A quick skim through shows no mention of radiological weapons -- surely a much more viable threat than nuclear weapons; relatively little on liquid fuel vs solid fuel for missiles, again a critical factor in the viability of the threat; and also nothing on whether Iraq has workable barometric fuses available for it's missiles, if it's still almost entirely reliant on impact fuses then the threats associated with bio, chem and radialogical (and to a lesser extent nuclear) attacks are dramatically reduced.

All in all, I'm quite disappointed with the report -- there seems to be little of substance here; I would have hoped that the govt report would be significantly more insightful than the IISS one, but it appears not to be the case. It seems to be focused on the more fashioniable end of WMD (nuclear weapons) and on human rights abuses, rather than on Iraq's WMD abilities as a whole.

(Edited by Callum 24/09/2002 11:52)

Have we had a thready on Iraq yet? What are everyone's thoughts. Maybe we should have a poll.

I'm just reading the dossier now. Personally i'm against action, at least in the way being proposed by the U.S.

I do agree that if it takes place it should be based on U.N. action. What is the point of the U.N. if its not worth the paper its printed on? US seems to have decided it is the world's global force already with or without agreement from anyone else.

Previous Iraq discussion can be found here

Only skimmed so far, but there doesn't seem to be anything of weight or that we haven't known for some time. But I will read further. However, what I have read has raised the following thoughts.

One argument used in the dossier is the amount of UN resolutions he is contravening. If this is the only issue, then surely we need a UN mandate to take action? To take unilateral action because someone has broken the rules of a collective makes no sense.

Another argument is the danger to the Iraqi people (especially the Kurds and Shia Muslims) that Saddam Hussein poses. If this is so then surely we need a mandate from the Iraqi people to invade? We don't have this (mainly because the west continually refuses to allow the various Iraqi people self-determination).

Another is the danger he poses to the region. Yet again, if this is the issue shouldn't we have a mandate from the regional powers to invade? Again, we don't. In fact, pretty much every regional power (including moderates like Jordan) have gone out of their way to persuade the west not to attack.

So, if we're not preparing an invasion on behalf of the UN, the people of Iraq or the Middle-East, then who the bally blazes are we intending to invade for?