Question of the Day
Iraq is claiming that it no longer has any weapons of mass destruction.
Because Saddam Hussein has repeatedly defied attempts by the UN to make a thorough inspection, many countries are sceptical.
The US argues that the resolution soon to be adopted by the UN with respect to weapons inspection (the 17th such resolution, I believe) should include language making clear what the consequences will be if Iraq doesn't give the inspectors free and unfettered access.
The Question: Why does Iraq object to the inclusion of such languge?
If there truly are no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, wouldn't you think the best strategy for Iraq would be to say "put any language you want in the resolution. It makes no difference to us because we know there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found anywhere in our country."?
Iraq is claiming that it no longer has any weapons of mass destruction.
Because Saddam Hussein has repeatedly defied attempts by the UN to make a thorough inspection, many countries are sceptical.
The US argues that the resolution soon to be adopted by the UN with respect to weapons inspection (the 17th such resolution, I believe) should include language making clear what the consequences will be if Iraq doesn't give the inspectors free and unfettered access.
The Question: Why does Iraq object to the inclusion of such languge?
If there truly are no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, wouldn't you think the best strategy for Iraq would be to say "put any language you want in the resolution. It makes no difference to us because we know there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found anywhere in our country."?