 |
||||||||
|
1/20/2003 03:26:00 AM | Justin RE: Iraq and previous inspections… (in response to Brad's posting) Brad, I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, and I will try to give it a full response in a few days. But for now, let me just point out one thing you brought up which I see as an unfair half-truth: You made reference to "special operation warheads" in your posting, later designating them "chemical weapons". You neglected to mention that these recently discovered "chemical warheads" did not actually contain any illicit chemicals, nor were any chemicals actually found by inspectors. The UN resolutions on Iraq only ruled that Iraq must declare and relinquish all chemical, bioligical, nuclear, and long-range (with a range of over 150 km) weapon. Unless traces of chemicals intended for these weapons can be found, it seems that Iraqi possession of these 122 mm long, short-range warheads does not violate any UN resolutions. In the words of former weapons inspector David Albright, the discovery would represent a violation "if Iraq knew that these warheads existed and they are for chemical weapons." Inspectors will "have to test to see if there are any traces of chemical weapons in the warheads and in the bunkers where they were found, and they will have to talk to the Iraqis," Albright continued. I can see you arguing that it isn't necessary to find any traces of chemicals intended for these weapons as long as it can be proven that these warheads were altered for use with chemical weapons. However, if Iraq's claims that the warheads were imported in 1988 prove true, then it is not enough to simply show that the weapons had been altered, because it was no secret that Iraq possessed chemical weapons/warheads in 1988. This is why I think that either traces of the chemicals must be found, or proof that the warheads were altered recently, in order for this new intelligence to qualify as proof that Iraq still has a chemical weapons program. It seems like your jumping the gun a bit with your claims that this is clinching proof that Iraq is "smuggling chemical warheads". In its current form, it seems like nothing but a nice pro-war media headline. We've yet to see whether there's actually much substance behind it. I'll try to address the other issues you brought up soon. Regards, Justin perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.