Further Inspections?

[Batz]

Miko pictures of trucks at a site isnt a material breech. The US isnt going go in and blow stuff up because there trucks parked there. We couldnt track Scub launchers in Gulf war. It took Brit SAS guys sweeping the desert and disrupting resupply that forced the scubs back.

Those satelites images take time to be  analyzed. If they see  trucks there and go back and check again and the trucks are gone what do you want them to "blow up".

The reason the images Powell presented to the UN are relevant is because they show a pattern of noncompliance. It doesnt really matter if Suddam has wmd or not, its up to him to show he doesnt. He has an obligation to account for the list of things he admitted to having. Or to account for those "things" that there is evidence he does have.

The inspector arent detectives, they are there to verify Iraqi compliance with the UN resolution. Not enforce it or catch Iraq hiding wmd.

Non-cooperation is a material breech and thats what Powell was arguing.

Iraq isnt proving a negative. They admitted to having certain things. The have been caught importing others. Its up to them to account for this "stuff". Its not like someone snatched him off the street and said "prove you dont like coke". We know they bought mobile chemical labs. So where are they.........

[Kanth]

disarming is a process not a state.

Perhaps you misunderstood my use of 'disarmament', I mean warhead by warhead not in totality.

I would like to see one report from the inspectors saying "we witnessed the destruction of such and such items today"

"we have evidence of destruction of such and such items listed that they had"

ANYTHING....but instead it's all lies and manuvering.

Originally posted by miko2d

Kanth: they just need to not have any proof of disarmament...
 The burden here is on IRAQ...

 Unfortunately proving the negative is theoretically impossible, whether he has it or not.

 miko

[miko2d]

AKS\/\/ulfe: No it isn't. "You UN guys can go where ever you want whenever you want however you want, and I won't interfere," says Saddam.

 Proving the negative is impossible. Any negative. That's the basic principle of logic.

 I have nothing against inspectors inspecting the living sh#t out of him. But if they do nbot find anything, it still does not prove/demonstrate he does not have it.

As far as the whole "real time" spying deal goes... I think you watch too many movies Miko.

 I wish I had time...

 Anyway, it takes a while - weeks - to detect things becasue analysts/software must inspect all images to find a target.
 Once the location is established, you just watch it and near vicinity - and the images are transferred in real time.
 When a spy satellte telescope was used to examine the underbelly of a space Shuttle, it did not take days for specialists to get the relevant pictures.

 True - there are some gaps in satellite coverage - calculated in minutes. When I served in the Soviet Army, we had the schedule of the US satellites overflying our area and stopped certain kinds of activities quite a few times a day for quite a while. That was in the mid-eighties.
 I bet that there are more US satellites out there now and they can see further - hence longer from angle or higher orbit and the orbits of existing ones must have been adgusted to provide better coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan area compared to a random russian outpost.

would like to see one report from the inspectors saying "we witnessed the destruction of such and such items today"

 Which would mean that he has one less warhead, not that he does not have anymore or did not buld two the same day. No proof of the negative.

 Alternatively, to prove positive, we just have to demonstrate one measly piece of evidence.

 miko

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

He has to prove he doesn't have weapons that he DID have.

Once upon a time he could of pulled the stockpiles of weapons out, and destroyed them in front of inspectors. Instead, he had his boys take them and "destroy them" and tell the inspectors they were "destroyed".

Now if he wants to prove that he no longer has what he had, he HAS to give UN inspectors full unrestricted, no roadkillting access to the entire Iraqi territory and NOT be moving things around while this is occuring.

That's how he can prove he doesn't have what he once did have. And that's not proving a negative, that's proving that once existed no longer does and no matter what definition you throw out there- it is entirely possible to prove that you no longer are in possession of something that you once were in possession of.

And real time implies that the photo is taken, the inspectors already have it and are on their way to the area the photo represents.

It only takes Saddam a matter of minutes to get his mobile units on their way to some other obscure location.... and what ensues is a wild goose chase.
-SW

[Kanth]

We don't need to prove (that he still has WMD positive). We only need to prove that he isn't complying with the resolution (1441).

  It is a formula for good faith disarmament of what we already know that he has.

http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

   It never says we need to prove that he has one WMD in order to be in material breach.

  We already know that he does have them, we need him to show us that he's destroying them and complying fully with inspections and he isn't doing that.

Originally posted by miko2d

would like to see one report from the inspectors saying "we witnessed the destruction of such and such items today"

 Which would mean that he has one less warhead, not that he does not have anymore or did not buld two the same day. No proof of the negative.

 Alternatively, to prove positive, we just have to demonstrate one measly piece of evidence.

 miko

[Kanth]

The big blow to Iraq (in Powell's presentation) wasn't that we could see that he had things that he shouldn't, it's about INTENT.

  He's moving them right before the inspectors arrive on the site.

If he would just leave them where they are, declare them and show that he's destroying them, the images of what he has wouldn't have meant anything.

It's showing his intent to hide them from the inspectors that is the problem. He isn't cooperating, he isn't disarming and he's deliberately trying to hide what he has left instead of destroying it. This was just one example of his non-cooperation.

I don't see how I can be any more plain on this subject.

[Angus]

I may be asking a silly question, but here goes...
Since Saddam is always ahead of the inspectors (due to their low ground speed or/and Iraqi's knowing the schedule), could the inspectors "Target" not be monitored before their arrival, maybe as soon as the "Target" decision is made?
There's gotta be some way of proving this if it is to be true, otherwise than bombing the crap out of the country.....

[Batz]

Its not up the the UN inspectors to "catch" Saddam. Although catching him with wmd would be a true "smoking gun".

The Iraqis are supposed make every effort to comply with the resolution. Sneaking stuff around is evidence, not necessarily of wmd, that the Iraqis are hiding things. Couple with their failure to account for other "things" they already admitted to having.

The fact that they are "spying" on the weapons inspectors, hiding things and not fully accounting for others is in the opinion of the Bush administration is enough to conclude that Iraq has no intention in complying with the UN resolution.

Then, as reported yesterday, there was an intercepted Iraqi military communique that authorized Iraqi military to use "chemical weapons". The very weapons they claim not to have.

Iraq needed to put it all the table, they didnt.

Either the UN calls um on it or "others" will, including the US.