How the WMD issue will play out...

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

I believe that we will eventually find WMD in Iraq. Those who always thought they were there will say "We told you so." Those who were skeptical in the first place will say "We planted them so we could 'find' them." Neither side will convince the other of its position.

If, by some chance, we don't find WMD then those who believe they exist will say "we haven't found them--yet." Those who were skeptical will say "they probably weren't there in the first place." Again, neither side will convince the other that its position is correct.

It is unfortunate that we (mostly) can't have rational dialogs on subjects such as this. The two sides are so polarized that neither really listens to the other. (True for 2+2 and true for the rest of the world as far as I can tell.)

Chuck

[Easy E]

"...can't have rational dialogs on subjects such as this. The two sides are so polarized that neither really listens to the other. "

Chuck, care to define what a successful "rational" dialog is? Does it require change, or is that only a hoped-for goal?

Are Iraqi WMDs/the "war the new religious conversation? ("don't start the argument, it'll break up the party")

[MMMMMM]

Hopefully when we find them they will have Cyrillic writing and Saddam's DNA all over them;-) Maybe that would be convincing;-)

By the way, those in the camp of "No WMD" might consider the parlay they need in order to be right:

1) For some inexplicable reason, and completely out of character, the Iraqi regime decided to destroy and halt its WMD program after kicking the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq,

2) Reports regarding Saddam's WMD programs by Iraqi exiles, scientists and others must be false, or no longer applicable,

3) All the various intelligence pointing to or suggesting Iraqi WMD programs must be wrong, or leading us down blind alleys,

4) All the items Iraq purchased--some proscribed--which appear to be dual-use or WMD-program specific, such as ultra-high tolerance steel tubing for centrifuges, must really have been for innocent purposes

It seems to be quite a parlay. I think it's possible but extemely unlikely.

By the way, I thought we did hold fairly rational discussions about this matter on this forum, but maybe my view is skewed;-)

[Cyrus]

"When we find them they will have Cyrillic writing all over them, maybe that would be convincing."

By "Cyrillic", you mean of Russian origin? For some reason, you have discounted the case whereby the writing is in Latin and spells "Made in USA". (Don't worry, it'll never happen.)

I will grant you that if the writing says "Made by USA The Greatest Satan Of All Who Sold Us This Stuff So There", it's probably a forgery.

[Easy E]

Are Iraqi WMDs/the "war the new religious conversation? ("don't start the argument, it'll break up the party")

Should have been: Are Iraqi WMDs and the war "the new religious..." (etc)

[Chris Alger]

I've been one of the bigger skeptics about the WMD thing and I doubt I'm going to be saying anything of the sort, regardless of what is found. If the polls are correct, Bush doesn't need to plant a thing.

The issue is not whether Iraq has any WMD, but the larger one of whether Iraq was such a threat to the US to make the case for unilateral aggression compelling.

It isn't disputable that Iraq had made no aggressive move against any other country for 13 years, which coincided with the period in which it understood that any such move would be met with massive retalliation and "regime change" (not the situation prior to Kuwait, when the US not only failed to issue warnings but expressly told Iraq that it was disinterested). It is also undisputable that Iraq was either unable or unwilling to free its own country from the "no-fly" zone or exert control over Iraqi Kurdistan, a perrenial target of Saddam's internal aggression. In fact, Iraq had not been able to defend itself from the low intensity warfare being waged on it by the US and UK for a decade.

Other compelling "big picture" evidence, notably the US's prior support for Iraq's acquisition and use of WMD, the pre 9-11 demands by (now) senior officials and advisors to conquer Iraq, and the use of an apparently unrelated terrorist attack to justify the war, suggest that the focus on Iraqi WMD is pretextual and misguided.

Given these facts, I would think the burden on the war proponents would be quite heavy, regardless of whatever weapons Iraq might have had at its disposal.

These are the conventional arguments of the war opponents. We have tried to avoid falling into the trap of WMD=justified war because we understand that no situation this complex should turn on one isolated fact. I don't think this is being irrational.

[AceHigh]

Does the fact that we haven't found WMD, prove that Saddam was unlikely to use them? Wouldn't he need them close to his battle positions if he was even considering using them?