Drewman626
01-28-2003, 11:57 PM
The modern classic argument from the pacifist crowd.
How can Iraq prove that they don't have weapons of mass destruction?
Well... here we go. President Bush tonight stated it pretty clearly. The United Nations had a list of WMD's that they knew Iraq possessed. 1441 called for Iraq to account for all of the WMD's on that list. If 30,000 missles were destroyed, there'd be a pile of metal somewhere. If chemicals were degraded, there'd be barrels buried somewhere. If tons anthrax and tons vx were burned, there'd be records, ashes, residue, and biohazard canisters somewhere.
And at the very least... if you were in the tough spot of proving a negative, you'd do everything in your power to cooperate.
However... the concept of proving a negative does not apply in this case.
How can Iraq prove that they don't have weapons of mass destruction?
Well... here we go. President Bush tonight stated it pretty clearly. The United Nations had a list of WMD's that they knew Iraq possessed. 1441 called for Iraq to account for all of the WMD's on that list. If 30,000 missles were destroyed, there'd be a pile of metal somewhere. If chemicals were degraded, there'd be barrels buried somewhere. If tons anthrax and tons vx were burned, there'd be records, ashes, residue, and biohazard canisters somewhere.
And at the very least... if you were in the tough spot of proving a negative, you'd do everything in your power to cooperate.
However... the concept of proving a negative does not apply in this case.