Subject:
|
Re: This just came across my desk... Iraqi Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:59:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
441 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > [If true] It proves he was wrong; Blix would have found them.
> >
> > It wasn't Blix's job to *find* them! It was SH's job to simply produce proof
> > that he had destroyed all of the illegal weapons. Blix was merely supposed to
> > verify this. The whole affair was a charade to make the Lefties feel good
> > about themselves.
>
> Explain for us exactly how Saddam would prove that he doesn't have banned
> weapons.
Exactly. Hence the entire concept of inspections is flawed... certainly with
the number of inspectors that were going to be used. Now, maybe with more
inspectors and a systematic examination of every square inch of countryside,
it might be possible to, with some much higher degree (but still not 100%)
of certainty, determine that the place was (banned) weapons free.
But that takes a huge number of inspectors when faced with a regime that has
already demonstrated, repeatedly, that they have no intention of complying.
I'd say it would take, oh, I dunno, a quarter million or so? Or more.
No, the only way inspections would work was with a willing participant, ala
the way that South Africa had a change of heart about their weapons ambitions.
Note that it took a regime change for that change of heart to come about. In
the SA case, it was a (relatively... compared to Iraq) peaceful change
because it was a (relatively... compared to Iraq) democratic regime that was
supplanted.
But all of this is besides the point. Saddam's cheating is not America's
problem. Not to the point that we should be footing the bill for .25M
inspectors it isn't.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
