Ordinarily I would just bring this up on a talk page, but
this issue cuts across several articles, and I might need
a ruling from Jimbo.
How do we discuss the issue of "whether or not Iraq has
chemical weapons"?
Officially, of course, they deny having any. And it's a
crucial yes-no matter because their alleged possession is
the chief rationale behind the US-led war in Iraq.
If Iraq doesn't chemical weapons, it looks like the US
military campaign is:
* not morally justified
* a violation of international law
...which may have ramifications about whether Iraq is
bound to treat POWs according to the Geneva Convention or
can "legally" torture, execute or rape them.
If Iraq does have chemical weapons, the US campaign seems:
* at least partially justified
* probably NOT a violation of international law
...although the last 2 points are in themselves
controversial.
The question is, how do we handle this when writing articles about the war?
Ed Poor