Would you shoot first?

[Moebius]

Uh, Saddam had gassed the Kurds. It's not a pretty sight and you can probably find videos of the aftermath on the internet. He had WMDs...where they went and at what time seems to be the only confusion.

No, we DON'T KNOW that he had WMDs. Do not state that as a fact when it simply isn't. Unless you're talking about the mustard gas from the 70s -- expired and with no means of long range delivery. I think the inspectors found a couple of empty barrels with traces of those stuff.

[William Scott Scherk]

Iran says it is building nuclear weapons, there is evidence that they are and they have flat out stated that they plan to destroy Israel.

Is this your boss's assertion, or yours? Can you provide a clear statement of some kind from Iran that they are currently developing nuclear weapons, and that they intend to use these weapons in an attack on Israel? Is there evidence you are aware of that has escaped the IAEA and US intelligence?

Do you think it's moral for Israel to initiate force in this situation, or has Iran already initiated force just by the threat that appears to be true?

I think it is important to be informed by the best intelligence, and to be vigilant. Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs from the US National Intelligence Estimate from last fall.

• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

I think the analogy of a gun-maker set on murder is false, and that it presents a false alternative: kill or be killed.

Consider an enemy of the United States like North Korea. Certainly North Korea was developing a bomb and the transport necessary to devastate South Korea (or Japan). Why did the gun holder (the US) not destroy the North Korean facilities?

[Tenzing_Shaw]

I think the more often you threaten the less effective it is and in the long run probably net you more animosity and/or suspicion internationally. Ideally it is probably more effective if you use the threat of force sparingly but forcefully, and with an unequivocal moral position.

The only proper goal of a government in the realm of international relations is protecting its citizens at home and abroad. We certainly shouldn't take the feelings of other governments, allied or enemy, into account. In fact, it is precisely the cowardly policies of our government which earn us animosity. The more the United States plays "benevolant peace-keeper" around the world, the more everyone hates us. We fought total war against Japan in the 1940s, at the cost of many Japanese civilian lives, and there was little or no animosity afterwards. Our enemies need to understand that if we wage war against them, it will be total war, and not "just war".

For instance we couldn't just make like Commodore Perry [...]

But we are speaking of nuclear weapons here, not trade restrictions. The situations are not remotely comparable. That said, a dictatorship is not legitimate, and doesn't have a right not to have our ships parked in its harbors.

Historically the military actions of the United States has not always been necessarily justified.

Why is this relevant? Also, almost any other government throughout history which enjoyed comparable military superiority to what the United States has today would mount aggressive invasions, and would be held in terror and awe by people everywhere. It is only because of America's commitment to freedom that this hasn't happened. There are other alternatives, however, besides appeasment and aggression.

Without an extremely strong moral position EVERY SINGLE TIME we use force, we'll just end up with a network of allies based on duress and a web of underground enemies (kind of like the way it is right now).

I agree. We need our threats to be backed by a strong moral position. Also, I believe that if people understood that America knows its own strength and means what it says, there would be a lot less anti-American sentiment in most of the world. People (rightly) admire proud, assertive individuals, not cowards who whine about how "compassionate" they are (such as our current leadership).

Edited July 30, 2008 by Tenzing_Shaw

[D'kian]

Let's put some facts on the table now:

1) Last week it was widely reported Canada took in several tons of yellow-cake uranium confiscated by the US in Iraq during the war. So Saddam had large amounts of uranium meant for enrichment, which he could have used if/when sanctions were lifted.

2) Iran has undertaken acts of war, directly and indirectly, against the US, Israel and other American allies for over 20 years. On that basis alone America, or Israel, is more than justified to take military action. I refer to the taking of the US embassy (all embassies are sovereign territory of the countries they represent) and its personnel in the late 70s, the backing of terrorist groups in Lebanon, including Hizbullah, responsible for bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut and of launching countless attacks on Israel, backing of Hammas in the West Bank and Gaza, and much more.

3) Iran does not need nuclear power for its economy. It produces so much oil any other energy alternatives are more expensive. therefore any claim that its enriching uranium for civilian uses should be met with the utmost skepticism. Further, if meant for commercial use, wouldn't Iran accept the Russian's offer to outsource their uranium enrichment rather than the sanctions the West is trying to impose on it?

4) No one in authority is considering using nuclear weapons against Iran. For one thing they are not needed, for another no civilized nation would slaughter millions of people when there are alternatives. So any claim that the alternative to diplomacy is nuclear war is not only fallacious, but also intellectualy dishonest.

5) North Korea just isn't much of a threat. It's headed by a mad man, true, but not a suicidal mad man. Any attempt to use force on a massive scale against South Korea or Japan will result in its utter destruction, and Baby Kim knows this. North Korea is simply extorting concessions out of the West by its nuclear brinksmanship.

[brian0918]

This leads me to a related scenario. What if you're locked in the room, and the stranger openly says that he is building a gun, but that he is not going to kill you with it - that he is simply building it for self-defense. However, his real intention (as you could only find out after-the-fact) is to kill you with it.

I guess the answer, if we're going to keep the Iran-Israel situation in mind, is to investigate his intentions as much as possible. This is not really possible when dealing with a single person locked in a room, but is more possible when dealing with an entire country. If Iran's president wasn't so loose-lipped, and instead claimed that they had only self-defense in mind, the world would be more willing to permit them to build nukes. But if their secret plans are actually to destroy Israel, those secrets are more likely to be revealed as more people are involved in the planning. Israel could also say, "well, if your intentions are only for self-defense, surely you'll permit us access to your facilities and staff for questioning." Then, if Iran hesitates at all, Israel can decide how to interpret such hesitation.

For the room example, you might suggest kicking through the door, but there is no real "door" for Israel to kick through that will give them freedom... unless they all move to the Moon or Mars...

Edited July 30, 2008 by brian0918

[EC]

Iran should be completely disarmed by whatever force is necessary as soon as possible. The guy's in the next room building guns while simultaneously making threats. The only rational thing to do is eliminate the threat before it becomes a reality. I'm thinking that now it is going to take another 9/11 on a nuclear scale before most in this country agree now however. But when they do end up agreeing, I don't think I would want to be anywhere near the Middle East.

Edited July 30, 2008 by EC

[brian0918]

Iran should be completely disarmed by whatever force is necessary as soon as possible.

Is there any evidence that they actually are building nuclear weapons? I thought the NIE showed they stopped in 2003. Although, for the threats alone, Israel should feel free to defend themselves.

The guy's in the next room building guns while simultaneously making threats. The only rational thing to do is eliminate the threat before it becomes a reality.

And what do you do when it does become a reality and they continue to make threats (e.g. North Korea)?

I'm thinking that now it is going to take another 9/11 on a nuclear scale before most in this country agree now however.

I saw this prediction in a lecture a few years ago by Pace VanDevender (physicist with interest in world politics). He believed that a small nuke would be detonated over a major US city in 2008 or 2009, and that would lead the country to retaliation and domestic military lockdown (ie, police state).

Edited July 30, 2008 by brian0918

[Moebius]

The only proper goal of a government in the realm of international relations is protecting its citizens at home and abroad. We certainly shouldn't take the feelings of other governments, allied or enemy, into account. In fact, it is precisely the cowardly policies of our government which earn us animosity. The more the United States plays "benevolant peace-keeper" around the world, the more everyone hates us. We fought total war against Japan in the 1940s, at the cost of many Japanese civilian lives, and there was little or no animosity afterwards. Our enemies need to understand that if we wage war against them, it will be total war, and not "just war".

First of all, to be clear, there is DEFINITELY a large amount of anti-American sentiment in Japan. Same goes for South Korea, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines, in varying degrees. Mostly the reasoning revolves around the United States having some sort of devious imperialistic plan for subjugating the greater Asia. Not unlike how many Americans blaming the Chinese and Indians for losing jobs, and view all Middle Easterners (or more precisely all brown-looking folks) with suspicions.

Secondly, I know what you are trying to say about total war vs just war. But total war is hardly the only proper and reasonable level of force, or else we'd just start nuking everyone. Regardless of justifications, what we have done in Iraq for instance --toppling the dictatorship and setting up a democracy-- isn't necessarily a worse option than nuking the entire country's population. Of course maybe you DO think that it is proper to use WMDs in threat-type situations, but there is already another thread on that topic.

Finally, the reason everyone hates us for being the "benevolent peace keeper" is because they think that we "keeping peace" selectively and only when it suits our imperialistic interests, not because we don't fuck up our enemies enough.

But we are speaking of nuclear weapons here, not trade restrictions. The situations are not remotely comparable. That said, a dictatorship is not legitimate, and doesn't have a right not to have our ships parked in its harbors.

It is illustrating an example of force being used improperly and immorally.

That said, I have my questions about why a dictatorship would not be allowed property rights. So are you saying that it would be moral for the United States to, say, walk straight into China and start fencing off the entirely country, claiming it as our own because they are a dictatorship?

Why is this relevant? Also, almost any other government throughout history which enjoyed comparable military superiority to what the United States has today would mount aggressive invasions, and would be held in terror and awe by people everywhere. It is only because of America's commitment to freedom that this hasn't happened. There are other alternatives, however, besides appeasment and aggression.

How is what other governments in the past have done relevant?

Something is either moral or it isn't. What has the past got to do with anything? Is the rest of the world supposed to be grateful for America's dedication to freedom? No. America does it because it is within its best interest to do so.

[Moebius]

Let's put some facts on the table now:

1) Last week it was widely reported Canada took in several tons of yellow-cake uranium confiscated by the US in Iraq during the war. So Saddam had large amounts of uranium meant for enrichment, which he could have used if/when sanctions were lifted.

It is a mis-leading fact. The uranium was NOT weapons-grade, and was known by the UN and IAEA in accordance to international law.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

First of all, to be clear, there is DEFINITELY a large amount of anti-American sentiment in Japan.

I lived in Japan for years, and I saw absolutely none of this supposed "anti-American sentiment". In fact, everyone seemed very friendly toward me and my parents. I see more anti-American sentiment in the United States today than I did in Japan. It is possible that times have changed since then, but I had a Japanese friend much more recently, and he was far from anti-American. You are going to have to present some serious evidence for your claim.

Secondly, I know what you are trying to say about total war vs just war. But total war is hardly the only proper and reasonable level of force, or else we'd just start nuking everyone. Regardless of justifications, what we have done in Iraq for instance --toppling the dictatorship and setting up a democracy-- isn't necessarily a worse option than nuking the entire country's population. Of course maybe you DO think that it is proper to use WMDs in threat-type situations, but there is already another thread on that topic.

Total war is the only proper response to an actual attack on the United States (assuming the responsible government has been identified). In other situations, smaller campaigns could be more logical. One alternative would be the bombing of weapons facilities or the assasination of enemy leaders. However, there is absolutely no situation which would justify the altruistic campaign of suicide which is being carried out by the Bush administration. War is about victory (the swift accomplishment of well-defined goals), not about "compassion".

Finally, the reason everyone hates us for being the "benevolent peace keeper" is because they think that we "keeping peace" selectively and only when it suits our imperialistic interests, not because we don't fuck up our enemies enough.

I assume that you do not give credence to this view, however?

That said, I have my questions about why a dictatorship would not be allowed property rights. So are you saying that it would be moral for the United States to, say, walk straight into China and start fencing off the entirely country, claiming it as our own because they are a dictatorship?

Military action against China would be immoral, but not because it would violate any "rights" of the Chinese regime to "property". After all, that regime does not even recognize the property rights of its own citizens.

Something is either moral or it isn't. What has the past got to do with anything? Is the rest of the world supposed to be grateful for America's dedication to freedom? No. America does it because it is within its best interest to do so.

Do you think that history is irrelevant? I was using it as an example to illustrate the concrete results of a moral principle, not as evidence for that principle. In this capacity, I think it is extremely useful.

To answer your question, yes the rest of the world most certainly should be grateful for America's dedication to freedom. Do you believe that it is acceptable to resent the good (as many foreign anti-American propagandists do)? The proper response to the good is admiration in spirit, and support in action. Is this the reason that the United States should protect freedom? No, but I never implied that.

[Marc K.]

I think the analogy of a gun-maker set on murder is false [...]

I don't see how. They are in fact murderers and they are in fact gun-makers.

[William Scott Scherk]

Let's put some facts on the table now:

1) Last week it was widely reported Canada took in several tons of yellow-cake uranium confiscated by the US in Iraq during the war. So Saddam had large amounts of uranium meant for enrichment, which he could have used if/when sanctions were lifted.

The US did not confiscate the yellowcake. Iraq sold it.

2) Iran has undertaken acts of war, directly and indirectly, against the US, Israel and other American allies for over 20 years. On that basis alone America, or Israel, is more than justified to take military action.

So you say -- but what kind of action do you suggest Israel should take? Should Israel bomb the dozen or more Iranian nuclear facilities, what do you foresee as the consequences?

3) Iran does not need nuclear power for its economy. It produces so much oil any other energy alternatives are more expensive. therefore any claim that its enriching uranium for civilian uses should be met with the utmost skepticism.

I understand you are skeptical. But simply saying that Iran has no need for nuclear power is irrelevant to what Iran believes it will need in terms of power. The Iranian nuclear programme was started by the Shah, with US support.

4) No one in authority is considering using nuclear weapons against Iran.

How do you know this? What does it mean when the US president does not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran?

5) North Korea just isn't much of a threat.

So the use of hard diplomacy succeeded in stopping their nuclear weapons program.

What I don't understand is what a US or Israeli strike against Iran is supposed to do. Can anyone here spell out a rational programme of destruction, and sketch out the likely results?

[EC]

What I don't understand is what a US or Israeli strike against Iran is supposed to do. Can anyone here spell out a rational programme of destruction, and sketch out the likely results?

It is supposed to eliminate Iran's threat's and means to carry out those threats against our citizens. Destroy every vestige of their government and anything and anybody that supports it. Do it with quick, precise strikes against all possible targets nearly simultaneously. I.e., quickly remove all and any threats to the live's and welfare of all the American and Iraeli people directly to the source of those threats, and then leave. But leave with a warning, any serious future threats will be handled with similar use of overwhelming force. Let them know that anything resembling what they once were will NOT be tolerated again, and if a similar threat arises again, erase the problem again in the same way. In other words give them the option to become more rational and non-threatening or die.

[William Scott Scherk]

I don't see how [ the gun maker analogy is false]. They are in fact murderers and they are in fact gun-makers.

No. If the analogy is true, Iran will have announced it is currently building nuclear weapons and will have announced that it will use the weapons to destroy Israel.

Good analogies have strong correspondence to reality.

[Mammon]

It is supposed to eliminate Iran's threat's and means to carry out those threats against our citizens. Destroy every vestige of their government and anything and anybody that supports it. Do it with quick, precise strikes against all possible targets nearly simultaneously. I.e., quickly remove all and any threats to the live's and welfare of all the American and Iraeli people directly to the source of those threats, and then leave. But leave with a warning, any serious future threats will be handled with similar use of overwhelming force. Let them know that anything resembling what they once were will NOT be tolerated again, and if a similar threat arises again, erase the problem again in the same way. In other words give them the option to become more rational and non-threatening or die.

Seriously, what are chances of this happening though?

[William Scott Scherk]

So quick precise strikes to destroy all government and all support for it (I assume you mean to destroy every last member of its armed forces in addition, EC). This is roughly 600,000 regular armed forces, with another half million revolutionary guards, plus a million or more (up to 12 million) reservists of the Basij. Plus their families and the 20 million or so who voted in the government, plus the civil service, plus the local authorities.

Boom boom boom . . .

Then what? What are the possible consequences of killing this many people? Have you thought any of this through, EC?

[K-Mac]

Thanks for your post, D'kian.

Rather than claim to know classified government/UN information/intelligence (much less trust it), I prefer to use my brain. If you look at what we do know (Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists who hate and constantly threaten the US and Israel, Ahmadinejad agrees with Ayatollah Khomeini that "Israel should be wiped off the map", he is building nuclear power plants even though his country has no rational use for nuclear energy, etc., etc.) and come to a conclusion other than Iran is a serious threat to the US and/or Israel, you might as well go to San Francisco with a flower in your hair.

Then what? What are the possible consequences of killing this many people?

What about killing that many people? That's what happens in a war. Destruction of lives and property. They should not have allowed their religion and their government to take over their rationality. In doing so, they have enabled their government to become the threat that it is to the entire freedom loving world. If they die in a war, instigated by their government, their own government is to blame for their deaths.

[Marc K.]

No. If the analogy is true, Iran will have announced it is currently building nuclear weapons and will have announced that it will use the weapons to destroy Israel.

Good analogies have strong correspondence to reality.

Analogies are never perfect but I find this one quite apt.

You are in a room with someone who you know to be a murderer. He says he is definitely not assembling a gun. Of course, you don't know if he is actually building a gun or not because he is a murderer. He has said that you are the equivalent of the devil and that he intends to destroy you and your kind. You know he has bullets and you know he probably has the ability to build a gun.

I can't believe you wouldn't pull the trigger.

[William Scott Scherk]

What about killing that many people? That's what happens in a war. Destruction of lives and property.

I asked EC -- and now ask you, Kelly -- what consequences follow upon this kind of destruction?

[K-Mac]

Well, the people of Japan, for example, picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and proceeded to become a free, prosperous country.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

First of all, to be clear, there is DEFINITELY a large amount of anti-American sentiment in Japan.

From a brief search, I can see that the situation has indeed changed somewhat since I lived in Japan (in the early 1990s). That is too bad. However I do not see any evidence that anti-Americanism is worse there than in, for example, most of Western Europe. Furthermore, the anti-Americanism is recent, and I would claim that it is merely a phenomenon that has been passively absorbed by the new generation. Therefore, I am not convinced that our actions in World War II (in which we fought with most of Western Europe and against Japan) have had any negative affect on the current situation.

I would like to state that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was morally right regardless of what the Japanese could have been expected to think about America decades later. In fact, however, one of the benefits of total war is convincing your enemies that their way of life is a failure and must be renounced.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Tenzing_Shaw

[D'kian]

The US did not confiscate the yellowcake. Iraq sold it.

Irrelevant. The fact remains Hussein had several tons of yellow-cake he could use to produce weapons grade materials.

So you say -- but what kind of action do you suggest Israel should take? Should Israel bomb the dozen or more Iranian nuclear facilities, what do you foresee as the consequences?

I suggest just that. I'd also suggest trying to kill as many in the leadership as possible.

As for consequences, just about every state in the region wants to do away with Israel. None can, and some, like Egypt and Jordan have stopped trying. the rest can't do a thing about it. If you think we'll see mroe terrorism from Hammas and Hizbullah, you're right. But Israel can deal with it, if it means re-occupying the west Bank, Gaza and parts of Lebanon.

I understand you are skeptical. But simply saying that Iran has no need for nuclear power is irrelevant to what Iran believes it will need in terms of power. The Iranian nuclear programme was started by the Shah, with US support.

Then iran should have no probelm allowing in US inspectors to look everything over, should they? But see also what the UN has said about it. BTW Iran saying it's all a civilian program carries as much credibility as the mafia's "legitimate businessmen" dodge.

How do you know this? What does it mean when the US president does not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran?

No one in authority has spoken about it, not even to hint at a threat. Of course, if you look around at the Pentagon, they'll ahve plans for doing that. They also ahve plans for chemical warfare and germ warfare, too. there are probably plans to invade Canada as well. That's what military staffs do: plans for all sorts of unlikely contingencies.

What I don't understand is what a US or Israeli strike against Iran is supposed to do. Can anyone here spell out a rational programme of destruction, and sketch out the likely results?

If it's Israel alone, she can destroy or damage all known and suspected nuclear sites, plus portions of the Iranian military (I'd focus on aircraft and long range missiles). That could make Iran give up its nuclear program as a bad job, but likely it won't. it will at the very elast delay such programs by several years. If they can get some of the more important people, so much the better.

If it were America, then we're already years too late. America could establish a rapport with whatever dissident groups exist, offer them support and even some material aid. That buys you intelligence sources, at least, and perhaps some return support. So when you strike, you can encourage them to take over, and even help them do so.

That won't ahppen, though. But there is much that can be done. For starters the same things ISrael can do, but on a bigger scale. Targets can be bombed several times, for example, and more attention can be paid to other military facilites including the army and the Revolutionary Guards.

The US can also establish and maintain a blockade of Iranian waters. Why? Well, while it would drive up oil prices remarkably high, it would choke Iran's gasoline imports, which are considerable; not ot mention it would hit Iran's foreign revenues hard. Also the US should move to seize whatever Iranian assets it can, wherever they may be.

The posture a civilized nation should take when threatened is to say "Back off, or I'll beat the crap out of you." Of course couched in diplomatic terms. If the threat persists, you go and beat the crap out of him, literally.

If that doesn't work, you thereaten to kill them all, that means the sort of regime change as effected in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iran's case you do the same.

[William Scott Scherk]

As for consequences, just about every state in the region wants to do away with Israel. None can, and some, like Egypt and Jordan have stopped trying. the rest can't do a thing about it. If you think we'll see mroe terrorism from Hammas and Hizbullah, you're right. But Israel can deal with it, if it means re-occupying the west Bank, Gaza and parts of Lebanon.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that Israel should pound the shit out of all the Iranian nuclear facilities, and destroy as much of the leadership as she can.

As for the US, you want them to launch and sustain attacks on Iran on a larger scale, and attempt to cripple the armed forces and the revolutionary guards.

The only consequences you have noted are new attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. Is that all you see happening in the aftermath of your massive military campaign against Iran?

I also wonder if you think there is any need for allies in this dual campaign.

In any case, we probably both agree that it is easy to be an armchair general.

[D'kian]

If I understand you correctly, you believe that Israel should pound the shit out of all the Iranian nuclear facilities, and destroy as much of the leadership as she can.

And hit as much as she can hit of Iran's air force and long range missiles.

As for the US, you want them to launch and sustain attacks on Iran on a larger scale, and attempt to cripple the armed forces and the revolutionary guards.

And blockade Iran to break the country.

The only consequences you have noted are new attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. Is that all you see happening in the aftermath of your massive military campaign against Iran?

Oh, no. Who can tell all that could happen. But militarily Iran couldn't hit back at Israel. maybe launch a missile or two, which would be as accurate as Scuds. So all it can do is unleash its pet terror groups.

Of course the "Arab Street"™ will go berserk. Whether anything comes of it is uknown, but chances are nothing serious would happen. besides, the Arabs don't like Iran any more than the West does, less maybe.

Every last country on Earth will condemn Israel's actions. America will, too, or will remain silent. Someone will try to pass a resolution in the Security Council which America would veto (except possibly under a President Obama).

There may or may not be an uprising in Iran.

That's all I can think of.

I also wonder if you think there is any need for allies in this dual campaign.

What allies can Israel have? If her neighbors were rational they'd be on their knees begging Israel to strike Iran, unless you think Egypt or Saudi Arabia would like to see the perisans armed with such weapons. Israel can more or less count on America, less rather than more.

If America does attack, Israel should join. But such things don't happen in the real world.

[Scott_Connery]

No, we DON'T KNOW that he had WMDs. Do not state that as a fact when it simply isn't. Unless you're talking about the mustard gas from the 70s -- expired and with no means of long range delivery. I think the inspectors found a couple of empty barrels with traces of those stuff.

We found way more than that. In addition Saddam had months to move his weapons programs eslewhere. The things we found are just the tip of the iceberg.

We have found Sarin, mustard gas, and biological warfare strains like botulinum bacteria. Oh yeah, and uranium, and uranium ore (yellow cake).

We DO Know.

Even if we didn't find anything, Saddam claimed he had them. Why shouldn't we have taken him at his word?