On 3/25/03 5:47 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:

= > How do we discuss the issue of "whether or not Iraq has = > chemical weapons"? = = With liberal use of the word "alleged" and by indicating who is doing the = alleging and under what circumstances, same as any NPOV issue. = = -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thanks, Brion. I hope I'm not taking up valuable mailing list space with my question about Iraq.

Certain people -- not to name Cunctator, he he -- think this discussion should be on a talk page instead...

It's a good thing you didn't name me, he he, because I didn't say that I think your question was inappropriate. I was referring to the argument that ensued, e.g.

The UN inspectors were closely followed by Iraqi handlers. The American trooops have none, and also have the cooperation of the locals, which the inspectors did not, because the locals were afraid of Hussein's backlash.

and

This was not the case of the inspectors who went in because of resolution 1441. The co-operation of the locals has been significantly less than expected, notably in the Shia south where there has typically been an anti-Saddam tradition. The capture of Umm-Qasr has been more difficult than expected, and troops have not gone into Basra at all. For many Iraqis the issue has become less a matter of preserving Saddam's regime than of protecting the integrity of the country.

An interesting and compelling discussion, but not relevant or appropriate for the mailing list.