How is it possible to prove something doesn't exist? IRAQ and WMD

[Yossarian]

CNN's article

Here's the part that worries me--"Bush has said he will consider military force if Saddam fails to prove to the U.N. Security Council that his nation has no weapons of mass destruction."

I thought the plan was to attack Iraq if we found that they POSSESS WMD. Isn't it impossible to prove that something doesn't exist? I mean if a cop came up to me and said "Pipboy, prove to me you don't own a gun" I don't see how it could be done even though I don't own one. This sounds like a change in the U.S. position that makes it easier for Bush to justify war. Does anyone believe that we're just going to pack up all those 10's of thousands of troops and send them home without blowing some stuff up first?

I fully support our awesome military. I question the decisions that are putting them in harm's way.

 

[notfred]

You're right, it is entirely impossible to prove something does not exist (if you don't beleive me, prove that fire breathing dragons don't exist). Bush is acting like a moron again.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

Didn't he say he had proof a few weeks ago? Its kinda sounding like he plans on doing it even if they don't find something.

 

[Czar]

How about when the inspectors report to the UN at the end of January that Bush actually prooves to the world that Iraq has WMD's? saying it over and over again is not enough and does not make it true.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
Didn't he say he had proof a few weeks ago? Its kinda sounding like he plans on doing it even if they don't find something.

Yes he has continually stated that the U.S. has proof. I don't get it. If we have proof don't you think they would share it with the U.N. and/or its inspectors? I don't see what's so complicated about this.

 

[EndGame]

I agree, but, I believe it's more a point of the US, UK and several other countries knowing Iraq does possess WMD's and simply playing the waiting game for them to be located. Bush has stated that there is no timetable for the inspectors or an attack so I see this as nothing more than rethoric until the proof is found as in the "smoking gun" mentioned last week. From the news release today, it also appears Blix is certain and that they are close:

• 14 Jan 2003 14:39
  Blix repeats Iraq smuggled arms-related goods
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  
  LONDON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has reiterated that his teams in Iraq have uncovered weapons-related smuggling and it was clear the goods were linked to weapons of mass destruction.
  
  "We have found several cases where it is clear that Iraq has imported weapons-related material in violation of the prohibitions of the Security Council," he told the BBC in an interview broadcast late on Monday.
  
  "Whether these discoveries or items are related to chemical/biological weapons or an Iraqi nuclear program is a matter which we still need to determine."
  
  "There has been a considerable amount of import in the weapons sector which clearly is smuggling, and in violation, and they are in fact large quantities," Blix said.
  
  Blix told the U.N. Security Council last week that Iraq was illegally importing a "relatively large number of missile engines" and raw material for the production of solid missile fuels used in long range missiles or ICBM's.
  

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: axiom
The burden of proof lies on Iraq, not the United Nations.

How does Iraq prove they don't have WMD? Simple really. Permit the inspectors to go anywhere, interview anyone, do what they feel is necesary. Iraq can greatly assist by providing prompt answers to inspectors' questions. Iraq can assist by explaining why declarations in their weapons report to the UN are lacking in what Inspectors have uncovered already.

The path to war is bridged by Iraqi cooperation. Bush won't cross the bridge if Saddam is cooperative.

the burden of proof also lies with the accusers, I hope in the future will still follow the thearoy of "innocent untill prooven guilty" and not "guilty untill prooven innocent"

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: axiom
The burden of proof lies on Iraq, not the United Nations.

How does Iraq prove they don't have WMD? Simple really. Permit the inspectors to go anywhere, interview anyone, do what they feel is necesary. Iraq can greatly assist by providing prompt answers to inspectors' questions. Iraq can assist by explaining why declarations in their weapons report to the UN are lacking in what Inspectors have uncovered already.

The path to war is bridged by Iraqi cooperation. Bush won't cross the bridge if Saddam is cooperative.

the burden of proof also lies with the accusers, I hope in the future will still follow the thearoy of "innocent untill prooven guilty" and not "guilty untill prooven innocent"

That is absolutely true, but, the simple fact remains that Saddam WAS found to possess the weapons, agreed to terms to eliminate them, but through fault of both sides in my estimation, has failed to meet his agreements. Therefore, now the burden of proof lies with Saddam/Iraq to prove the weapons and developement programs are gone, and very few if anyone actually believes they are.

 

[JellyBaby]

Bush won't cross the bridge if Saddam is cooperative.

Cooperating in what manner? By complete submission to U.N. inspections or by wheeling & dealing with Western Oil Interests? If he did the later there would be no problem, gassed Kurdish rebels or not.

 

[blahblah99]

If you guys read up a little on the history of the US involvement with Iraq a few decades back, you'll see that US supplied Iraq with some chemical or biological weapons! Well, there's the proof right there.

It's just like how the Japanese government deny the incident of the mass murder, rape, and torture of Chinese civilians at Nanking during WW2. The vets know that it happened, yet the media and government never mention it.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: axiom
The burden of proof lies on Iraq, not the United Nations.

How does Iraq prove they don't have WMD? Simple really. Permit the inspectors to go anywhere, interview anyone, do what they feel is necesary. Iraq can greatly assist by providing prompt answers to inspectors' questions. Iraq can assist by explaining why declarations in their weapons report to the UN are lacking in what Inspectors have uncovered already.

The path to war is bridged by Iraqi cooperation. Bush won't cross the bridge if Saddam is cooperative.

the burden of proof also lies with the accusers, I hope in the future will still follow the thearoy of "innocent untill prooven guilty" and not "guilty untill prooven innocent"

That is absolutely true, but, the simple fact remains that Saddam WAS found to possess the weapons, agreed to terms to eliminate them, but through fault of both sides in my estimation, has failed to meet his agreements. Therefore, now the burden of proof lies with Saddam/Iraq to prove the weapons and developement programs are gone, and very few if anyone actually believes they are.

then if the US knows for a fact that Iraq has WMD's and knows where they are, why havent they still informed the inspectors where?

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: axiom
The burden of proof lies on Iraq, not the United Nations.

How does Iraq prove they don't have WMD? Simple really. Permit the inspectors to go anywhere, interview anyone, do what they feel is necesary. Iraq can greatly assist by providing prompt answers to inspectors' questions. Iraq can assist by explaining why declarations in their weapons report to the UN are lacking in what Inspectors have uncovered already.

The path to war is bridged by Iraqi cooperation. Bush won't cross the bridge if Saddam is cooperative.

the burden of proof also lies with the accusers, I hope in the future will still follow the thearoy of "innocent untill prooven guilty" and not "guilty untill prooven innocent"

That is absolutely true, but, the simple fact remains that Saddam WAS found to possess the weapons, agreed to terms to eliminate them, but through fault of both sides in my estimation, has failed to meet his agreements. Therefore, now the burden of proof lies with Saddam/Iraq to prove the weapons and developement programs are gone, and very few if anyone actually believes they are.

then if the US knows for a fact that Iraq has WMD's and knows where they are, why havent they still informed the inspectors where?

• US Boosting Intelligence on Iraq - UN Experts
  Date: 2003-01-13 Posted By: Dan Sale Topics: Intelligence : Weapons Inspectors : Iraq
  Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix said his teams were widening their search net for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq thanks to new U.S. and British intelligence information but it will take weeks or months to investigate all the new evidence.
  Region: Middle East
  Read It At: Yahoo! (Reuters)

 

[Spamela]

because Shrub said they existed, that's why. to assert otherwise is treason.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: Spamela
because Shrub said they existed, that's why. to assert otherwise is treason.

Oh yeah, nevermind that Blix and everyone else wants to know what happened to the tons of WMD which were sitting there scheduled to be destroyed before the inspectors left in '98 were mysteriously completely left out of the Iraqi declaration.

They probably spontaniously combusted!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

You hippies. The burden of proof is not on the accusers to prove he has WMD. We, the entire world, KNOW he had WMD. He USED them. The burden of proof is on Saddam to prove that he no longer has them. He had them. If he says he no longer has them, then he needs to tell us what he did with them. Did he just throw them all in a dumpster?

The weapons inspectors are not there to play hide-and-seek with Saddam. If the weapons and labs are mobile or underground, we'll never find them. The weapons inspectors are there to allow Saddam to confess or give an explanation as to how he got rid of the WMD he possessed.

I know you treehuggers hate republicans because they support self-accountability and that scares the hell out of you because you want free parking and a get out of jail free card with your bottle of milk each night, but you don't have to blindly take the opposite side of George W Bush on everything he does. You're siding with freakin Saddam, you idiots.

 

[FoBoT]

i think US intelligence already has PROOF that Iraq possesses BCN weapons

so , i think Bush is telling Iraq to give up the stuff he already knows they have

if Iraq fails to turn over something US intelligence knows exists, then Bush is justified in attacking Iraq

that is the way I see it

i think Bush will produce the evidence US intelligence has pertaining to the stuff Iraq has, immediately prior to the attack starting
similar to how Kennedy showed the pictures of the missiles the USSR had taken into Cuba back in '62

 

[Wduaqnug]

o

 

[MaxDepth]

Jeez. I think I need glasses.






I clicked on this link because i thought it said "IRAQ and AMD."

 

[Moonbeam]

I saw another way on stargate last night. You tie saddam up in led weights and throw him in a pond. If he folats, he has WMD and you execute him.

The important thing is that Bush is too simple to understand the logic of the absurdity of proving a negative.