You said they hardly qualified and minimalized it's hazard or qualification as an NBC because someone couldn't develop a good delivery system.
It's a binary question YES/NO. Not this 'NOT really' crap. You want to speak in Absolutes? Then guess what, your absolute position is full of holes.
Were there NBC weapons in Iraq? YES.
The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.
It does when you say there were NO NBC weapons. Again, even unfilled shells are violations of the treaty. Further, there's the whole intent issue with regards to Iraq. And the support for terrorist going into the year 2000. Sweep it under the rug all you want. There's still a big bloody lump that you're going to trip over.
Even if we set aside that any functional programs were closed down or sufficiently hidden (I'd place money on scientists and data along with some production gear going to Syria) there was still intent which the post invasion teams found to be exactly in the direction that supported the case for war. Up to 2003 Iraq was making noises through diplomatic channels that it HAD a NBC program of some sort. It was a bluff, but it still supports authorization for war.
I guarantee you that if Jak was working as a bouncer and had a troublemaker come on to property that he'd seen armed before and the troublemaker gestured in his pocket as if he had a firearm, Jak would use deadly force on the troublemaker and wouldn't give a rats ass about his lack of a real weapon.
To me, the principle's the same. Iraq had warnings, it prevaricated and obfuscated as well as hindered the inspection process and never lived up to terms, when push came to shove and it tried to bluff again, we called the bluff.
no subject
It's a binary question YES/NO. Not this 'NOT really' crap. You want to speak in Absolutes? Then guess what, your absolute position is full of holes.
Were there NBC weapons in Iraq? YES.
The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.
It does when you say there were NO NBC weapons. Again, even unfilled shells are violations of the treaty. Further, there's the whole intent issue with regards to Iraq. And the support for terrorist going into the year 2000. Sweep it under the rug all you want. There's still a big bloody lump that you're going to trip over.
Even if we set aside that any functional programs were closed down or sufficiently hidden (I'd place money on scientists and data along with some production gear going to Syria) there was still intent which the post invasion teams found to be exactly in the direction that supported the case for war. Up to 2003 Iraq was making noises through diplomatic channels that it HAD a NBC program of some sort. It was a bluff, but it still supports authorization for war.
I guarantee you that if Jak was working as a bouncer and had a troublemaker come on to property that he'd seen armed before and the troublemaker gestured in his pocket as if he had a firearm, Jak would use deadly force on the troublemaker and wouldn't give a rats ass about his lack of a real weapon.
To me, the principle's the same. Iraq had warnings, it prevaricated and obfuscated as well as hindered the inspection process and never lived up to terms, when push came to shove and it tried to bluff again, we called the bluff.