and Jimmy Carter, Schwarzkopf is becoming more of a dove in his later years. This will make other conservatives more comfortable in opposing our trigger-happy president.

A big surprise, you won't see this on TV.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html

The problem I have with inspections is that unless Iraq tells the inspectors where to find the WMD then the goal is impossible. Let me explain it this way. If I tell you and 100 people that I have hidden a 10 pound bag of sugar in my house, There is a good chance you and/or 100 people still couldn't find where I hid the bag. If I told you I hid the bag in one of the houses on my street (12 houses) I could almost guarantee you could never find it. If I said I hid it somewhere in my city, then I could be reasonably certain you would never find the bag of sugar I hid...if I said I hid it somewhere in my state, then I could guarantee you that you would never find the 10 pound bag of sugar that I've hidden. Inspections are not going to work. We need to either go to war or contain Iraq as we have for 12 years. This is where the argument should be. The whole world KNOWS Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the question should be what should we do about it. To say the inspectors must prove Iraq doesn't have WMD makes us look totally foolish.

My basic argument is inspectors are wasting their time.

"I said I hid it somewhere in my state, then I could guarantee you that you would never find the 10 pound bag of sugar that I've hidden."

Which is bigger, a bag of sugar or a nuclear weapons program?

"The whole world KNOWS Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

Whoa, when did this happen. Last I checked, we know nothing of the sort.

First of all, a good security team might find that bag of sugar and one things for sure, if you try to use the bag, they will be all over it. Let's suppose Saddam has hidden his weapons carefully enough. As long as inspectors are in country, he cannot even go near them. I'd submit it's cheaper to keep inspectors in Iraq for a thousand years than to invade the country.

If he has hid the stuff in the sand, who gives a damn?

If the stuff is buried, that means:

* He isn't a threat
* Inspectors have contained him
* He is only likely to have weapons which have already been produced (pre-1991, 1998-2002).

If he hides them, they will degrade. Especially anthrax and VX. No-one has argued he could maintain an active weapons programme whilst inspectors are in the country. Even if he could hid bio or chem, there is absolutely no chance of nukes.

So what is the problem? Oh yeah, it isn't weapons under the sand Bush is worried about, it's the oil. That, and boosting those opinion polls.

"The whole world KNOWS Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

Whoa, when did this happen. Last I checked, we know nothing of the sort.

According to the UN at the time they were kicked out by Iraq, Iraq had WMD, chemical weapons, biological. Iraq declares they never had such WMD and any they had were destroyed by 1991. Um someone is lying here and my pick is Iraq over the UN of 1998. Where did this known WMD go to if the UN was correct in 1998. Do we believe the UN or Iraq? If we believe the UN then we KNOW Iraq has WMD. If they truly destroyed the chemical/biological weapons, they would have documented such and shown this evidence to the UN. They have not. The argument should be on containment V. War.

The inspectors weren't "kicked out". They were withdrawn. Facts are pesky things.

Casey,

Iraq didn't kick out the weapons inspectors in 1998. They were ordered to leave by the Clinton adminstration, who told Richard Butler (the head of UNSCOM at the time) to pull the teams out because he was going to bomb the country. Before that, there was wrangling over the 'sensitive site modalities', as UNSCOM attempted to violate the 'Memorandum of Understanding' (Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations and the Republic of Iraq, Kofi Annan, 27 March 1998) previously endorsed by the UN Security Council (S/RES/1154, 2 March 1998). Iraq complained about the attempted violations, but did not kick the inspectors out.

OK, perhaps I'm being naive, but here are my observations (and I would appreciate your comments or criticism):

1. We are demanding that Iraq prove a negative (that they have no WMD), which is basically impossible for them to do. Iraq is a third world country, which means that their record keeping is shabby or non existent. The fact that there are no records of them destroying the weapons doesn't mean anything really.

2. If they do have WMD, it is likely to be an insignificant amount. UNSCOM said they destroyed about 95% of the weapons prior to withdrawing. Iraqs military is in a shambles and they are probably incapable of launching a sustained attack against anyone. Iraq has been in a box for 10 years, they haven't taken agressive action in 10 years, and they are not a real threat to anybody.

3. Even if Saddam does still have delusions of world domination, he must know that any pissant attack he could muster (or any terrorism he sponsors) would be returned on him 1000 fold. More death and destruction would rain down upon him and his country than he could fathom. Deterrence works.

4. Why would Iraq continue to cling to a measly stockpile of WMD when they are staring death in the face right now? What do they possibly stand to gain by standing up to the UN and the US in such fashion? Surely they recognize that the end is rapidly approaching. If there was anything for them to come clean about, would not 200,000 troops amassing on their borders be reason to do so?

5. Yes, Saddam has done some evil things during his reign (for which there are no excuses), but what has he done lately? The world has changed immeasurably in the last 10-15 years. Nation states want prestige and economic power. Give Iraq an incentive--a seat at the table in the world economy--and positive reform is possible. An article in Time or Newsweek this week explains how this worked with Quadaffi and Libya.

In sum: Iraq does not represent a legitimate threat to anybody and can be successfully deterred from aggression. If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, it can be done diplomatically rather than by force. War is not the answer.

"Yes, Saddam has done some evil things during his reign (for which there are no excuses), but what has he done lately?"

Or, put another way, what has he done lately that the Saud monarchy/dictatrial/patriarchal/repressive regime haven't done- yea, the ones who hang out with Bush at the Tejas ranch?

Why not start with Saudia Arabia, which has more Oil anyway, and just got done sending 19 of their finest on a suicide mission into the US WTO's.

Why not? Because Saudi Arabia is friends of the Bush's-- you can tell your enemies by the friends they keep.

The inspectors are in Iraq, not to search for weapons, but to obtain proof that Iraq has detroyed weapons identified in the UN resolutions. Iraq is not cooperating. They have failed to show that weapons previously identified have been destroyed. They deny the inspectors the evidence. IT is logical to conclude that these weapons have not been distoyed. It would take tens of thousands of inspectors many years to search abandoned warehouses, factories, and other facilities to find them. Remember, enriched plutonium is not very radioactive and can be easily shielded from detectors with a few feet of concrete.
Why are we going to war? Good question. Oil? 9/11? Terrorism? Threat to world peace? Israel?
The answer is because we can. With the cost of having 200,000 troops and equipment in a foreign land, we will have to. At this point, I don't think we will stand down. I personally think we should let the Euoropeans, Russains, Japanese, and South Koreans deal with North Korea. I also think we should let Saudia Arabia, Iran, and Turkey deal with IRAQ. They would get their asses kicked and come crying to the US, just like the Kuwaites did. And the French, what a joke they are. They've never been able to win a war in their history. Why should we care what they think?
The US should be everyones friend and let the rest of the world destroy each other. Just sit back and chuckle at the ignorance and waist of it all.
Unfortunately, as a superpower, we feel obligated to enforce UN resolutions when everyone (except the British) are afraid to or don't have the gonads to.