|
White House Report Details Iraq's Efforts to Block U.N. Inspections by Elonka at 4:00 pm EST, Jan 23, 2003 |
] Iraq has failed to explain or account for: ] ] -- large quantities of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and the ] carcinogen aflatoxin; ] ] -- ballistic missiles that exceed a U.N.-mandated range ] of 150 kilometers; ] ] -- efforts to procure uranium from abroad for its nuclear ] weapons program; ] ] -- 1.5 tons of the powerful nerve agent VX; ] ] -- 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells and 400 ] biological weapons-capable aerial bombs, and hundreds, ] possibly thousands, of tons of chemical precursors; ] ] -- 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with ] chemical agents; I've been hungry for more data on just what we think that Iraq has. I wanted to know -- do we have information on current weapons that they possess, or are we just looking for data on the stuff that we knew that they *did* possess? This report answers some of those questions. Now as for the claim that we should wait for weapons inspectors to *find* it again in order to have proof -- I disagree. Yes, it would be nice if we *could* track some of it down ourselves, but I find myself looking around my own city and thinking, "If someone wanted to hide a truckload of missile warheads even as close as within a 100-mile radius of my own home, I don't know if *I* could find it, in an area that I'm familiar with." So, having a team of a few hundred inspectors combing an area the size of France, looking for something that other people may be trying very hard to keep hidden? It does feel more like a needle in a haystack problem. This report raises some good points. If we have data on large amounts of prohibited material that Iraq had in the past, then I think the burden should now be on Iraq to explain what happened to that material, rather than the burden being on *us* to prove that they still have it. |
|
RE: White House Report Details Iraq's Efforts to Block U.N. Inspections by Rattle at 4:13 pm EST, Jan 23, 2003 |
Elonka wrote: ] ] Iraq has failed to explain or account for: ] ] ] ] -- large quantities of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and the ] ] carcinogen aflatoxin; ] ] ] ] -- ballistic missiles that exceed a U.N.-mandated range ] ] of 150 kilometers; ] ] ] ] -- efforts to procure uranium from abroad for its nuclear ] ] weapons program; ] ] ] ] -- 1.5 tons of the powerful nerve agent VX; ] ] ] ] -- 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells and 400 ] ] biological weapons-capable aerial bombs, and hundreds, ] ] possibly thousands, of tons of chemical precursors; ] ] ] ] -- 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with ] ] chemical agents; ] ] I've been hungry for more data on just what we think that Iraq ] has. I wanted to know -- do we have information on current ] weapons that they possess, or are we just looking for data on ] the stuff that we knew that they *did* possess? This report ] answers some of those questions. ] ] Now as for the claim that we should wait for weapons ] inspectors to *find* it again in order to have proof -- I ] disagree. Yes, it would be nice if we *could* track some of ] it down ourselves, but I find myself looking around my own ] city and thinking, "If someone wanted to hide a truckload of ] missile warheads even as close as within a 100-mile radius of ] my own home, I don't know if *I* could find it, in an area ] that I'm familiar with." So, having a team of a few hundred ] inspectors combing an area the size of France, looking for ] something that other people may be trying very hard to keep ] hidden? It does feel more like a needle in a haystack ] problem. ] ] This report raises some good points. If we have data on large ] amounts of prohibited material that Iraq had in the past, then ] I think the burden should now be on Iraq to explain what ] happened to that material, rather than the burden being on ] *us* to prove that they still have it. I worry that when we attack, these wepons are not going to wind up being used by Saddam, but rather given to people like Al Queda that will use them on us. |
|
|
|