If you only want me to comment on the links....

I'm offended that you deny me my right to raise hypothetical situations.

Again, I didn't say you couldn't raise hypothetical situation...merely that you must expect me to comment on them if you do raise them.

although I do admire the comedy. :-)

However, back to business -
2 of your links are from the Nuclear Control Institute - a group I have no knowledge of.
My minor research (and reading of the articles) indicates that NCI is primarily concerned with the nuclear weapons.

However, the articles fail to show that Saddam Hussein has acquired nuclear weaspons.

While it is true that Iraq\ufffds known nuclear facilities have been destroyed or were placed under monitoring (prior to December 1998) [...]
Little is known about Iraq\ufffds efforts to enrich uranium for bombs using centrifuges, and the possibility remains that a small centrifuge cascade for this purpose is hidden somewhere in Iraq. [...]
Although the IAEA recently conducted a routine investigation to confirm that these uranium stocks had not been removed, such inspections are required only once a year [...]

Although it does give a lengthly argument detailing that Saddam Hussein wants the bomb.
It also goes into a bit of detail regarding what it considers flaws of IAEA's inspection team.

Which is all well and good.

However, these arguments seem to present a conclusion that inspections should be enforced on Iraq with military might. (They also (imo) ignore the importance of chemical and biological weapons. It even quotes Hussein saying that he doesn't need the bomb because they have chemical weapons.)

They are not good arguments for a regime change in Iraq.

Considering the rhetoric coming from the White House and recent rumors, these links may actually enforce the concept that an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Hussein might not be linked to an attempt to prevent weapons of mass destruction.

Post #52,536 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 5:29:57 PM Reply	If you only want me to comment on the links.... don't raise hypothetical situations. If someone in Columbia had a secret nuclear bomb program....we would take every measure to stamp it out. Would it then be all about "the war on drugs"?
Post #52,541 by Mike 9/20/02 5:42:37 PM Reply	No no no no ..... naught naughty. I didn't say I ONLY want you to comment on the links. Now did I? P.S. Isn't the "obtuse" game fun? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,542 by Mike 9/20/02 5:46:19 PM Reply	Re: If you only want me to comment on the links.... >>don't raise hypothetical situations. I'm offended that you deny me my right to raise hypothetical situations. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,548 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 6:36:03 PM Reply	Try again.. I'm offended that you deny me my right to raise hypothetical situations. Again, I didn't say you couldn't raise hypothetical situation...merely that you must expect me to comment on them if you do raise them. although I do admire the comedy. :-) However, back to business - 2 of your links are from the Nuclear Control Institute - a group I have no knowledge of. My minor research (and reading of the articles) indicates that NCI is primarily concerned with the nuclear weapons. However, the articles fail to show that Saddam Hussein has acquired nuclear weaspons. While it is true that Iraq\ufffds known nuclear facilities have been destroyed or were placed under monitoring (prior to December 1998) [...] Little is known about Iraq\ufffds efforts to enrich uranium for bombs using centrifuges, and the possibility remains that a small centrifuge cascade for this purpose is hidden somewhere in Iraq. [...] Although the IAEA recently conducted a routine investigation to confirm that these uranium stocks had not been removed, such inspections are required only once a year [...] Although it does give a lengthly argument detailing that Saddam Hussein wants the bomb. It also goes into a bit of detail regarding what it considers flaws of IAEA's inspection team. Which is all well and good. However, these arguments seem to present a conclusion that inspections should be enforced on Iraq with military might. (They also (imo) ignore the importance of chemical and biological weapons. It even quotes Hussein saying that he doesn't need the bomb because they have chemical weapons.) They are not good arguments for a regime change in Iraq. Considering the rhetoric coming from the White House and recent rumors, these links may actually enforce the concept that an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Hussein might not be linked to an attempt to prevent weapons of mass destruction.
Post #52,571 by Mike 9/20/02 11:04:54 PM Reply	Re: Try again.. >>It even quotes Hussein saying that he doesn't need the bomb because they have >>chemical weapons. And if you were reading carefully (which you weren't) you would have understood that this (its claimed) was an effort to dupe people into believing that nuclear bombs were not a priority. Seems it worked. -- William Shatner's Trousers --

Welcome to IWETHEY!