The Saddam was bluffing theory

[Axis Kast]

And why not? Not all fifty aircraft were hidden underground. Others were under camo netting among copses of trees, or hidden in cemeteries (these were spotted easily from satellite- strikes were ordered against them and shown in CENTCOM Qatar)- you can see pictures of the SAS around a MiG-25U with camo netting under some trees, for example.

Because movement in general is difficult to conceal. It’s why it’s even more difficult to explain the mere thirty planes found outside el-Taqqadum. Stationary aircraft are indeed difficult to spot; not so mobile pallets.

I've already told you!

No, you’ve levied an accusation and gone from, “Bush said!” to “Bush’s aides side!” to, “I said it before!”

And I'm supposed to have high confidence when these kinds of embarassments make it in?

It certainly happens from time to time.

The point is that inspectors have been effective before, despite the constant rhetoric of their 'failure'.

Because they were the first ones on site. I seriously doubt however that they represent as effective a force as the American teams now in place. It’s a matter of broad coverage at this point.

How?

It may very well have been a broad order to units whom Saddam planned to “grant” use of special weapons some time during the war.

Taking their equipment with them and putting it where? The special WMD units derelict their duty in shying away from engagement as was expected, but they're not going to make a quick buck from the new authority by telling where they are? What kind of special unit is that? Sounds like the Three Thousand Stooges.

They “shy away” because they don’t want to die. Nobody’s told us where Saddam Hussein is, either, Vympel. Does that mean he isn’t there, or never was?

Stockpiles? Kay hasn't found any stockpiles of anything.

Infrastructure is irrelevant. All we need to find is stockpiles.

No, it was the individual nations within the UN's job more specifically.

They didn’t – and their failure had the potential to come crashing down on our heads.

No, I just can't believe you're one of those people who contemplates Iraq attacking Israel. I'm sure the 150,000 American troops would also be happy to know that their comrades have perished for the security of Israel from the biggest joke of a country in the region, I'm sure that's what they signed up for.

Once more, I remind you that Iraq has defied military logic to do so in the past – and that Sharon’s response to an attack might be well out of the league of acceptability from our point of view.

And yet such small time smuggling was tolerated as part and parcel of maintaining the greater cause of the sanctions regime, which was keeping Iraq weak and non-threatening. The more nations in the region that suffered adverse trade consequences, the more that would ague loudly for sanctions to be lifted. Those voices in the UN were quite persistent.

An upgrade to a defense network isn’t “small-time smuggling.” Computer and auto parts are one thing (two things, really!) on a limited basis. Fiber-optic cables for air-defense networks aren’t.

[Vympel]

Because movement in general is difficult to conceal. It’s why it’s even more difficult to explain the mere thirty planes found outside el-Taqqadum. Stationary aircraft are indeed difficult to spot; not so mobile pallets.

Pallets? You attach a dedicated vehicle to the landing gear and start driving. Movement can also be done over short distances, between satellite sweeps. Big moves over many km or complicated burial operations are however prone to being seen.

No, you’ve levied an accusation and gone from, “Bush said!” to “Bush’s aides side!” to, “I said it before!”

Hello? The CIA? Anyone home?

It certainly happens from time to time.

Which is not the point. It shouldn't happen.

Because they were the first ones on site. I seriously doubt however that they represent as effective a force as the American teams now in place. It’s a matter of broad coverage at this point.

As effective or no, they did their jobs.

It may very well have been a broad order to units whom Saddam planned to “grant” use of special weapons some time during the war.

When you give orders to use chemical weapons, it means what it says, not "you know, I'm thinking that I'll let you use chemical weapons when the time comes, but for now don't do anything".

They “shy away” because they don’t want to die.

And hence acted in direct contravention of orders. I don't buy the idea that they'll run around hiding WMD etc and display absolute loyalty in keeping it secret, but when ordered to actually fight they'll melt away, discarding their loyalty to the regime, but for some reason keep up the WMD charade. It's a ridiculous idea.

Nobody’s told us where Saddam Hussein is, either, Vympel. Does that mean he isn’t there, or never was?

Blatantly false analogy, considering the existence of Saddam Hussein was an undisputable fact (well unless you're a philosopher) rather than an assumption.

Infrastructure is irrelevant. All we need to find is stockpiles.

Not if those stockpiles have decayed to uselessness and have been abandoned.

They didn’t – and their failure had the potential to come crashing down on our heads.

Then why did Iraq accept the inspector's back in September 2002?

Once more, I remind you that Iraq has defied military logic to do so in the past – and that Sharon’s response to an attack might be well out of the league of acceptability from our point of view.

Actually at the time it was sound geopolitical logic, considering that Israel's entry into the war would've shattered the Coalition. And answer the question, why should American soldiers die in the hundreds to protect Israel from the nonexistent threat from Iraq?

An upgrade to a defense network isn’t “small-time smuggling.” Computer and auto parts are one thing (two things, really!) on a limited basis. Fiber-optic cables for air-defense networks aren’t.

That's not an upgrade. Iraq had the French KARI air defense network employing fiber-optics back in the 1980s, it was effectively smashed in the war and was never effectively rebuilt, and was also consistently bombed by Anglo-American warplanes throughout the history of the no-fly zones, especially fiber-optic nodes. Leaflets were dropped on Iraqi air force technicians to tell them that they were risking their lives by trying to repair them. As the war decisively demonstrated, Iraq's air defense system was non-existent.

[Axis Kast]

Pallets? You attach a dedicated vehicle to the landing gear and start driving. Movement can also be done over short distances, between satellite sweeps. Big moves over many km or complicated burial operations are however prone to being seen.

I seriously doubt the Iraqis possessed the capability to move fifty planes without somehow falling under satellite coverage at one time during the process.

Hello? The CIA? Anyone home?

Then let’s see the sources!

Which is not the point. It shouldn't happen.

That’s debatable. If I were George W. Bush, I’d sure as hell have included “those sixteen words” myself. They’re still true no matter how you spin it. The British did indeed pass on that intelligence. It’s one thing to take false reports, but quite another to twist your words.

As effective or no, they did their jobs.

I can do my job but still not fulfill all requirements. The same was true with Blix.

When you give orders to use chemical weapons, it means what it says, not "you know, I'm thinking that I'll let you use chemical weapons when the time comes, but for now don't do anything".

We’re talking about authorization. Nobody accused the Iraqi military of actually displaying efficiency. If you cannot accept the fact that the chemicals might not have been distributed due to the short duration of combat operations, I don’t know what else to tell you. Apparently nothing can burst that bubble of yours.

And hence acted in direct contravention of orders. I don't buy the idea that they'll run around hiding WMD etc and display absolute loyalty in keeping it secret, but when ordered to actually fight they'll melt away, discarding their loyalty to the regime, but for some reason keep up the WMD charade. It's a ridiculous idea.

In contravention of orders … just like most of the rest of the surviving members of the Iraqi military?

It was a matter of life and death. Either stand and fight a losing battle or melt into the woodwork to support the opposition they know will form. Plenty of people have clearly kept up the “Saddam cherade.”

Blatantly false analogy, considering the existence of Saddam Hussein was an undisputable fact (well unless you're a philosopher) rather than an assumption.

No, it’s not a false analogy. Why haven’t Iraqis identified their own leader? If you’re so sure that some would be willing to cooperate, why no Hussein?

Not if those stockpiles have decayed to uselessness and have been abandoned.

… which is still in question.

Then why did Iraq accept the inspector's back in September 2002?

Too little, too late.

Actually at the time it was sound geopolitical logic, considering that Israel's entry into the war would've shattered the Coalition. And answer the question, why should American soldiers die in the hundreds to protect Israel from the nonexistent threat from Iraq?

No, it wasn’t sound geopolitical logic. Saddam ordered additional preparations vis a vie Israel, including “hostage” contingencies involving missile launch should Baghdad fall under attack. He planned to hold the Western world hostage.

Bush had the correct answer to your second question: we cannot afford to wait until Iraq expands its capabilities. Better to act now while he’s comparatively weaker than later, after he’s made the first move or solidified his position any further.

That's not an upgrade. Iraq had the French KARI air defense network employing fiber-optics back in the 1980s, it was effectively smashed in the war and was never effectively rebuilt, and was also consistently bombed by Anglo-American warplanes throughout the history of the no-fly zones, especially fiber-optic nodes. Leaflets were dropped on Iraqi air force technicians to tell them that they were risking their lives by trying to repair them. As the war decisively demonstrated, Iraq's air defense system was non-existent.

The effectiveness is not in question. The fact that military equipment designed to shoot down Coalition aircraft got through at all is.

[Vympel]

I seriously doubt the Iraqis possessed the capability to move fifty planes without somehow falling under satellite coverage at one time during the process.

It's not a huge capability, and considering there are other airbases and a myriad other military targets (not to mention suspected WMD sites) to be observed I don't see it as inconceivable.

Then let’s see the sources!

I've posted it BEFORE:

Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past."

When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim. "Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report (1/18/03).

In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic missiles at several sites. In one such report the CIA said "the only plausible explanation" for a new structure at the Al Rafah missile test site was that Iraqis were developing banned long-range missiles (Associated Press, 1/18/03). But CIA suggestions that facilities at Al Rafah, in addition to sites at Al Mutasim and Al Mamoun, were being used to build prohibited missile systems were found to be baseless when U.N. inspectors repeatedly visited each site (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

British and U.S. intelligence officials said new building at Al-Qaim, a former uranium refinery in Iraq's western desert, suggested renewed Iraqi development of nuclear weapons. But an extensive survey by U.N. inspectors in December reported no violations (Associated Press, 1/18/03).

Last fall the CIA warned that "key aspects of Iraq's offensive [biological weapons] program are active and most elements are more advanced and larger" than they were pre-1990, citing as evidence renewed building at several facilities such as the Al Dawrah Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant. By mid-January, inspectors had visited all the sites many times over. No evidence was found that the facilities were being used to manufacture banned weapons (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

Now, if your own media isn't good enough for you, whatever.

That’s debatable.

Since when is making embarassing mistakes acceptable?

If I were George W. Bush, I’d sure as hell have included “those sixteen words” myself. They’re still true no matter how you spin it. The British did indeed pass on that intelligence. It’s one thing to take false reports, but quite another to twist your words.

What a load of shit Clinton-style hairsplitting bullshit. He said the British have LEARNED. If you want to get all Clinton on me, to say that someone has LEARNED of something is to endorse it as true. It was not true. It was false. If he had said the British had "reported" then that would be another matter, but even if they had said that, they still knew that the report was not up to the standards required, that they had severe doubts about the claim, but some idiot put it in anyway. That's why Rice and Tenet were scrambling to fall on their own swords to save the President from the embarassment.

To illustrate: Imagine that the British had said that Hussein was a peace-loving man about to bring democracy to his country. Would Bush have said that the British had "learned" that?

I can do my job but still not fulfill all requirements. The same was true with Blix.

Nonsense. You can't do your job and at the same time not fuflil requirements.

We’re talking about authorization. Nobody accused the Iraqi military of actually displaying efficiency. If you cannot accept the fact that the chemicals might not have been distributed due to the short duration of combat operations, I don’t know what else to tell you. Apparently nothing can burst that bubble of yours.

Weeks is not a short duration of combat operations. Hours is. Wars are lost and won in that time, and not just in modern times: see France.

In contravention of orders … just like most of the rest of the surviving members of the Iraqi military?

Exactly. This helps your argument how?

It was a matter of life and death. Either stand and fight a losing battle or melt into the woodwork to support the opposition they know will form. Plenty of people have clearly kept up the “Saddam cherade.”

War is always a matter of life and death. You're arguing that they're incompetent in following one set of orders while being quite resourceful in thinkin up one of their own, all while having the good sense to hide those WMD they were ordered to use. (unless you want to pretend Saddam ordered his army to basically melt into the wood work). It's bullshit. Pick one.

No, it’s not a false analogy. Why haven’t Iraqis identified their own leader? If you’re so sure that some would be willing to cooperate, why no Hussein?

I take it you've missed those articles about Task Force 20 getting tips of his whereabouts and saying "we were this close".

Too little, too late.

Yeah, sure. If they had let em back in 1999 you still would be saying too late.

No, it wasn’t sound geopolitical logic. Saddam ordered additional preparations vis a vie Israel, including “hostage” contingencies involving missile launch should Baghdad fall under attack. He planned to hold the Western world hostage.

And that's not sound geopolitical lgoic? Seems pretty fucking predictable if you ask me. I guess you'd argue that if Soviet forces were marching on Washington and the US said 'come any closer to the capital and they said we'll launch our nukes' you'd say that wasn't sound?

Listen to yourself: "He planned to hold the Western world hostage should Baghdad fall under attack". The war has ALREADY BEGUN. You expect Iraq to NOT fight back?

Bush had the correct answer to your second question: we cannot afford to wait until Iraq expands its capabilities. Better to act now while he’s comparatively weaker than later, after he’s made the first move or solidified his position any further.

Pure Third Reich bullshit self defense claim- we must attack now because of what they 'might' do sometime in the future, maybe. Utterly bereft of value, which is why Bush so strenuously tried to scare the hell out of the American public. I'd like you to provide one quote where Bush said Iraq was weak and that it should be attacked before it was a threat. He played up the threat continuously.

The effectiveness is not in question. The fact that military equipment designed to shoot down Coalition aircraft got through at all is.

I was not aware fiber optic cable was designed for shooting down Coalition aircraft, especially when attached to 30 year old obsolete missiles.

[BoredShirtless]

If I were George W. Bush, I’d sure as hell have included “those sixteen words” myself. They’re still true no matter how you spin it. The British did indeed pass on that intelligence. It’s one thing to take false reports, but quite another to twist your words.

What a load of shit Clinton-style hairsplitting bullshit. He said the British have LEARNED. If you want to get all Clinton on me, to say that someone has LEARNED of something is to endorse it as true. It was not true. It was false. If he had said the British had "reported" then that would be another matter, but even if they had said that, they still knew that the report was not up to the standards required, that they had severe doubts about the claim, but some idiot put it in anyway. That's why Rice and Tenet were scrambling to fall on their own swords to save the President from the embarassment.

To illustrate: Imagine that the British had said that Hussein was a peace-loving man about to bring democracy to his country. Would Bush have said that the British had "learned" that?

You can go one better. The US government dispatched an envoy to Niger in Feb 2002, purpose being to verify that British Intel. They concluded it was crap. The US knew all along it was crap. But still used it in the Speech. To deceive is to lie.

[Axis Kast]

It's not a huge capability, and considering there are other airbases and a myriad other military targets (not to mention suspected WMD sites) to be observed I don't see it as inconceivable.

Inconceivable? No, I agree that it’s possible we might have missed the movement – but not bloody likely.

Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past."

“Rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past” is a broad statement that could easily relate to activity not officially prohibited. No outright falsehood.

In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic missiles at several sites. In one such report the CIA said "the only plausible explanation" for a new structure at the Al Rafah missile test site was that Iraqis were developing banned long-range missiles (Associated Press, 1/18/03). But CIA suggestions that facilities at Al Rafah, in addition to sites at Al Mutasim and Al Mamoun, were being used to build prohibited missile systems were found to be baseless when U.N. inspectors repeatedly visited each site (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

Conclusive evidence such as the al-Samouds, which the White House designated as being in contravention since day one. A statement of opinion – analysis - put forth by the CIA that didn’t jive with what inspectors returned. That’s not unusual considering it’s the agency’s job to make estimates.

British and U.S. intelligence officials said new building at Al-Qaim, a former uranium refinery in Iraq's western desert, suggested renewed Iraqi development of nuclear weapons. But an extensive survey by U.N. inspectors in December reported no violations (Associated Press, 1/18/03).

Suggested. Hinted at. Implied.

Last fall the CIA warned that "key aspects of Iraq's offensive [biological weapons] program are active and most elements are more advanced and larger" than they were pre-1990, citing as evidence renewed building at several facilities such as the Al Dawrah Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant. By mid-January, inspectors had visited all the sites many times over. No evidence was found that the facilities were being used to manufacture banned weapons (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

Again, the “active” nature of the offensive programs could easily refer to financial networks or working discussions. I’d also like to see the actual CIA citations.

Since when is making embarassing mistakes acceptable?

Since presidents and their intelligence agencies were human.

What a load of shit Clinton-style hairsplitting bullshit. He said the British have LEARNED. If you want to get all Clinton on me, to say that someone has LEARNED of something is to endorse it as true. It was not true. It was false. If he had said the British had "reported" then that would be another matter, but even if they had said that, they still knew that the report was not up to the standards required, that they had severe doubts about the claim, but some idiot put it in anyway. That's why Rice and Tenet were scrambling to fall on their own swords to save the President from the embarassment.

“Learned” and “reported” are one and the same here. I can see no difference between the British “learning of” a rumor or their “reporting” it. The claims might have been in doubt, but they were still passed forward by a credible ally.

To illustrate: Imagine that the British had said that Hussein was a peace-loving man about to bring democracy to his country. Would Bush have said that the British had "learned" that?

False dilemma.

Nonsense. You can't do your job and at the same time not fuflil requirements.

Hans Blix searched specific locations. He would never have been able to comb the entirety of Iraq as well as the occupation forces. Don’t even try to make that kind of argument.

Weeks is not a short duration of combat operations. Hours is. Wars are lost and won in that time, and not just in modern times: see France.

Once again, you assume Iraq’s logistical capabilities are comparable to those of Western armies. They are not. If you can’t fathom that orders might possibly refer to action within a specific time frame, I don’t know if there’s much help for you.

War is always a matter of life and death. You're arguing that they're incompetent in following one set of orders while being quite resourceful in thinkin up one of their own, all while having the good sense to hide those WMD they were ordered to use. (unless you want to pretend Saddam ordered his army to basically melt into the wood work). It's bullshit. Pick one.

No, I’m suggesting that because they saved their own necks or chose not to fight a losing war doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to “give up” Saddam Hussein or the WMD.

I take it you've missed those articles about Task Force 20 getting tips of his whereabouts and saying "we were this close".

But we didn’t get him – and the amount of tips certainly seems to confirm that not everyone is eager to let us do it, either.

Yeah, sure. If they had let em back in 1999 you still would be saying too late.

Irrespective of the argument. You can’t know that.

And that's not sound geopolitical lgoic? Seems pretty fucking predictable if you ask me. I guess you'd argue that if Soviet forces were marching on Washington and the US said 'come any closer to the capital and they said we'll launch our nukes' you'd say that wasn't sound?

No. Saddam said: “Come any closer and we’ll launch a chemical warhead at the State of Israel.” He was attempting to hold that country hostage (with a very, very limited capability) against an international Coalition.

Pure Third Reich bullshit self defense claim- we must attack now because of what they 'might' do sometime in the future, maybe. Utterly bereft of value, which is why Bush so strenuously tried to scare the hell out of the American public. I'd like you to provide one quote where Bush said Iraq was weak and that it should be attacked before it was a threat. He played up the threat continuously.

We went to war partly to remove ourselves from Saudi Arabia. Did Bush make that public knowledge, too? Not every single element of our policy – nor the benefits of action – need be shouted to the High Heavens.

I was not aware fiber optic cable was designed for shooting down Coalition aircraft, especially when attached to 30 year old obsolete missiles.

It was certainly air defense equipment.

[Vympel]

Inconceivable? No, I agree that it’s possible we might have missed the movement – but not bloody likely.

Well I don't see where else this tangent can go.

“Rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past” is a broad statement that could easily relate to activity not officially prohibited. No outright falsehood.

Yet there were no violations. There's a consistent pattern of making accusations and not having them pan out, but you'll never see them actually retract any of these accusations- it's classic propaganda tactics. It sticks to the public conciousness.

Conclusive evidence such as the al-Samouds, which the White House designated as being in contravention since day one. A statement of opinion – analysis - put forth by the CIA that didn’t jive with what inspectors returned. That’s not unusual considering it’s the agency’s job to make estimates.

Bingo. The job of intelligence is to make estimates. It is no substitute for actual confirmation, and when you use intelligence estimates as fact, you get egg on your face. These are not the kind of things you use to build a case for war. You'll note that more than a few intelligence service insiders have complained about their intelligence being spun into something it wasn't.

Suggested. Hinted at. Implied.

See above.

Again, the “active” nature of the offensive programs could easily refer to financial networks or working discussions.

Och jeez. When someone says active weapons program being more advanced or larger, they're not talking about money or conversations about building weapons, ok?

I’d also like to see the actual CIA citations.

It's in your own newspapers. I don't have access to them, go to the library if you're really interested.

Since presidents and their intelligence agencies were human.

I don't buy the 'only human' thing for a second. There have been scores of reports detailing what happened with those infamous 16 words, and quite frankly someone decided to put it in knowing it was bullshit. As to the IAEA report, I find it hard to believe that someone mistakenly told the President about a report finding that wasn't made.

“Learned” and “reported” are one and the same here. I can see no difference between the British “learning of” a rumor or their “reporting” it. The claims might have been in doubt, but they were still passed forward by a credible ally.

Stop trying to put your own spin on it. He didn't say learned of a rumor. He said learned. Full stop.

False dilemma.

How is that a false dilemma?

Hans Blix searched specific locations. He would never have been able to comb the entirety of Iraq as well as the occupation forces. Don’t even try to make that kind of argument.

I see you subscribe to a view of inspections where troops just go door to door looking for chemical shells or something. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC were always about using intelligence-style surveillance techniques and tipoffs to lead them to their targets- the exact same thing that Rumsfeld is harping on now ("we won't find anything unless someone tells us where tehy are" or some such).

Once again, you assume Iraq’s logistical capabilities are comparable to those of Western armies.They are not.

Not only are you suggesting that Iraq's logistical capabilities were worse than Western armies, you're suggesting that they're worse than Western armies of a century ago, if you think it would take weeks to get ammunition to a unit.

If you can’t fathom that orders might possibly refer to action within a specific time frame, I don’t know if there’s much help for you.

Authorization to use chemical weapons is precisely what it says. There are no caveats attached to it, your inserting nonexistent ones nonwithstanding.

No, I’m suggesting that because they saved their own necks or chose not to fight a losing war doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to “give up” Saddam Hussein or the WMD.

Except some are willing to give up Saddam Hussein, and his sons. Funny that.

But we didn’t get him – and the amount of tips certainly seems to confirm that not everyone is eager to let us do it, either.

Whether you got there in time or not is irrelevant, he moves around a lot so they say. As to eagerness, all it takes is one.

Irrespective of the argument. You can’t know that.

What changed that made it too late in between 1999 and 2002? What pressing urgency would allow someone to say "well here it's too late, but here it's not".

No. Saddam said: “Come any closer and we’ll launch a chemical warhead at the State of Israel.” He was attempting to hold that country hostage (with a very, very limited capability) against an international Coalition.

If he had ICBMs with nuclear weapons instead, I'm sure he would've threatened America directly, but of course if he did the Gulf War would never have happened. He made use of what limited weapons he had (if one is to accept this story as true)- geopolitics. If Israel had entered the war the Arab world wouldn't have gone along with it. Of course, he retained the sense not to use any chemical weapons on Israel, which probably saved him from Israel's nukes.

We went to war partly to remove ourselves from Saudi Arabia. Did Bush make that public knowledge, too? Not every single element of our policy – nor the benefits of action – need be shouted to the High Heavens.

Actually, Wolfowitz did make that statement- after the war. Of course, if that argument had been made before the fact I'm sure it would've recieved a warm reception among the public.

It was certainly air defense equipment.

So is a WW2 vintage AA gun. And yet America never brought it up, and censored the arms declaration containing it. Why?

[Axis Kast]

Yet there were no violations. There's a consistent pattern of making accusations and not having them pan out, but you'll never see them actually retract any of these accusations- it's classic propaganda tactics. It sticks to the public consciousness.

The accusations are true, Vympel, from a certain point of view. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out new activity at old facilities.

Bingo. The job of intelligence is to make estimates. It is no substitute for actual confirmation, and when you use intelligence estimates as fact, you get egg on your face. These are not the kind of things you use to build a case for war. You'll note that more than a few intelligence service insiders have complained about their intelligence being spun into something it wasn't.

It’s the administration’s to do with as it will. All intelligence is always handled with a certain frame of reference in mind. The Bush administration is using the information it has to make a case for war. While critics may find some of the justifications lacking, those in favor of war do not.

Och jeez. When someone says active weapons program being more advanced or larger, they're not talking about money or conversations about building weapons, ok?

Don’t be tempted into traps for the single-minded. The “term” active could easily mean “ongoing” from a developmental rather than a physical point of view.

It's in your own newspapers. I don't have access to them, go to the library if you're really interested.

Glad we’ve got that out of the way.

don't buy the 'only human' thing for a second. There have been scores of reports detailing what happened with those infamous 16 words, and quite frankly someone decided to put it in knowing it was bullshit. As to the IAEA report, I find it hard to believe that someone mistakenly told the President about a report finding that wasn't made.

For what reason do you believe George Bush felt he needed to “cook up” a reason to go to war with Iraq?

Those sixteen words are still valid. For the umpteenth time, Britain did in deed report that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Niger.

Stop trying to put your own spin on it. He didn't say learned of a rumor. He said learned. Full stop.

Great. He’s still referring to something the British did in fact pass on to him. The British were treating the reports as legitimate; Bush must have felt inclined to trust their judgement in this situation.

How is that a false dilemma?

It’s irrespective of the situation. The answer to that question has absolutely no bearing on this argument.

Not only are you suggesting that Iraq's logistical capabilities were worse than Western armies, you're suggesting that they're worse than Western armies of a century ago, if you think it would take weeks to get ammunition to a unit.

During a war? As the country and its military are falling apart to a virtual flurry of bad orders and American shells? When air raids destroy most large-scale troop movement unless it’s moving backwards? We’re talking about sensitive equipment that’s got to be unearthed safe from private eyes – and also from unreliable units stationed in the vicinity.

Authorization to use chemical weapons is precisely what it says. There are no caveats attached to it, your inserting nonexistent ones nonwithstanding.

That doesn’t mean reality can’t get in the way of timely completion.

Except some are willing to give up Saddam Hussein, and his sons. Funny that.

Really? So we found Saddam Hussein? It took months to find Udai and Qusai, besides!

Whether you got there in time or not is irrelevant, he moves around a lot so they say. As to eagerness, all it takes is one.

And that’s about all we’ve had so far. You’re making big assumptions in a country of millions.

What changed that made it too late in between 1999 and 2002? What pressing urgency would allow someone to say "well here it's too late, but here it's not".

It’s too late when the world turns their back on Iraq altogether, as they have done at this point in time.

If he had ICBMs with nuclear weapons instead, I'm sure he would've threatened America directly, but of course if he did the Gulf War would never have happened. He made use of what limited weapons he had (if one is to accept this story as true)- geopolitics. If Israel had entered the war the Arab world wouldn't have gone along with it. Of course, he retained the sense not to use any chemical weapons on Israel, which probably saved him from Israel's nukes.

A single chemical warhead was going to hold an entire coalition force hostage? I think not. It’s impact could have been significant. It would almost certainly not have saved Baghdad however, as was the original goal.

Saddam didn’t choose not to deploy weapons against Israel out of intelligence. He did so because the preconditions for launch (an invasion on Baghdad) weren’t met in 1991.

Actually, Wolfowitz did make that statement- after the war. Of course, if that argument had been made before the fact I'm sure it would've recieved a warm reception among the public.

That’s my point. A whole plethora of basis for war were never examined – nor could be – because of the international complications.

So is a WW2 vintage AA gun. And yet America never brought it up, and censored the arms declaration containing it. Why?

It was bad politics at the time – especially because the issue was revisited over the course of the whole spy plane incident. That doesn’t mean the weapons don’t still mean something in the context of Iraq.

[Vympel]

The accusations are true, Vympel, from a certain point of view. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out new activity at old facilities.

The context around them speaks otherwise. It's obvious what the meaning was behind pointing it out.

It’s the administration’s to do with as it will. All intelligence is always handled with a certain frame of reference in mind. The Bush administration is using the information it has to make a case for war. While critics may find some of the justifications lacking, those in favor of war do not.

No one's arguing that the administration can't do it, I'm just pointing out what's obviously happened as a good reason for why it's not wise.

Don’t be tempted into traps for the single-minded. The “term” active could easily mean “ongoing” from a developmental rather than a physical point of view.

No evidence of that. Or financial transactions, or anything else. The only thing there is evidence for is intention to resume such programs after the lifting of sanctions- the only time it would be possible.

For what reason do you believe George Bush felt he needed to “cook up” a reason to go to war with Iraq?

Because he had nothing to go on.

Those sixteen words are still valid. For the umpteenth time, Britain did in deed report that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Niger.

No, he said the British LEARNED. Stop changing the semantics. Those sixteen words are invalid, which is why everyone has bloody apologized for them, including the President.

Great. He’s still referring to something the British did in fact pass on to him. The British were treating the reports as legitimate; Bush must have felt inclined to trust their judgement in this situation.

Rubbish. They KNEW that the information was bad. There is a HOST of information out there to that effect. Obviously, you've ignored it all to fit with your somewhat messianic view of Bush.

It’s irrespective of the situation. The answer to that question has absolutely no bearing on this argument.

Wrong. A false dilemma is a black/white fallacy, for example "if you support euthanasia, you must support Doctors killng patients arbitrarily without consent!". Learn your damn fallacies.

And no, it's not a red herring. I said that when someone says something is "learned", it is being presented as fact. I then offered an unlikely example, and asked you whether Bush would say the British had "learned" that too.

During a war?

You do know that ammunition must be supplied to units THROUGHOUT a conflict, don't you, and that the Iraqis would have it EASIER than the advancing force because they were the defenders?

As the country and its military are falling apart to a virtual flurry of bad orders and American shells? When air raids destroy most large-scale troop movement unless it’s moving backwards? We’re talking about sensitive equipment that’s got to be unearthed safe from private eyes – and also from unreliable units stationed in the vicinity.

Safe from private eyes? For some reason, I don't think they were too concerned with the Americans knowing their stockpile existed considering they had already invaded and had already given the order for their use. You have these supposedly elite WMD units who turn out to be incompetents who can't successfully retrieve and deliver but the smallest fraction of Iraq's chemical shells, they then desert their duty and change into civilian clothes, yet after the war not one of them comes forward with what they know.

That doesn’t mean reality can’t get in the way of timely completion.

Which is not what you originally said, so stop acting as if you're never wrong. It's quite transparent.

Really? So we found Saddam Hussein? It took months to find Udai and Qusai, besides!

Whether you found him or not is irrelevant. The point is the willingness to disclose his whereabouts. He's not a fucking statue. You brought up the analogy to Saddam, deal with it.

And that’s about all we’ve had so far. You’re making big assumptions in a country of millions.

Big assumptions? I'm not supposed to assume that Iraqi scientists with no future in Iraq and promises of asylum in America are going to unanimously agree that there was no active program of any kind, that Iraqi soldiers will not make any disclosures, and that Iraqi engineers who built any underground shelters, or Iraqi peasants who ever saw anything suspicious, are not going to say ANYTHING, if there was anything to be had?

It’s too late when the world turns their back on Iraq altogether, as they have done at this point in time.

What?

A single chemical warhead was going to hold an entire coalition force hostage? I think not.

This coming from the person who consistently harps on the Israeli response. Your position is quite fluid, isn't it? The point was to break up the coalition force and make the war impossible to continue. Whether it would've worked or not is another matter, but it was the only option available to him.

It’s impact could have been significant. It would almost certainly not have saved Baghdad however, as was the original goal.

And if the Arab countries had withdrawn their support, disgusted at Israel attacking another Arab nation? What then?

Saddam didn’t choose not to deploy weapons against Israel out of intelligence. He did so because the preconditions for launch (an invasion on Baghdad) weren’t met in 1991.

Pure Pollack assertion without a hint of facts to back it up. Their SCUDs operated in the western deserts with impunity, and yet they just couldn't manage to launch a chemical weapon. Sure.

That’s my point. A whole plethora of basis for war were never examined – nor could be – because of the international complications.

International complications? It's called bullshitting.

It was bad politics at the time – especially because the issue was revisited over the course of the whole spy plane incident. That doesn’t mean the weapons don’t still mean something in the context of Iraq.

The question is level of threat. When Ukraine was accused of supplying Iraq with considerably advanced Kolchuga radars, it was a huge issue and the US and UK jumped all over it. Incidentally, that accusation never panned out but it, and the attitude towards the Iraqi arms declaration (it'd be especially odd to use the arms declaration the Iraqis made as required was used as justification for war considering the issue was disarmament but anyway) speaks to what the US attitude was, even during the Bush administration.

[Axis Kast]

The context around them speaks otherwise. It's obvious what the meaning was behind pointing it out.

What Bush meant to do was stir concern. Whether or not you run with that as his “evidence” that Iraq had WMD is your problem.

No one's arguing that the administration can't do it, I'm just pointing out what's obviously happened as a good reason for why it's not wise.

It’s wise. Most Americans happen to believe Bush, Vympel.

No evidence of that. Or financial transactions, or anything else. The only thing there is evidence for is intention to resume such programs after the lifting of sanctions- the only time it would be possible.

Correction. No evidence yet made public. The search and presentation are still ongoing.

Because he had nothing to go on.

No. Why would he want to “cook up” war in the first place?

No, he said the British LEARNED. Stop changing the semantics. Those sixteen words are invalid, which is why everyone has bloody apologized for them, including the President.

They apologized because it created a backlash.

And yes, the British learned. Your point? The British did learn of the situation – even if it never happened.

Rubbish. They KNEW that the information was bad. There is a HOST of information out there to that effect. Obviously, you've ignored it all to fit with your somewhat messianic view of Bush.

The statement itself was still solid. There was nothing erroneous about it.

Wrong. A false dilemma is a black/white fallacy, for example "if you support euthanasia, you must support Doctors killing patients arbitrarily without consent!". Learn your damn fallacies.

And no, it's not a red herring. I said that when someone says something is "learned", it is being presented as fact. I then offered an unlikely example, and asked you whether Bush would say the British had "learned" that too.

It has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Period.

You do know that ammunition must be supplied to units THROUGHOUT a conflict, don't you, and that the Iraqis would have it EASIER than the advancing force because they were the defenders?

Are you saying what should happen during wartime is what does happen during wartime? Because that’s sure as hell how it sounds. You award the Iraqis far too much credit in terms of logistical capability during the fastest-moving war in modern history. One can give a “weapons free” order without said shells having been in place. This you know. Stop dancing.

Safe from private eyes? For some reason, I don't think they were too concerned with the Americans knowing their stockpile existed considering they had already invaded and had already given the order for their use. You have these supposedly elite WMD units who turn out to be incompetents who can't successfully retrieve and deliver but the smallest fraction of Iraq's chemical shells, they then desert their duty and change into civilian clothes, yet after the war not one of them comes forward with what they know.

If the Americans had thought the Iraqis to be moving WMD, they’d have annihilated the unit post-haste. Who says failure to safely retrieve the equipment – while maintaining some kind of credible cover from the air – represents incompetence rather than the sheer difficulty of such a task? Not one of them comes forward just like the Iraqis who won’t give up Hussein. You think informers are common?

Which is not what you originally said, so stop acting as if you're never wrong. It's quite transparent.

Which was the argument in the first place.

Whether you found him or not is irrelevant. The point is the willingness to disclose his whereabouts. He's not a fucking statue. You brought up the analogy to Saddam, deal with it.

What credible willingness? Are all Iraqis helping? Is he in our hands yet? No.

Big assumptions? I'm not supposed to assume that Iraqi scientists with no future in Iraq and promises of asylum in America are going to unanimously agree that there was no active program of any kind, that Iraqi soldiers will not make any disclosures, and that Iraqi engineers who built any underground shelters, or Iraqi peasants who ever saw anything suspicious, are not going to say ANYTHING, if there was anything to be had?

Those scientists could still be under watch. Again, if they won’t reveal Hussein’s location, why would they reveal WMD – which involves an even smaller group of knowledgeable actors? It’s highly unlikely any engineers would be well-aware of the purpose of the bunkers (assuming they are built per standard), let alone civilians.

What?

The world wasn’t acting.

This coming from the person who consistently harps on the Israeli response. Your position is quite fluid, isn't it? The point was to break up the coalition force and make the war impossible to continue. Whether it would've worked or not is another matter, but it was the only option available to him.

Saddam Hussein could almost certainly not have blackmailed the Western world into turning back from Baghdad. To do so would be have resulted in a massive loss of face and credibility.

And if the Arab countries had withdrawn their support, disgusted at Israel attacking another Arab nation? What then?

It was unlikely the Arabs would have withdrawn support because Israel wouldn’t necessarily have had to respond. The problem was already being dealt with.

Did it also fail to occur to you that any Israeli response would most likely have been nuclear – and resulted in Hussein’s own death or the destruction of his capital city? He could only have solicited either mass or no response. In both cases, his ultimate goal is foiled.

Pure Pollack assertion without a hint of facts to back it up. Their SCUDs operated in the western deserts with impunity, and yet they just couldn't manage to launch a chemical weapon. Sure.

That’s why we’re talking about a march on Baghdad, right?

International complications? It's called bullshitting.

But does it mean we didn’t care at all? No.

The question is level of threat. When Ukraine was accused of supplying Iraq with considerably advanced Kolchuga radars, it was a huge issue and the US and UK jumped all over it. Incidentally, that accusation never panned out but it, and the attitude towards the Iraqi arms declaration (it'd be especially odd to use the arms declaration the Iraqis made as required was used as justification for war considering the issue was disarmament but anyway) speaks to what the US attitude was, even during the Bush administration.

It’s a symptom of a wider illness, Vympel.

[Vympel]

What Bush meant to do was stir concern. Whether or not you run with that as his “evidence” that Iraq had WMD is your problem.

My problem? You're the one who doesn't have any evidence, not I.

It’s wise. Most Americans happen to believe Bush, Vympel.

Oh obviously, that must be why his approval rating has plummeted lately and the other political party are having a field day. Not that whether Americans beleived that buffoon is at all relevant to whether it's wise policy or not. So far, we've had the brilliant idea of moving troops safe in Saudi Arabia to a country where they can die daily by shooting, mysterious diseases, bombs, RPGs, drowning, and falling off buildings, while inflaming the population and giving every Islamic fundie from here to Pakistan more ammo and support, the notion that spare parts smuggling is indicative of a grave threat to the Israeli superpower, and the idea that American troops would be happy to be told that they're dying for Israel. All while marching in on a wave of non-stop nonsense. True recipe for success.

Correction. No evidence yet made public. The search and presentation are still ongoing.

We'll see.

No. Why would he want to “cook up” war in the first place?

There are host of theories. Neoconservative hijacking of foreign policy is the most likely, considering what we know about the 'Project for the New Israeli Century'.

They apologized because it created a backlash.

And yes, the British learned. Your point? The British did learn of the situation – even if it never happened.

How can you LEARN about something that never happened? "I learned that an invisible pink unicorn shits purple slippers." Doesn't sound right to me.

The statement itself was still solid. There was nothing erroneous about it.

Oh, of course, nothing erroneous about the statement except that it was erroneous.

Wrong. A false dilemma is a black/white fallacy, for example "if you support euthanasia, you must support Doctors killing patients arbitrarily without consent!". Learn your damn fallacies.

Actually, correct myself (damn blackout), what I just said was slippery slope. False dilemma is providing an either/or position when excluding the middle ground.

It has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Period.

I'm afraid it does. I'm providing a context for the word 'learned' and asking you if it's appropriate considering you have grave doubts as to it's veracity.

Are you saying what should happen during wartime is what does happen during wartime? Because that’s sure as hell how it sounds. You award the Iraqis far too much credit in terms of logistical capability during the fastest-moving war in modern history. One can give a “weapons free” order without said shells having been in place. This you know. Stop dancing.

How the hell did the Iraqis manage to put up any opposition if their ammunition wasn't in place for use, Kast? Hmmm? It was OBVIOUSLY working to some extent, and the burden is on you to show that it didn't in this case.

If the Americans had thought the Iraqis to be moving WMD, they’d have annihilated the unit post-haste. Who says failure to safely retrieve the equipment – while maintaining some kind of credible cover from the air – represents incompetence rather than the sheer difficulty of such a task? Not one of them comes forward just like the Iraqis who won’t give up Hussein. You think informers are common?

Common enough to give up Odai and Qusay, common enough to give tips on Saddam, common enough to point out weapons caches, need I go on?

Which was the argument in the first place.

Then you should've stuck with it instead of inventing caveats to attach to unequivocal statements.

What credible willingness? Are all Iraqis helping? Is he in our hands yet? No.

Nothing to do with it. What incentive do Iraqis have to provide FALSE information? Perhaps you've missed the articles about Iraqi 'collaborators' being shot by their neighbors?

Those scientists could still be under watch.

Like the gas centrifuge guy is under watch by the ever-present Iraqi Ba'athist remnants in ... Kuwait? Oh, that's right, even he says the program was over.

Again, if they won’t reveal Hussein’s location, why would they reveal WMD – which involves an even smaller group of knowledgeable actors? It’s highly unlikely any engineers would be well-aware of the purpose of the bunkers (assuming they are built per standard), let alone civilians.

Doesnt' matter. All engineers need to know is where they're built.

The world wasn’t acting.

Acting on what? You've utterly failed to provide a shred of real reasoning as to any Iraqi threat to the United States or collective security- instead, you bring up minor sanctions contraventions that don't even amount to conventional rearmament in ay real sense, and continue to conjure up ludicrous visions of the Iraqi threat to Israel.

Saddam Hussein could almost certainly not have blackmailed the Western world into turning back from Baghdad. To do so would be have resulted in a massive loss of face and credibility.

Funny, I don't remember them attacking Baghdad. Perhaps it worked, to play devil's advocate to the totally unproven claim that that's what Saddam would do.

It was unlikely the Arabs would have withdrawn support because Israel wouldn’t necessarily have had to respond. The problem was already being dealt with.

Now you're saying Israel wouldn't have responded? As I recall, the conventional SCUDs landing on Israel required how much pressure from the US to stop an Israeli response? If Israel wouldn't respond THEN because America was dealing with the problem, what's to say that Israel would undoubtedly respond now. What's to stop America from exerting pressure and saying "we'll handle it".

Did it also fail to occur to you that any Israeli response would most likely have been nuclear – and resulted in Hussein’s own death or the destruction of his capital city? He could only have solicited either mass or no response. In both cases, his ultimate goal is foiled.

You just gave the common sense answer that Saddam could've been deterred from that act, and that's a perfectly plausible answer on the face of it considering it NEVER HAPPENED, and you have no evidence for claiming it ever would happen.

That’s why we’re talking about a march on Baghdad, right?

I misread your preconditions for launch comment.

"Did it also fail to occur to you that any Israeli response would most likely have been nuclear – and resulted in Hussein’s own death or the destruction of his capital city?"

So, was Saddam gonna launch, or not? And what does it have to do with anything? What is your argument? That a march on Baghdad in 1991 would've meant a chemical attack on Israel (baseless claim btw) therefore Iraq is a threat to Israel now? Well gee, there's a great argument. I can see it now: "The United States must march on Moscow because if we march on Moscow they'll nuke Bonn."

Erm ... something brain damaged about that.

Frankly, I think there's something wrong with someone telling me that a person "defied military logic" by doing something that they DIDN'T do, and which there is no evidence that they ever planned to do. Why am I even bothering to go the long way round with this crap?

But does it mean we didn’t care at all? No.

Where's the evidence that they (yes, they, not we, unless you write for the Weekly Standard or something) cared? I sure as hell don't see any. I see pure nonchalance, infact.

It’s a symptom of a wider illness, Vympel.

The only illness in the vicinity are wild overestimations of the biggest joke in the region, not to mention the curious tactic of taking Iraq's arms declaration (made as required by the UN) and using their own compliance aganst them.

[Axis Kast]

My problem? You're the one who doesn't have any evidence, not I.

We’re talking about different interpretations. Evidence doesn’t enter into the picture. You seem to take everything said by the Bush administration at face value. Try searching for something more obtuse.

Oh obviously, that must be why his approval rating has plummeted lately and the other political party are having a field day. Not that whether Americans beleived that buffoon is at all relevant to whether it's wise policy or not. So far, we've had the brilliant idea of moving troops safe in Saudi Arabia to a country where they can die daily by shooting, mysterious diseases, bombs, RPGs, drowning, and falling off buildings, while inflaming the population and giving every Islamic fundie from here to Pakistan more ammo and support, the notion that spare parts smuggling is indicative of a grave threat to the Israeli superpower, and the idea that American troops would be happy to be told that they're dying for Israel. All while marching in on a wave of non-stop nonsense. True recipe for success.

In order to make the unilateral approach reality, all Bush had to do was sell Congress and the American people. That he did. That the White House is suffering criticism doesn’t detract from the fact that more than fifty percent of the American public understands Iraq to have represented a threat to the national security interests of this country.

“Safe in Saudi Arabia” for how long, Vympel? You’re simplifying the whole rationale besides; the question is whether or not the Israeli “superpower” should be encouraged to look after its own defense, not whether it can. American men and women aren’t dying for Ariel Sharon or the State of Israel. They’re dying to ensure that the region doesn’t boil over and demand action on somebody else’s timetable.

There are host of theories. Neoconservative hijacking of foreign policy is the most likely, considering what we know about the 'Project for the New Israeli Century'.

I seriously doubt that a handful of politicans could ignite an invasion of a foreign country on the basis of Biblical theory alone. If anything, Bush defies your assessment. He’s more friendly to the notion of a Palestinian state than most American presidents before him.

How can you LEARN about something that never happened? "I learned that an invisible pink unicorn shits purple slippers." Doesn't sound right to me.

The British learned of a situation. Whether or not it was in question at the time is irregardless of the fact that they reported this to the United States.

Oh, of course, nothing erroneous about the statement except that it was erroneous.

It’s something the British picked up on; nothing more.

Actually, correct myself (damn blackout), what I just said was slippery slope. False dilemma is providing an either/or position when excluding the middle ground.

A false dilemma includes concocting ridiculous scenarios to attempt and prove an entirely unrelated point.

'm afraid it does. I'm providing a context for the word 'learned' and asking you if it's appropriate considering you have grave doubts as to it's veracity.

You’re providing a context for the word that doesn’t apply in this situation.

How the hell did the Iraqis manage to put up any opposition if their ammunition wasn't in place for use, Kast? Hmmm? It was OBVIOUSLY working to some extent, and the burden is on you to show that it didn't in this case.

Chemical munitions were in place at the start of the war? They were deployed in the defense of Iraq? This is news to me.

Common enough to give up Odai and Qusay, common enough to give tips on Saddam, common enough to point out weapons caches, need I go on?

Weapons cachés that weren’t illegal in the first place?

Udai and Quasi were “given up” by the relative in whose home they were ensconced, not by a random Iraqi. And Saddam Hussein – for all those “tips” you tout – has not been captured thus far. Nor Osama Bin Laden. Hearsay isn’t as useful – or as widespread – as you would have us believe.

Then you should've stuck with it instead of inventing caveats to attach to unequivocal statements.

The argument is whether Saddam needed preconditions – i.e. existing stockpiles to which troops had ready access – in order to issue his “weapons free” command.

Nothing to do with it. What incentive do Iraqis have to provide FALSE information? Perhaps you've missed the articles about Iraqi 'collaborators' being shot by their neighbors?

Are all Iraqi collaborators being strung up? In Fallujah? In Tikrit? In all sectors of Baghdad? There is always incentive to provide false information – or to unknowingly report false leads.

Like the gas centrifuge guy is under watch by the ever-present Iraqi Ba'athist remnants in ... Kuwait? Oh, that's right, even he says the program was over.

Again, I refer you to the length of time spent in hiding by Iraq’s leadership after the war.

Doesnt' matter. All engineers need to know is where they're built.

Why is that? You think all engineers are now coming forward to say, “I build bunkers here, here, and here?”

Acting on what? You've utterly failed to provide a shred of real reasoning as to any Iraqi threat to the United States or collective security- instead, you bring up minor sanctions contraventions that don't even amount to conventional rearmament in ay real sense, and continue to conjure up ludicrous visions of the Iraqi threat to Israel.

The world didn’t act in 1998. The world didn’t act in 2002. Inspectors were kicked out in one instance. In the other, the regimé waffled until force was waved in their face. Then again, the international community at large doesn’t necessarily have to deal with Hussein – he’s not within their purview. His continued rule was more attractive to most than his ouster.

Funny, I don't remember them attacking Baghdad. Perhaps it worked, to play devil's advocate to the totally unproven claim that that's what Saddam would do.

This wasn’t known until after the war. It was never made public at the time.

Now you're saying Israel wouldn't have responded? As I recall, the conventional SCUDs landing on Israel required how much pressure from the US to stop an Israeli response? If Israel wouldn't respond THEN because America was dealing with the problem, what's to say that Israel would undoubtedly respond now. What's to stop America from exerting pressure and saying "we'll handle it".

Either way, Saddam’s gamble is over. If Israel doesn’t respond, Baghdad is still under siege. Hell, it’s gone if Israel does. He’s not fulfilling any kind of objective here.

I misread your preconditions for launch comment.

"Did it also fail to occur to you that any Israeli response would most likely have been nuclear – and resulted in Hussein’s own death or the destruction of his capital city?"

So, was Saddam gonna launch, or not? And what does it have to do with anything? What is your argument? That a march on Baghdad in 1991 would've meant a chemical attack on Israel (baseless claim btw) therefore Iraq is a threat to Israel now? Well gee, there's a great argument. I can see it now: "The United States must march on Moscow because if we march on Moscow they'll nuke Bonn."

Erm ... something brain damaged about that.

Frankly, I think there's something wrong with someone telling me that a person "defied military logic" by doing something that they DIDN'T do, and which there is no evidence that they ever planned to do. Why am I even bothering to go the long way round with this crap?

We’re arguing whether or not Saddam Hussein is a capable military commander. The answer is, “No.” Why? He is prone to sudden action on shaky, self-gratifying grounds, and ultimately, given to delusions. How do we know this? We look at his contingency plans for the First Gulf War.

The Plan:

Assuming the Coalition began a concerted campaign against Baghdad, Hussein ordered a chemical warhead prepared for launch against an Israel target (presumably Tel Aviv).

The Assumptions:

Saddam assumed he could (A) announce the warhead’s presence and deter invasion, or (B) fire the weapon, solicit an Israeli response, and shatter the Coalition.

The Problem:

Assuming Saddam announced the attack, he would have forced the Coalition to act. Had they not, the Western world would have lost all credibility against those armed with WMD.

Assuming Saddam commenced the attack, there are two likely options: (1) Israel is deterred from responding, in which case the attack goes as planned, or (2) Israel fires a nuclear missile at Baghdad, in which case the city Hussein planned to save is devastated.

Where's the evidence that they (yes, they, not we, unless you write for the Weekly Standard or something) cared? I sure as hell don't see any. I see pure nonchalance, infact.

The United States has pointed out that Iraq obviated sanctions.

The only illness in the vicinity are wild overestimations of the biggest joke in the region, not to mention the curious tactic of taking Iraq's arms declaration (made as required by the UN) and using their own compliance aganst them.

Their own compliance against them? Why did it have to come at the barrel of a gun in the first place?

[Vympel]

We’re talking about different interpretations. Evidence doesn’t enter into the picture.

It does. Whichever interpretation has evidence supporting it is the strongest. I can provide ample evidence of what impression they sought to, and did create with their claims. On the other hand:

You seem to take everything said by the Bush administration at face value. Try searching for something more obtuse.

The funny thing is that you think being deliberately obtuse and evasive, biblical inerrantist style (i.e. by presenting an extremely unlikely rationalisation for a blatant biblical contradiction, they act as though they have 'fixed' the contradiction) is somehow a strong position to take.

In order to make the unilateral approach reality, all Bush had to do was sell Congress and the American people.

Hang on, haven't you previously argued that this was setting no precedents at all? Now it's making the unilateral approach reality?

That he did. That the White House is suffering criticism doesn’t detract from the fact that more than fifty percent of the American public understands Iraq to have represented a threat to the national security interests of this country.

Appeal to popularity. Nothing to do with the facts.

“Safe in Saudi Arabia” for how long, Vympel?

Would you like to compare the body counts of the two stays, you know, a decade versus ... oh a few months? What was going to happen, was someone going to nuke them?

You’re simplifying the whole rationale besides; the question is whether or not the Israeli “superpower” should be encouraged to look after its own defense, not whether it can. American men and women aren’t dying for Ariel Sharon or the State of Israel. They’re dying to ensure that the region doesn’t boil over and demand action on somebody else’s timetable.

Where was there any indication that Iraq had the ability to cause the region to 'boil over'?

I seriously doubt that a handful of politicans could ignite an invasion of a foreign country on the basis of Biblical theory alone. If anything, Bush defies your assessment. He’s more friendly to the notion of a Palestinian state than most American presidents before him.

The peace process is a farce, and always will remain one as long as the US plays favorites. That Bush waxes poetic about the Palestinian state and his vague 'roadmap for peace' that will go nowhere while putting no pressure on the Israelis and giving the mildest of handslaps for their transgressions while continuing to aid them with no conditions on that support doesn't give me any confidence, just like I had no confidence in his predecessor.

The British learned of a situation. Whether or not it was in question at the time is irregardless of the fact that they reported this to the United States.

The USA conducted an INDEPENDENT investigation. The British were WRONG, and they knew it.

A false dilemma includes concocting ridiculous scenarios to attempt and prove an entirely unrelated point.

No, it doesn't. I don't know where you're getting your fallacy definitions from, but go somewhere else. False dilemma aka black/white fallacy aka fallcy of the excluded middle. Nothing to do with concocting ridiculous scenarios to show up the absurdity and obtuseness ( ) in trying to pretend that the word 'learned' can be used in the context of known bullshit.

You’re providing a context for the word that doesn’t apply in this situation.

Both statements are wrong, in the latter case practically absurd, the context applies.

Chemical munitions were in place at the start of the war? They were deployed in the defense of Iraq? This is news to me.

As has been shown repeaetdly, US commanders and search teams expected chemical weapons at ammunition supply depots. It shouldn't be news to you.

Weapons cachés that weren’t illegal in the first place?

Weapons caches being used by the resistance against the US, as of RIGHT NOW, you know? RPGs, AKs, etc.

Udai and Quasi were “given up” by the relative in whose home they were ensconced, not by a random Iraqi. And Saddam Hussein – for all those “tips” you tout – has not been captured thus far. Nor Osama Bin Laden. Hearsay isn’t as useful – or as widespread – as you would have us believe.

Whether he's been captured or not is irrelevant, for the final time. He is a free agent with his own means to travel, the point is the willingness to inform.

The argument is whether Saddam needed preconditions – i.e. existing stockpiles to which troops had ready access – in order to issue his “weapons free” command.

I'd find it mighty peculiar to issue a weapons free order for weapons I didn't have access to, unless it was all a bluff in the first place.

Are all Iraqi collaborators being strung up? In Fallujah? In Tikrit? In all sectors of Baghdad? There is always incentive to provide false information – or to unknowingly report false leads.

When you don't get any money for it but lot's of risk? Please.

Again, I refer you to the length of time spent in hiding by Iraq’s leadership after the war.

Red herring. Answer the question. Are Ba'athists breathing down this guys neck in Kuwait?

Why is that? You think all engineers are now coming forward to say, “I build bunkers here, here, and here?”

How did you think the US new the locations of bunkers in Baghdad during the war? Their German builders told them.

The world didn’t act in 1998. The world didn’t act in 2002. Inspectors were kicked out in one instance.

No, they left, but moving right along.

In the other, the regimé waffled until force was waved in their face.

Irrelevant. To expect absolute, take it up the ass compliance without a hint of national chest beating is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether Iraq was a threat, and to whether Iraq was disarmed.

Then again, the international community at large doesn’t necessarily have to deal with Hussein – he’s not within their purview. His continued rule was more attractive to most than his ouster.

Yup, for some I'm sure that was true.

This wasn’t known until after the war. It was never made public at the time.

And I suppose you have secret information that will tell me all about it?

Either way, Saddam’s gamble is over. If Israel doesn’t respond, Baghdad is still under siege. Hell, it’s gone if Israel does. He’s not fulfilling any kind of objective here.

Not what I asked. I'll repeat: you pointed to the Israeli response as reasons for why America should do it, and I asked why America couldn't persuade Israel to let it handle it without using WMD (Israel cannot occupy Iraq, so I doubt they'd be to stubborn) in the event that Saddam ever did attack Israel.

And at some point you're going to show your evidence for this claim that Saddam was going to launch chemical munitions on Israel?

We’re arguing whether or not Saddam Hussein is a capable military commander. The answer is, “No.” Why? He is prone to sudden action on shaky, self-gratifying grounds, and ultimately, given to delusions. How do we know this? We look at his contingency plans for the First Gulf War.

The Plan:

Assuming the Coalition began a concerted campaign against Baghdad, Hussein ordered a chemical warhead prepared for launch against an Israel target (presumably Tel Aviv).

Source please.

The Problem:

Assuming Saddam announced the attack, he would have forced the Coalition to act. Had they not, the Western world would have lost all credibility against those armed with WMD.

By that logic, the Western world lost all credibility the moment the USSR got nuclear weapons.

Assuming Saddam commenced the attack, there are two likely options: (1) Israel is deterred from responding, in which case the attack goes as planned, or (2) Israel fires a nuclear missile at Baghdad, in which case the city Hussein planned to save is devastated.

In other words, Saddam has his back against the wall and nothing to lose, assuming this doomsday plan ever existed. Who else would use WMD in that situation ... oh, just everyone who has them. This is terrible reasoning of any threat to Israel- you've concocted a scenario whereby a country with WMD is about to be defeated deciding to use a chemical warhead on a third party to attempt to break up the alliance against it and with any luck embroil the region in a wider war.

How this plan for which you have not supplied any evidence (after all, Iraq already tried it with conventional weapons which have a far greater chance for death and destruction than chemicals) applies to an Iraq unable to project power even within sectors of it's own borders and with no military to speak of to carry out any of it's ambitions, a crushed economy and a hopelessly damaged infrastructure ten years later with no march on Baghdad in sight, I have no idea.

The United States has pointed out that Iraq obviated sanctions.

Censoring their obviation is a funny way to do that.

Their own compliance against them? Why did it have to come at the barrel of a gun in the first place?

Who gives a shit? What has the pressure exerted on Iraq to comply got to do with whether Iraq is a threat or not? Nothing.

[Axis Kast]

It does. Whichever interpretation has evidence supporting it is the strongest. I can provide ample evidence of what impression they sought to, and did create with their claims.

It is quite clear what kind of impression George W. Bush sought – and what kind of impression his statements delivered. Regardless, interpretation can have little or nothing to do with the actual facts presented – which is, of course, what we have in certain cases related to Operation: Iraqi Freedom. The problem stems from your belief that Iraq represents no threat to the national security interests of the United States without physical evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, runs contrary to my own.

The funny thing is that you think being deliberately obtuse and evasive, biblical inerrantist style (i.e. by presenting an extremely unlikely rationalisation for a blatant biblical contradiction, they act as though they have 'fixed' the contradiction) is somehow a strong position to take.

It’s a seemingly strong position to take so long as you convince the correct or requisite number of people. George W. Bush has managed to do so. While it would have been a boon to gain more allies amongst our Coalition of the Willing, it was not imperative. You accuse me of assuming Bush made a strong position. I accuse you of being unwilling to acknowledge standard operating procedure in the political realm when it suits you least.

Hang on, haven't you previously argued that this was setting no precedents at all? Now it's making the unilateral approach reality?

We aren’t setting a precedent, Vympel. We’ve taken unilateral – or limited multilateral – action in the past. The argument in this case also covers consequences. The fears of critics of American foreign policy are absolutely unfounded.

Appeal to popularity. Nothing to do with the facts.

We’re not talking about facts at this particular point in time – simply about whether Bush made a strong argument by categorically listing Iraqi facilities back online under non-military guidelines. In the opinion of those who support the war, much of this is already moot.

Would you like to compare the body counts of the two stays, you know, a decade versus ... oh a few months? What was going to happen, was someone going to nuke them?

The position of the Saudi Arabian government was becoming less clear by the week – especially as our investigation into the incidents of September 11th began to delve more deeply. Combine that factor with the comparative secularization of most of Iraqi society to that of the Saudi population, and the projections that Iraq will eventually be a more suitable base-of-operations is hardly “out there.” Especially when you combine other justifications: removal of one of the world’s last remaining “rogue” leaders, molding the Middle East’s second passably democratic institutions, etc.

Where was there any indication that Iraq had the ability to cause the region to 'boil over'?

They’d managed to do so before. The way the sanctions and history of containment were going, it wasn’t a major leap to ask whether they’d do so again without strong preventative action.

The peace process is a farce, and always will remain one as long as the US plays favorites. That Bush waxes poetic about the Palestinian state and his vague 'roadmap for peace' that will go nowhere while putting no pressure on the Israelis and giving the mildest of handslaps for their transgressions while continuing to aid them with no conditions on that support doesn't give me any confidence, just like I had no confidence in his predecessor.

Regardless of whether the peace treaty is “going anywhere,” we get back to square one: that President Bush isn’t the most radical supporter of Israel we’ve ever had in office. The idea that neo-conservatives have “hijacked” our engines of foreign policy to bring about a special new meaning to Israeli statehood is ludicrous.

The USA conducted an INDEPENDENT investigation. The British were WRONG, and they knew it.

It’s still a report of what the British came up with. A gamble, yes – but not necessarily stupid.

No, it doesn't. I don't know where you're getting your fallacy definitions from, but go somewhere else.

You created a situation (i.e. dilemma) obviously irrelevant (and thus false) to the argument at hand.

As has been shown repeaetdly, US commanders and search teams expected chemical weapons at ammunition supply depots. It shouldn't be news to you.

Expectation is one thing, and fact another.

Weapons caches being used by the resistance against the US, as of RIGHT NOW, you know? RPGs, AKs, etc.

Doing what they were meant to do. Weapons of mass destruction were unlikely to be so advertised.

Whether he's been captured or not is irrelevant, for the final time. He is a free agent with his own means to travel, the point is the willingness to inform.

But to inform with how much accuracy or truth? He’s still on the loose. Obviously the population isn’t selling him out by the cartload.

I'd find it mighty peculiar to issue a weapons free order for weapons I didn't have access to, unless it was all a bluff in the first place.

Nobody has said it wasn’t a bluff. The point is that it’s the height of lunacy to claim that anything had to be there when those orders came. We already knew that Saddam was issuing orders that made no tactical or strategic sense.

When you don't get any money for it but lot's of risk? Please.

Who said the people communicating said rumors had to have been aware of their falsehood? And I’d like you to substantiate that large numbers of Iraqis are attempting to “give up” Hussein.

Red herring. Answer the question. Are Ba'athists breathing down this guys neck in Kuwait?

I’m not familiar with the situation. That is, however, Kuwait. In case you hadn’t noticed, the Ba’athists are somewhat limited in range and capability at this point in time.

How did you think the US new the locations of bunkers in Baghdad during the war? Their German builders told them.

But Iraq didn’t have engineers of its own who might have built other bunkers? Surely not! Only the Germans are capable of such feats!

No, they left, but moving right along.

They were ejected on the basis of the accusation that America had seeded the United Nations teams with spies, Vympel.

Irrelevant. To expect absolute, take it up the ass compliance without a hint of national chest beating is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether Iraq was a threat, and to whether Iraq was disarmed.

Chest-beating? More like behavior calculated to set off the United States with the forlorn hope that Europe would somehow intercede at the last moment and prevent invasion.

It’s relevant to whether Iraq’s a threat. It’s clear they thought they had something to hide. Their posturing went beyond mere face-saving gestures. Again, we need to agree to disagree over whether Iraq represented a clear threat to the national security of the United States of America. It’s your opinion that they didn’t. It’s not fact.

Yup, for some I'm sure that was true.

In case you don’t want to admit it, that eats away at the value and legitimacy of international action.

And I suppose you have secret information that will tell me all about it?

I had Pollock.

Not what I asked. I'll repeat: you pointed to the Israeli response as reasons for why America should do it, and I asked why America couldn't persuade Israel to let it handle it without using WMD (Israel cannot occupy Iraq, so I doubt they'd be to stubborn) in the event that Saddam ever did attack Israel.

And at some point you're going to show your evidence for this claim that Saddam was going to launch chemical munitions on Israel?

Keep in mind that Israel’s safety is far from the only – and hardly the paramount or guiding concern – that necessitated Saddam’s overthrow and Iraq’s occupation. That said …

Israel was willing to relent in 1991 (and potentially in 2003) because Coalition forces were already on the ground in Iraq (and Israel) ensuring on the one hand that Saddam would be stopped and on the other that the missiles would face at least the passing threat of interception. In other words, despite Israel’s lack of conventional power projection (of the type the U.S. and U.K. could provide, at least), the situation was already being “taken care of” on the ground. Coalition targets stood a risk of secondary damage from friendly fire. There would be no such inhibitions if Iraq launched an attack out of the blue (a handful of UN weapons inspectors don’t have the spread of Coalition forces, either; their presence wouldn’t be enough to deter strikes on other distant targets even assuming they were in Baghdad).

On page 151 of his book, The Threatening Storm, Pollock writes:

“Indeed, it is perfectly in-character that – as the United Nations inspectors learned after the Gulf War – Saddam had predelegated orders to Iraqi SCUD units to launch missiles filled with biological and chemical agents at Tel Aviv if the coalition marched on Baghdad. From a military perspective, this makes no sense. The right military approach would have been to use those missiles to threaten the Saudi oilfields or some other high-value target to try to convince the coalition to halt its offensive. But it does according with his image of himself as n historical figure who will someday, even if it is his final act, use force to rid the Arab world of the Israeli presence.” Corroborated by Amatzia Baram’s article, “An Analysis of Iraqi WMD Strategy,” in The Nonproliferation Review, Summer 2001 issue on page 35; Charles A. Duelfer’s, “Weapons of Mass-Destruction Programs in Iraq,” a testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, February 27, 2002; Scott Ritter’s Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem – Once and For All.” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999), on page 102.

Now I’ll go ahead and agree that Pollock’s own offer of an option is equally as ludicrous as Hussein’s. Any kind of attempt to “blackmail” the Coalition would most likely have been met with redoubled resolve (and perhaps a pause), but was unlikely to have ceased altogether.

By that logic, the Western world lost all credibility the moment the USSR got nuclear weapons.

You believe that had Saddam Hussein threatened to deploy biological or chemical weapons against Tel Aviv that the United States and others would have ceased their campaign and promptly left the country?

The USSR had the capability to launch hundreds or thousands of nuclear missiles at multiple targets – all backed by the largest conventional military in the world. Iraq had its small arsenal of missiles, most slated for launch at a single Israeli city. Hardly MAD.

In other words, Saddam has his back against the wall and nothing to lose, assuming this doomsday plan ever existed. Who else would use WMD in that situation ... oh, just everyone who has them. This is terrible reasoning of any threat to Israel- you've concocted a scenario whereby a country with WMD is about to be defeated deciding to use a chemical warhead on a third party to attempt to break up the alliance against it and with any luck embroil the region in a wider war.

How this plan for which you have not supplied any evidence (after all, Iraq already tried it with conventional weapons which have a far greater chance for death and destruction than chemicals) applies to an Iraq unable to project power even within sectors of it's own borders and with no military to speak of to carry out any of it's ambitions, a crushed economy and a hopelessly damaged infrastructure ten years later with no march on Baghdad in sight, I have no idea.

Attacking Israel in a last, desperate gamble as opposed to, say, attacking the Coalition allies moving in on your troops? Or even going by Pollock’s reasoning – if we assume Israel was deterrable by the United States – and threatening a launch against Saudi oil fields? Those options make sense. The “honor assault” against Israel does not.

And what’s the object of this particular disagreement, you ask? Not to prove Iraq’s current threat, but to prove Hussein’s delusional condition – assuming you want to ignore the Los Angeles Times article on the other thread, too. Nice try at escape, though.

Censoring their obviation is a funny way to do that.

It’s been pointed out at this point in time.

Who gives a shit? What has the pressure exerted on Iraq to comply got to do with whether Iraq is a threat or not? Nothing.

It indicates a willingness to avoid inspections in the first place – which you claim would have shown Iraq to be “clean” anyway.

[Vympel]

It is quite clear what kind of impression George W. Bush sought – and what kind of impression his statements delivered. Regardless, interpretation can have little or nothing to do with the actual facts presented – which is, of course, what we have in certain cases related to Operation: Iraqi Freedom. The problem stems from your belief that Iraq represents no threat to the national security interests of the United States without physical evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, runs contrary to my own.

That was the argument the President and his associates made, undoubtedly, hence the argument that the world is focused on.

It’s a seemingly strong position to take so long as you convince the correct or requisite number of people. George W. Bush has managed to do so. While it would have been a boon to gain more allies amongst our Coalition of the Willing, it was not imperative. You accuse me of assuming Bush made a strong position. I accuse you of being unwilling to acknowledge standard operating procedure in the political realm when it suits you least.

Not acknowledging it? I've been shouting it: he was full of it. Standard political realm operating procedure.

We aren’t setting a precedent, Vympel. We’ve taken unilateral – or limited multilateral – action in the past. The argument in this case also covers consequences. The fears of critics of American foreign policy are absolutely unfounded.

I think a policy of preventive war over what someone might do sometime in the future is certainly something to be afraid of.

We’re not talking about facts at this particular point in time – simply about whether Bush made a strong argument by categorically listing Iraqi facilities back online under non-military guidelines. In the opinion of those who support the war, much of this is already moot.

It was obviously not a strong argument. Simply saying that some people were convinced is completely besides the point. Dr Dino can convince particularly stupid people of the truth of creationism and the falsehood of evolution, it doesn't mean it's an objectively strong argument.

The position of the Saudi Arabian government was becoming less clear by the week – especially as our investigation into the incidents of September 11th began to delve more deeply. Combine that factor with the comparative secularization of most of Iraqi society to that of the Saudi population, and the projections that Iraq will eventually be a more suitable base-of-operations is hardly “out there.” Especially when you combine other justifications: removal of one of the world’s last remaining “rogue” leaders, molding the Middle East’s second passably democratic institutions, etc.

The Iraqis are clearly not that secular, considering the huge influecne Shi'ite clerics have had on the population since the end of the war. As to the position of the Saudi Arabian government, I fail to see how US troops could possibly have been in more danger in Saudi Arabia at any point short of full Islmaic revolution than in Iraq right now. In other news, the a leading popular Sunni cleric has provided financial and and grass-roots suport to a popular anti-american Shi'ite cleric.

They’d managed to do so before.

And got their asses kicked.

The way the sanctions and history of containment were going, it wasn’t a major leap to ask whether they’d do so again without strong preventative action.

It's a MASSIVE leap. The Iraq of 2003 is not the Iraq of 1991.

Regardless of whether the peace treaty is “going anywhere,” we get back to square one: that President Bush isn’t the most radical supporter of Israel we’ve ever had in office. The idea that neo-conservatives have “hijacked” our engines of foreign policy to bring about a special new meaning to Israeli statehood is ludicrous.

I don't think so. Of the people who signed on the PNAC, a lot of them are now in his administration, or are advisers to the administration, e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle. It's not just about Israeli statehood, it's about a new vision of using American power to dominate indefinitely. I'm sure this gives you a raging hard on, but it has little to do with Iraq and it's supposed weapons of mass destruction/

It’s still a report of what the British came up with. A gamble, yes – but not necessarily stupid.

Bush didn't say it was a report they came up with. He said learned. Of course it was stupid- even using your standard of 'did he get in trouble for it'.

You created a situation (i.e. dilemma) obviously irrelevant (and thus false) to the argument at hand.

Oh for fuck's sake this is ridiculous. Do you KNOW what a logical fallacy is? When someone says FALSE DILEMMA, it means a very SPECIFIC thing. You could save yourself from looking really fucking stupid by just going google and typing in "false dilemma"

In it's simplest form, a false dilemma:

Either A or B is true. A is not true. Therefore, B is true.

That's it. Be all, and end all.

Expectation is one thing, and fact another.

I'm well aware.

Doing what they were meant to do. Weapons of mass destruction were unlikely to be so advertised.

Advertised? You think hidden caches of explosives, RPGs and small arms are advertised?

But to inform with how much accuracy or truth? He’s still on the loose. Obviously the population isn’t selling him out by the cartload.

And I'll say again, what incentive is there to bullshit them? Getting shot for collaborating with no reward because they won't find him where you directed? Smart.

Nobody has said it wasn’t a bluff. The point is that it’s the height of lunacy to claim that anything had to be there when those orders came. We already knew that Saddam was issuing orders that made no tactical or strategic sense.

Point of lunacy? Great theatrics. It's common sense that they should be there, and that they weren't, and that furthermore none showed up at any point in the undoubtedly broken Iraqi logistics chain says something.

Who said the people communicating said rumors had to have been aware of their falsehood?

You did. I was speaking of the intent to inform, which indicates disloyalty.

And I’d like you to substantiate that large numbers of Iraqis are attempting to “give up” Hussein.

See news articles post death of Qusay and Odai, in particular stories about Task Force 20.

I’m not familiar with the situation. That is, however, Kuwait. In case you hadn’t noticed, the Ba’athists are somewhat limited in range and capability at this point in time.

It's amazing that you can roll your eyes while you shoot your own argument in the foot. You argued that they weren't talking because they were in danger from Ba'athists, and when I mention that scientists who talk are moved to a safer place (the gas centrifuge guy), you roll your eyes as if that's what you were saying all along. Concession Accepted.

But Iraq didn’t have engineers of its own who might have built other bunkers? Surely not! Only the Germans are capable of such feats!

And of course, these Iraqi engineers are 100% loyal !

They were ejected on the basis of the accusation that America had seeded the United Nations teams with spies, Vympel.[/quote

No, they left of their own volition. Their was no ejecting involved.

Chest-beating? More like behavior calculated to set off the United States with the forlorn hope that Europe would somehow intercede at the last moment and prevent invasion.

Baseless assertion.

It’s relevant to whether Iraq’s a threat.

No, it isn't. Just because a nation defies another doesn't mean it must be a threat to the other.

It’s clear they thought they had something to hide. Their posturing went beyond mere face-saving gestures.

Baseless assertion.

Again, we need to agree to disagree over whether Iraq represented a clear threat to the national security of the United States of America. It’s your opinion that they didn’t. It’s not fact.

Fine.

In case you don’t want to admit it, that eats away at the value and legitimacy of international action.

But not at the legitimacy of unilateral action? What's good for the goose ...

Keep in mind that Israel’s safety is far from the only – and hardly the paramount or guiding concern – that necessitated Saddam’s overthrow and Iraq’s occupation. That said …

Israel was willing to relent in 1991 (and potentially in 2003) because Coalition forces were already on the ground in Iraq (and Israel) ensuring on the one hand that Saddam would be stopped and on the other that the missiles would face at least the passing threat of interception. In other words, despite Israel’s lack of conventional power projection (of the type the U.S. and U.K. could provide, at least), the situation was already being “taken care of” on the ground. Coalition targets stood a risk of secondary damage from friendly fire. There would be no such inhibitions if Iraq launched an attack out of the blue (a handful of UN weapons inspectors don’t have the spread of Coalition forces, either; their presence wouldn’t be enough to deter strikes on other distant targets even assuming they were in Baghdad).

US troops were still in the region, and Israel couldn't muster any sort of immediate response unless you're talking about immediate release of nuclear weapons, which in terms of being attacked with puny chemical/biological warheads is not 100% positive. These are not true weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, the evidence indicates that Baghdad was not prepared to attempt any first strike with WMD on any country without provocation, as you will see below.

On page 151 of his book, The Threatening Storm, Pollock writes:

Now I’ll go ahead and agree that Pollock’s own offer of an option is equally as ludicrous as Hussein’s. Any kind of attempt to “blackmail” the Coalition would most likely have been met with redoubled resolve (and perhaps a pause), but was unlikely to have ceased altogether.

I looked up the NPR article. I don't see how Pollack can possibly reference it with a straight face, given it's conclusions.

"Immediately following the April 2, 1990 speech, in which he threatened to 'burn' half of Israel, Saddam performed a policy reversal in response to growing international concern. After the US and Egypt expressed concern ... Saddam announced he would only use CW only in retaliation for an Israeli nuclear attack on Baghdad [goes on to say that he told 5 US senators that it was actually a nuclear weapon on Iraq]."

- points to role of Iraqi NBC programs against it's two traditional enemies, Iran and Turkey- citing Israel and Pan-Arab leadership as *not* being the primary concern. (p 32)

- a deliberate Iraqi disinformation campaign was undertaken during Desert Storm to deter the Allied forces from launching a ground offensive (they were not deterred)

- US spokesmen began a deterrence campaign of their own: warning that Iraqi use of WMD might force Israel to use "unconventional weapons" as well (Cheney)

- and this one: "If Saddam ever seriously contemplated the use of WMD during the Gulf War against armed forces or states that possessed, or were believed to be in possession of, far more potent WMD arsenals than that possessed by Iraq, he clearly reconsidered. At least as long as his own life and rule in Baghdad were not directly threatened, there was little sense in using such weapons ... In short, as long as there was a good chance that the Allied ground offensive would end once Kuwait was liberated, not all was lost, and thus there was no point in employing doomsday weapons"

- referencing the Iraqi Baghdad 'doomsday' predelegation of launch authority: there were two predelegations- the one where he threatened WMD retaliation when attacked with WMD (makes sense, as the author averrrs)

- the predelegation of launch in case Baghdad was invaded/besieged: it seems that his approach was that if he were to lose Baghdad, no one else would have it either ... It would be wrong, however, to view the predelegation orders as a sign that SH was ready to commit suicide ... Saddam may have believed ... he could smuggle himself out of the capital city to one of his underground shelters ... if the United States or Israel had retaliated against Baghdad with nuclear weapons, Saddam could later emerge from the rubble to declare victory. The civilized world would be repulsed by the punishment wreaked on the millions of innocent inhabitants of Baghdad. Regardless of what happened in Tel Aviv, the Arab world would be in a state of shocked outrage, the war would come to an abrupt end, the coalition would immediatley disintergrate, and Saddam and his regime would survive."

The conclusion of the entire piece is very enlightening: "Having realised that he faced enemies who could retaliate in kind, it appears that he decided not to risk it" It goes on to mention what may or may not happen if Iraq had nukes, warning of renewed Iraqi ambitions against Kuwait, for example, but that's out of the scope of his 'delusional' state, and I don't see how Iraqi could impose anything on Kuwait considering the continued decrepit state of it's military.

You believe that had Saddam Hussein threatened to deploy biological or chemical weapons against Tel Aviv that the United States and others would have ceased their campaign and promptly left the country?

Probably not. They would however have won a rather Phyrric victory, and then of course there's the theory in the NPR article.

The USSR had the capability to launch hundreds or thousands of nuclear missiles at multiple targets – all backed by the largest conventional military in the world. Iraq had its small arsenal of missiles, most slated for launch at a single Israeli city. Hardly MAD.

The USSR didn't acquire that ability overnight. There was a point where the USA held a decisivie advantage in nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and the USSR had very little to respond with. Yet they held off. Did they 'lose' credibility, or did they merely threaten to respond with their own- thus restoring the balance? You can't 'blackmail' anyone with nuclear weapons. They are good for deterring attack, not for assuring unchallenged aggression.

Attacking Israel in a last, desperate gamble as opposed to, say, attacking the Coalition allies moving in on your troops? Or even going by Pollock’s reasoning – if we assume Israel was deterrable by the United States – and threatening a launch against Saudi oil fields? Those options make sense. The “honor assault” against Israel does not.

His back would be against the wall. What would be left? Victory or defeat doesn't matter at that point, though the NPR article points to a theory about what Saddam could've been trying to do.

And what’s the object of this particular disagreement, you ask? Not to prove Iraq’s current threat, but to prove Hussein’s delusional condition – assuming you want to ignore the Los Angeles Times article on the other thread, too. Nice try at escape, though.

You're taking doomsday tactics in the event of his entire regime being on the verge of death because of *invasion* and inevitalbe defeat and trying to make them indicative of what he would do without provocation, reason, or capability to exploit in a state of peace. And what's even funnier, it never happened, even when it was supposed to! You're never too far away from "we must attack because of what he would do if we attack" are you?

It’s been pointed out at this point in time.

By being leaked by a left-wing German newspaper.

It indicates a willingness to avoid inspections in the first place – which you claim would have shown Iraq to be “clean” anyway.

Which was not the point of the exercise. Iraq didn't want to look clean and toothless, if the bluff theory has anything to it, which is what the thread was originally about.

[Axis Kast]

That was the argument the President and his associates made, undoubtedly, hence the argument that the world is focused on.

The Bush administration did not lie. Their accusations were truth: Iraqi weapons facilities were indeed the subject of refurbishment or refit. Assuming they added no qualifiers, that could have covered civilian work as easily as military. That he public came to their own conclusions – roughly based off the White House assessments that any reconstitution of any program within the facilities, legitimate or not, was an unwelcome situation – is not as a result of false data, merely self-gratifying interpretation.

Not acknowledging it? I've been shouting it: he was full of it. Standard political realm operating procedure.

Bush was playing the game of politics. If you think for a moment that Jacques Chirac steps out of this any cleaner, you’re quite wrong.

I think a policy of preventive war over what someone might do sometime in the future is certainly something to be afraid of.

From what point of view? That the United States would enact such policy again? That’s unlikely considering the global balance of power at this point in time. That somebody else would enact such a policy? Doubtful, considering they wouldn’t survive the backlash.

It was obviously not a strong argument. Simply saying that some people were convinced is completely besides the point. Dr Dino can convince particularly stupid people of the truth of creationism and the falsehood of evolution, it doesn't mean it's an objectively strong argument.

But we’re not talking objectively here, are we? There are no qualifiers. The question is simply whether or not President Bush was convincing to a majority (+ 50%) of the American population. The answer was yes. It is the President’s responsibility to put forth an official opinion and then work toward making that a reality – even if it doesn’t coincide with the best interests of Vympel.

The Iraqis are clearly not that secular, considering the huge influecne Shi'ite clerics have had on the population since the end of the war. As to the position of the Saudi Arabian government, I fail to see how US troops could possibly have been in more danger in Saudi Arabia at any point short of full Islmaic revolution than in Iraq right now. In other news, the a leading popular Sunni cleric has provided financial and and grass-roots suport to a popular anti-american Shi'ite cleric.

Iraqis are more secular, by and large, than the Saudis. They have certainly had more exposure to the so-called “Western lifestyle.”

The question of safety must be approached with the long term in mind. A consolidated Iraq is a far more attractive base-of-operations and pillar of foreign policy than Saudi Arabia.

And got their asses kicked.

Again, you’re too quick to give Iraq the benefit of the doubt.

It's a MASSIVE leap. The Iraq of 2003 is not the Iraq of 1991.

I fail to see the merits of “waiting it out.”

I don't think so. Of the people who signed on the PNAC, a lot of them are now in his administration, or are advisers to the administration, e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle. It's not just about Israeli statehood, it's about a new vision of using American power to dominate indefinitely. I'm sure this gives you a raging hard on, but it has little to do with Iraq and it's supposed weapons of mass destruction/

Iraq is one of the few remaining “rogue” nations, the greatest threat posed by which is – collectively, at the very least – most dangerous to the United States. The Neoconservatives are no different than any others before them. I’m sorry you’re not happy with the status-quo. That doesn’t mean we’ve done anything “wrong” per se, or that our visions any less valid considering its intended goals.

Bush didn't say it was a report they came up with. He said learned. Of course it was stupid- even using your standard of 'did he get in trouble for it'.

No, not stupid at all. Some gambles are worth the risk. This was one of them. Again, we’re arguing semantics. You’re losing. The broader interpretation is vital here.

Oh for fuck's sake this is ridiculous. Do you KNOW what a logical fallacy is? When someone says FALSE DILEMMA, it means a very SPECIFIC thing. You could save yourself from looking really fucking stupid by just going google and typing in "false dilemma"

In it's simplest form, a false dilemma:

Either A or B is true. A is not true. Therefore, B is true.

That's it. Be all, and end all.

You need to stop investing so much time into the definitions of logical fallacies.

Advertised? You think hidden caches of explosives, RPGs and small arms are advertised?

If they’re meant for guerilla war after the initial defeat of the nation’s standing forces, it’s likely a great many more people know about their location than say those of WMD.

And I'll say again, what incentive is there to bullshit them? Getting shot for collaborating with no reward because they won't find him where you directed? Smart.

Money. Favoritism. Hand-outs.

Point of lunacy? Great theatrics. It's common sense that they should be there, and that they weren't, and that furthermore none showed up at any point in the undoubtedly broken Iraqi logistics chain says something.

Now you’re attempting to run with an opinion while casting all other possibility to the wind. I see we’re done here.

You did. I was speaking of the intent to inform, which indicates disloyalty.

But disloyalty on what scale?

See news articles post death of Qusay and Odai, in particular stories about Task Force 20.

Iraq is a huge country. Hundreds of even thousands of tips are relatively small fractions considering the whole of the population.

t's amazing that you can roll your eyes while you shoot your own argument in the foot. You argued that they weren't talking because they were in danger from Ba'athists, and when I mention that scientists who talk are moved to a safer place (the gas centrifuge guy), you roll your eyes as if that's what you were saying all along. Concession Accepted.

It’s obvious that somebody’s going to talk if they’re out of harm’s way completely – but that’s not true for the huge number of former Iraqi soldiers, which lay at the center of this particular controversy.

And of course, these Iraqi engineers are 100% loyal !

Again, reliance on personal opinion. You’re ignoring the fact that they might not have known the specifics or intended purpose about structures they themselves built under false pretense.

No, they left of their own volition. Their was no ejecting involved.

Because of the controversy over the spies.

Baseless assertion.

Every bit as valid as your theory that “pushing it to the edge” is another element of ritual “alpha male” behavior.

No, it isn't. Just because a nation defies another doesn't mean it must be a threat to the other.

That’s a matter of opinion. It certainly means it feels it can avoid the influence of the other and thus exert weight in the opposite direction. In this case, it also indicates that the supposed self-destruction of WMD leaves something to be desired.

But not at the legitimacy of unilateral action? What's good for the goose ...

Unilateral action became necessary when international, multilateral action was obviously going to be blocked by the self-interest of others.

US troops were still in the region, and Israel couldn't muster any sort of immediate response unless you're talking about immediate release of nuclear weapons, which in terms of being attacked with puny chemical/biological warheads is not 100% positive. These are not true weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, the evidence indicates that Baghdad was not prepared to attempt any first strike with WMD on any country without provocation, as you will see below.

You’ve just reiterated my argument.

"Immediately following the April 2, 1990 speech, in which he threatened to 'burn' half of Israel, Saddam performed a policy reversal in response to growing international concern. After the US and Egypt expressed concern ... Saddam announced he would only use CW only in retaliation for an Israeli nuclear attack on Baghdad [goes on to say that he told 5 US senators that it was actually a nuclear weapon on Iraq]."

April 2, 1990. This is before the war. Irrelevant.

points to role of Iraqi NBC programs against it's two traditional enemies, Iran and Turkey- citing Israel and Pan-Arab leadership as *not* being the primary concern.

We already know Iraq’s chief focus from the point of view of WMD was Iran. That does not however exclude Israel form a delusional “honor” strike.

a deliberate Iraqi disinformation campaign was undertaken during Desert Storm to deter the Allied forces from launching a ground offensive (they were not deterred)

Misinformation of what type? And doesn’t the Allied failure to accede in the fact of deterrence raise a red flag for future blackmail? That counts against Saddam’s being rational, if anything.

US spokesmen began a deterrence campaign of their own: warning that Iraqi use of WMD might force Israel to use "unconventional weapons" as well (Cheney)

Another red flag – and, of course, common-sense deduction.

If Saddam ever seriously contemplated the use of WMD during the Gulf War against armed forces or states that possessed, or were believed to be in possession of, far more potent WMD arsenals than that possessed by Iraq, he clearly reconsidered. At least as long as his own life and rule in Baghdad were not directly threatened, there was little sense in using such weapons ... In short, as long as there was a good chance that the Allied ground offensive would end once Kuwait was liberated, not all was lost, and thus there was no point in employing doomsday weapons

The qualifier was always a march on Baghdad. This entire snippet is irrelevant; it talks about what actually happened in the absence of the anticipated provocation.

the predelegation of launch in case Baghdad was invaded/besieged: it seems that his approach was that if he were to lose Baghdad, no one else would have it either ... It would be wrong, however, to view the predelegation orders as a sign that SH was ready to commit suicide ... Saddam may have believed ... he could smuggle himself out of the capital city to one of his underground shelters ... if the United States or Israel had retaliated against Baghdad with nuclear weapons, Saddam could later emerge from the rubble to declare victory. The civilized world would be repulsed by the punishment wreaked on the millions of innocent inhabitants of Baghdad. Regardless of what happened in Tel Aviv, the Arab world would be in a state of shocked outrage, the war would come to an abrupt end, the coalition would immediatley disintergrate, and Saddam and his regime would survive.

… assuming, of course, that Israel were to respond with nuclear weapons (a large “if”) – or that Hussein were to make an adequate escape.

The conclusion of the entire piece is very enlightening: "Having realised that he faced enemies who could retaliate in kind, it appears that he decided not to risk it" It goes on to mention what may or may not happen if Iraq had nukes, warning of renewed Iraqi ambitions against Kuwait, for example, but that's out of the scope of his 'delusional' state, and I don't see how Iraqi could impose anything on Kuwait considering the continued decrepit state of it's military.

He decided not to risk it because Baghdad was never imperiled.

Again, do you or do you not acknowledge that Hussein was prone to delusions and was an incapable leader?

Probably not. They would however have won a rather Phyrric victory, and then of course there's the theory in the NPR article.

Phyrric victory or not, it doesn’t necessarily fulfill victory conditions for Hussein more than 50% of the time.

The USSR didn't acquire that ability overnight. There was a point where the USA held a decisivie advantage in nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and the USSR had very little to respond with. Yet they held off. Did they 'lose' credibility, or did they merely threaten to respond with their own- thus restoring the balance? You can't 'blackmail' anyone with nuclear weapons. They are good for deterring attack, not for assuring unchallenged aggression.

How about deterring attack following unchallenged aggression? Just like in terms of the scenarios you outlined above?

His back would be against the wall. What would be left? Victory or defeat doesn't matter at that point, though the NPR article points to a theory about what Saddam could've been trying to do.

The ultimate goal: survival. But again, only 50% of the time would that effort have been viable – and even then, we’re relying on an armed response. Who says it would be nuclear? Especially if not all the Iraqi warheads do large-scale damage.

You're taking doomsday tactics in the event of his entire regime being on the verge of death because of *invasion* and inevitalbe defeat and trying to make them indicative of what he would do without provocation, reason, or capability to exploit in a state of peace. And what's even funnier, it never happened, even when it was supposed to! You're never too far away from "we must attack because of what he would do if we attack" are you?

No. I’m discussing plans that have a likelihood of failure to come together of over 50%, as opposed to much more attractive forms of blackmail or battlefield use. I’m attempting to point out that even in the middle of a war that had the potential to wash away his régime, Hussein was unable to pull himself from the specter of Israel.

It wasn’t “supposed” to happen unless we marched on Baghdad.

By being leaked by a left-wing German newspaper.

Bush has pointed out the problems with Iraqi contravention before.

Which was not the point of the exercise. Iraq didn't want to look clean and toothless, if the bluff theory has anything to it, which is what the thread was originally about.

Yet they bluffed too much and too long. Why undertake self-destruction if nobody’s going to verify it anyway?

[Vympel]

The Bush administration did not lie. Their accusations were truth: Iraqi weapons facilities were indeed the subject of refurbishment or refit. Assuming they added no qualifiers, that could have covered civilian work as easily as military. That he public came to their own conclusions – roughly based off the White House assessments that any reconstitution of any program within the facilities, legitimate or not, was an unwelcome situation – is not as a result of false data, merely self-gratifying interpretation.

Sorry, they did lie, repeatedly. In particular- inventing an IAEA report that didn't exist, citing a claim about uranium yellowcake they knew to be false, harping on aluminum tubes in the face of overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary as proof of a reconstituted weapons program, inventing a fanciful tale about Iraqi UAVs being used to attack the United States ( ), and the repeated claims regarding absolute confidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (since backpedalled to 'weapons program').

Bush was playing the game of politics. If you think for a moment that Jacques Chirac steps out of this any cleaner, you’re quite wrong.

Blatant red herring. Last I checked, we weren't talking about France. What the hell does Bush playing the game of politics have to do with anything? What is that supposed to be, a defence? You're practically admitting it was all bullshit (which, deep down, I'm sure you know).

From what point of view? That the United States would enact such policy again? That’s unlikely considering the global balance of power at this point in time. That somebody else would enact such a policy? Doubtful, considering they wouldn’t survive the backlash.

They wouldn't survive the backlash? Why not?

But we’re not talking objectively here, are we?

Yes, we are.

There are no qualifiers. The question is simply whether or not President Bush was convincing to a majority (+ 50%) of the American population. The answer was yes. It is the President’s responsibility to put forth an official opinion and then work toward making that a reality – even if it doesn’t coincide with the best interests of Vympel.

I don't give a toss about the intricacies of petty American politics, or anyone elses's politics for that matter. I am interested in objective facts.

Iraqis are more secular, by and large, than the Saudis. They have certainly had more exposure to the so-called “Western lifestyle.”

The question of safety must be approached with the long term in mind. A consolidated Iraq is a far more attractive base-of-operations and pillar of foreign policy than Saudi Arabia.

At what cost? An open-ended, no exit, fanciful 'nation building' mission whose difficultly was chornically underestimated from the outset thanks the fanciful reassurances of certain interested parties, whoose cost exceeds $4 billion a month, which continues to claim the lives of America's fighting men, stretches out the strength of the military, which continues to stir hatred and animosity among the Iraqi people who REFUSE to see Americans based in Iraq for any long period of time- compounded by the thousands of people who have died at American's hands, which has not happened in Saudi Arabia. What are you, nuts?

Again, you’re too quick to give Iraq the benefit of the doubt.

What, Iraq is going to pull off a stunning military offensive ala France 1940 to defeat Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Are you on drugs?

I fail to see the merits of “waiting it out.”

See above for the demerits of sitting in Iraq getting shot at.

Iraq is one of the few remaining “rogue” nations, the greatest threat posed by which is – collectively, at the very least – most dangerous to the United States. The Neoconservatives are no different than any others before them. I’m sorry you’re not happy with the status-quo. That doesn’t mean we’ve done anything “wrong” per se, or that our visions any less valid considering its intended goals.

Yes, I do see something wrong with the unilateral use of force on a bunch of patently trumped up charges.

No, not stupid at all. Some gambles are worth the risk. This was one of them. Again, we’re arguing semantics. You’re losing. The broader interpretation is vital here.

Ah, so uttering a falsehood and being dragged over the coals for it, exposing the mainstream media to reexamine the laughable case for war you put forth to the public, damaging your chances for re-election, contributing to your decreasing approval ratings, and further damaging your international credibility, is not stupid at all.

You started the semantics by attempting to argue that the statement was true. You can rant about how the word 'learned' can somehow apply to something which is false, but you'll still look like an idiot.

You need to stop investing so much time into the definitions of logical fallacies.

It helps when arguing with someone who doesn't have the tiniest inkling of what the hell they are.

If they’re meant for guerilla war after the initial defeat of the nation’s standing forces, it’s likely a great many more people know about their location than say those of WMD.

Ah, while the Iraqis who know about where the WMD is, including everyone who's ever gone near them, is 100% loyal. Sure.

Money. Favoritism. Hand-outs.

You won't get any if you're bullshitting them.

Now you’re attempting to run with an opinion while casting all other possibility to the wind. I see we’re done here.

We were done a long time ago.

But disloyalty on what scale?

There are scales of treason now?

Iraq is a huge country. Hundreds of even thousands of tips are relatively small fractions considering the whole of the population.

Irrelevant. Iraqis have proven willing to provide information in the past, and have continued to do so. Yet none of the thousands of people supposedly involved in this grand deception is willing to give up anything, especially the scientists who would know the most, have the most to gain, and the least to lose. Sure, that's likely.

It’s obvious that somebody’s going to talk if they’re out of harm’s way completely – but that’s not true for the huge number of former Iraqi soldiers, which lay at the center of this particular controversy.

If the soldiers talk they will receive the same priveleges as the scientists.

Again, reliance on personal opinion. You’re ignoring the fact that they might not have known the specifics or intended purpose about structures they themselves built under false pretense.

And you expect that the Iraqi Survey Group hasn't put out a call asking for information about hidden storage sites? Right.

Because of the controversy over the spies.

Yes. Good to clear that up.

Every bit as valid as your theory that “pushing it to the edge” is another element of ritual “alpha male” behavior.

What?

That’s a matter of opinion.

No it's a matter of fact.

It certainly means it feels it can avoid the influence of the other and thus exert weight in the opposite direction. In this case, it also indicates that the supposed self-destruction of WMD leaves something to be desired.

Avoiding the influence of another nation does not equal a threat to the other nation.

Unilateral action became necessary when international, multilateral action was obviously going to be blocked by the self-interest of others.

Didn't say it wasn't necessary within the ambit of the PNAC's deluded little nation-building scheme. The reasons put forward for the invasion of Iraq are illegitimate.

You’ve just reiterated my argument.

Oh, it was YOUR argument that Iraq wasn't prepared to use WMD is it? Fascinating! I accept your concession.

April 2, 1990. This is before the war. Irrelevant.

History of his past actions is relevant when deciding what he'd do in the future, and it's especially relevant considering your fanciful nonsense about Iraq's threat to Israel never panned out, even when the preconditions were met.

We already know Iraq’s chief focus from the point of view of WMD was Iran. That does not however exclude Israel form a delusional “honor” strike.

What excluded Israel from a WMD strike was a march on Baghdad that never happened. 12 years on, when it did happen, nothing. Interesting.

Misinformation of what type? And doesn’t the Allied failure to accede in the fact of deterrence raise a red flag for future blackmail? That counts against Saddam’s being rational, if anything.

Authorisation to use chemical weapons. Oh, and here's the kicker for you: in 1991 they DID find them in the warzone.

Another red flag – and, of course, common-sense deduction.

Red flag for what?

… assuming, of course, that Israel were to respond with nuclear weapons (a large “if”) – or that Hussein were to make an adequate escape.

Yes assuming.

He decided not to risk it because Baghdad was never imperiled.

So you say. And yet in 2003- nothing. Interesting.

Again, do you or do you not acknowledge that Hussein was prone to delusions and was an incapable leader?

Of course he was an incapable leader. Delusional? Not to the point of launching unprovoked attacks with NBC on Israel, no.

Phyrric victory or not, it doesn’t necessarily fulfill victory conditions for Hussein more than 50% of the time.

How about deterring attack following unchallenged aggression? Just like in terms of the scenarios you outlined above?

Which scenario? The facts are clear. Iraq has never been prepared to use WMD unless threatened with a march on the capital, and even when that case, never pulled it off. Explain. This was originally about the threat Iraq posed to Israel. You've utterly failed to establish it, and somehow think that making a piss poor, totally contrary to the avaiable evidence of what SH has done before of Saddam as being delusional somehow acts as a substitute for that. It doesn't.

The ultimate goal: survival. But again, only 50% of the time would that effort have been viable – and even then, we’re relying on an armed response. Who says it would be nuclear? Especially if not all the Iraqi warheads do large-scale damage.

So unless you deal in above 50% certainty of success you must be delusional?

No. I’m discussing plans that have a likelihood of failure to come together of over 50%, as opposed to much more attractive forms of blackmail or battlefield use.

Battlefield use would've been a total exercise in futility. Chemical and biological weapons won't win him any battles. With his limited arsenal, the threat of their use on Israel would be his best chance.

I’m attempting to point out that even in the middle of a war that had the potential to wash away his régime, Hussein was unable to pull himself from the specter of Israel.

The 'superior' forms of blackmail and battlefield use are quite frankly anything but.

It wasn’t “supposed” to happen unless we marched on Baghdad.

And yet you did, and nothing happened. Funny that. So, were the predelegation orders removed, or were the weapons no longer there ,or were the predelegation orders still there and for the life of them they couldn't accomplish the simple task of getting a warhead onto a SCUD, which operated with impunity at their launch points in 1991? The first two cases make your argument weaker. The last one is ridiculous.

Bush has pointed out the problems with Iraqi contravention before.

He's made up bullshit about mushroom clouds over American cities and fanciful nonsense about killer UAVs and absolute certainty as to Iraq's NBC arsenal, I don't think problems with Iraqi contravention of sanctions were a big part of his war platform for some reason.

Yet they bluffed too much and too long. Why undertake self-destruction if nobody’s going to verify it anyway?

Because they might be found. Round the circle we go.

[Axis Kast]

Sorry, they did lie, repeatedly. In particular- inventing an IAEA report that didn't exist, citing a claim about uranium yellowcake they knew to be false, harping on aluminum tubes in the face of overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary as proof of a reconstituted weapons program, inventing a fanciful tale about Iraqi UAVs being used to attack the United States, and the repeated claims regarding absolute confidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (since backpedalled to 'weapons program').

(1) You’ve shown only that the IAEA came to a different conclusion at one point in time on the subject of an Iraqi weapons program, not that the report was confirmed not to exist.
(2) Citing that the British learned of a plot in Nigeria is not at all a falsification, considering that it was intelligence passed from London to Washington in the first place.
(3) Iraqi UAVs could conceivably have been smuggled into the United States. Whether or not it was considered imminent is irrelevant. Yours is an accusation of irrational assumptions, not lying outright.
(4) Great. Bush has absolute confidence he’ll find something. You’re trying to pass off your personal opinion to the contrary as solid fact. Too bad. You lose.

Blatant red herring. Last I checked, we weren't talking about France. What the hell does Bush playing the game of politics have to do with anything? What is that supposed to be, a defence? You're practically admitting it was all bullshit (which, deep down, I'm sure you know).

You’re ignoring the fact that a great many statements made on all sides are meant for interpretation. You must be much more discriminating between “that which is a falsehood” and “that which critics bend to their own ends”.

They wouldn't survive the backlash? Why not?

The only other country in the world able to contemplate unilateral action against a third party without incurring significant economic or military consequences would be the PRC, which would be in a position to do so – and has done so in the past – regardless of American action in Iraq. Any other nation would face overwhelming opposition from the rest of the world if it ever sought to pursue unilateral military action. Or do you believe Pakistan could get away with an attack on India with the claim: “Just in case they attacked us first!”?

Yes, we are.

No, we are not. We’re talking about opinions all around. As I’ve said time and again, Iraq is a subjective issue. Viewpoints will necessarily change as you question different people. What you identify as an “imminent threat” is somebody else’s Sunday walk in the park.

I don't give a toss about the intricacies of petty American politics, or anyone elses's politics for that matter. I am interested in objective facts.

All the facts in the world still demand analysis. And no analysis can occur without preconception. Whoever looks at the data will invariably do so within their own frame of reference. At some point, you’ve got to acknowledge the subjective – not objective – nature of the situation. A national security crisis in France does not represent a national security crisis in the United States, just as American national security interests might be the furthest thing from logical according to politicans in Paris.

At what cost? An open-ended, no exit, fanciful 'nation building' mission whose difficultly was chornically underestimated from the outset thanks the fanciful reassurances of certain interested parties, whoose cost exceeds $4 billion a month, which continues to claim the lives of America's fighting men, stretches out the strength of the military, which continues to stir hatred and animosity among the Iraqi people who REFUSE to see Americans based in Iraq for any long period of time- compounded by the thousands of people who have died at American's hands, which has not happened in Saudi Arabia. What are you, nuts?

Iraq’s long-term outlook as a national with malleable government is far more attractive to the United States than that of Saudi Arabia. Occupation and reconstruction will take time, Vympel. Years. It’s been months. Harping over and over again on the short-term situation will not make your predictions of long-term failure any more valid.

What, Iraq is going to pull off a stunning military offensive ala France 1940 to defeat Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Are you on drugs?

Slow but steady circumvention of the sanctions and international nonchalance to 2002 was a dangerous combination. Even after Blix however, Iraq was still free to take action in private, assuming they kept one step ahead of the inspectorate.

Yes, I do see something wrong with the unilateral use of force on a bunch of patently trumped up charges.

I’m sorry you fervently believe that anybody but Americans must have a say in American national security interests. That’s self-gratifying opinion, nothing more. That the United States has the potential to use unilateral force hereafter doesn’t make it any more likely than before. And those charges you believe were “trumped up” remain under investigation.

Ah, so uttering a falsehood and being dragged over the coals for it, exposing the mainstream media to reexamine the laughable case for war you put forth to the public, damaging your chances for re-election, contributing to your decreasing approval ratings, and further damaging your international credibility, is not stupid at all.

You started the semantics by attempting to argue that the statement was true. You can rant about how the word 'learned' can somehow apply to something which is false, but you'll still look like an idiot.

Again, it was not a falsehood. It was, for all intents and purposes, a transmission to the American public of British conclusions.

The consequences of the situation are irrelevant to the initial expectations. Just as the Shah’s collapse or the failure in Vietnam were unthinkable to those involved at the outset, the fruits of possible end success seemed to justify the resources put in.

The mainstream media can examine the war all it likes; most Americans still support the action. Bush will win on the basis of the Republican commitment to national security alone. The Democratic candidates get only limited press in a battle now oriented increasingly inward. We lack international credibility as a result of the Iraqi crisis in the first place; it stems from irreconcilable differences in opinion over whether the United States should concoct foreign policy in an opinion vacuum, not from the Nigerian yellowcake claim.

Ah, while the Iraqis who know about where the WMD is, including everyone who's ever gone near them, is 100% loyal. Sure.

Most Iraqis have a very limited conceptual grasp of their country’s flirtation with WMD at all, let alone a working knowledge of facilities, hiding places, and ongoing programs.

What’s more, Saddam Hussein reportedly spent time moving through his capital city while American forces were actually in the area – and yet we still don’t have him in our hands. The same is true of Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda higher-ups. Why couldn’t WMD be just as elusive? Saddam’s special units were screened in the first place for extreme loyalty. It’s very likely that many are now hold-outs. And if you want to whine about scientists who didn’t come forward, the Iraqi program was always very modular. Somebody had a specific task related on one segment of the construction or testing, but there was very limited overhead knowledge.

You won't get any if you're bullshitting them.

It’s called expectation, Vympel. If you don’t know you’re bullshitting, you assume things will pan out. Like giving a tip to the police.

We were done a long time ago.

Concession accepted.

There are scales of treason now?

As in how many people are involved?

Irrelevant. Iraqis have proven willing to provide information in the past, and have continued to do so. Yet none of the thousands of people supposedly involved in this grand deception is willing to give up anything, especially the scientists who would know the most, have the most to gain, and the least to lose. Sure, that's likely.

Absolutely relevant. You’re insisting that large numbers of Iraqis are in a position to know. That’s simply not true.

Those “thousands” wouldn’t be over five – between scientists and régime specialists both. And nobody’s saying they aren’t possibly attempting to inform. Remember, the scientists wouldn’t necessarily have had knowledge of the location of the WMD once it rolled out of their facilities. Hell, if the programs were sufficiently limited in scope, it’s possible only the highest officials knew of them anyway. Discussions, financial transactions, and the like.

If the soldiers talk they will receive the same priveleges as the scientists.

Not everybody with a story to tell is going to Kuwait, Vympel.

And you expect that the Iraqi Survey Group hasn't put out a call asking for information about hidden storage sites? Right.

Who’s to say a bunker was meant to be a hidden storage site?

Yes. Good to clear that up.

They were compelled to leave because they didn’t want to confront the issue. They allowed themselves to be ejected.

What?

Iraq took its one-step forward, two-steps back routine two far for posture’s sake alone.

No it's a matter of fact.

No, it’s an opinion.

Avoiding the influence of another nation does not equal a threat to the other nation.

That depends on whom you ask.

Didn't say it wasn't necessary within the ambit of the PNAC's deluded little nation-building scheme. The reasons put forward for the invasion of Iraq are illegitimate.

The reasons put forth – and the reasons underlying – are legitimate from a certain point of view, Vympel. That you don’t share them doesn’t make it any less so.

Oh, it was YOUR argument that Iraq wasn't prepared to use WMD is it? Fascinating! I accept your concession.

Baghdad wasn’t prepared to act without provocation. That provocation was however a march on Baghdad. It doesn’t matter that Saddam didn’t take a missile and lob it in the first place. His contingency plan was still ludicrous.

History of his past actions is relevant when deciding what he'd do in the future, and it's especially relevant considering your fanciful nonsense about Iraq's threat to Israel never panned out, even when the preconditions were met.

I’m glad to see you put so much faith in the public pronouncements of Saddam Hussein.

Are you honestly attempting to argue that we should necessarily have seen the same deterrence in 2003 as in 1991, Vympel? Oh, please say yes.

What excluded Israel from a WMD strike was a march on Baghdad that never happened. 12 years on, when it did happen, nothing. Interesting.

Twelve years later, Iraq’s conventional forces were a shadow of their former selves. The country’s missile stockpiles were severely depleted. They planned to fill SCUDS with chemicals in the first place; by the time we moved on Baghdad, the country was already falling apart. We know, thanks to the Los Angeles Times article, that orders were increasingly delusional and contradictory. Adequate defensive measures were few and far between. We can be assured that the country’s logistical capability became only worse; if there were any launchers remaining or gas designated for use, it’s by no means a leap to suggest that the crews involved either (A) decided not to launch on their own for reasons of self-preservation, (B) never received the order to launch for whatever reason, or (C) were unable to arm their equipment in time. Hell, the missiles of 2003 were a far cry from the missiles of 1991.

Authorisation to use chemical weapons. Oh, and here's the kicker for you: in 1991 they DID find them in the warzone.

In 1991, Iraq’s logistical situation was much different. It doesn’t mean that an order without stockpiles on hand was impossible.

Red flag for what?

Another strike against Saddam’s orders having anything to do with rational behavior.

Yes assuming.

On poor odds, moreover.

So you say. And yet in 2003- nothing. Interesting.

You know as well as I do that you’re treading dangerously low in the water here.

Of course he was an incapable leader. Delusional? Not to the point of launching unprovoked attacks with NBC on Israel, no.

Unprovoked? He considered a march on Baghdad the provocation. The man was delusional. Period. You read the Los Angeles Times article.

Which scenario? The facts are clear. Iraq has never been prepared to use WMD unless threatened with a march on the capital, and even when that case, never pulled it off. Explain. This was originally about the threat Iraq posed to Israel. You've utterly failed to establish it, and somehow think that making a piss poor, totally contrary to the avaiable evidence of what SH has done before of Saddam as being delusional somehow acts as a substitute for that. It doesn't.

Iraq was prepared to target Israel in a last-ditch gambit to end the war when he might have instead threatened Saudi Arabia – with much the same results and absolutely no chance of nuclear retaliation. The situation in 2003 doesn’t even compare remotely; that argument is thus irrelevant.

Saddam’s being a delusional leader is indeed a problem for Israel. It isn’t my problem that you can’t see that a retaliatory strike on Baghdad at any point in time is in everyone’s worst interests. How many times do I have to remind you? We don’t want the Israelis to have to defend themselves at all.

So unless you deal in above 50% certainty of success you must be delusional?

When Saudi Arabia would have made the far better target? Absolutely. He could have blackmailed them with promises of strikes on their oil fields – all with the same potential result, and all without the possibility of nuclear counter-strikes.

Battlefield use would've been a total exercise in futility. Chemical and biological weapons won't win him any battles. With his limited arsenal, the threat of their use on Israel would be his best chance.

Battlefield use against American forces might have stalled the advance and allowed his forces to come together more effectively. I agree however that it wasn’t the optimal choice. Still, you can’t escape that Saudi Arabia was the choice target. Saddam clearly chose Israel for sentimental purposes, not those related to any kind of comparable strategy.

And yet you did, and nothing happened. Funny that. So, were the predelegation orders removed, or were the weapons no longer there ,or were the predelegation orders still there and for the life of them they couldn't accomplish the simple task of getting a warhead onto a SCUD, which operated with impunity at their launch points in 1991? The first two cases make your argument weaker. The last one is ridiculous.

In 2003, not in 1991.

Iraq’s chain-of-command and battlefield effectiveness were shot from the start. You continue to discount the possibility that the weapons never made it to their launch points despite the fact that you can’t prove anything to the contrary.

He's made up bullshit about mushroom clouds over American cities and fanciful nonsense about killer UAVs and absolute certainty as to Iraq's NBC arsenal, I don't think problems with Iraqi contravention of sanctions were a big part of his war platform for some reason.

He’s discussing the dangers of letting rogue leaders sit there as a result of inaction. However, I’m glad you could finally admit that the UN’s failures were indeed a part of his platform.

Because they might be found. Round the circle we go.

Wait. Iraq goes to the trouble of unilateral destruction but refuses to permit inspectors so it can puff its chest for the Arab world? Why not just bury the weapons if you don’t plan on letting anybody inside the country in the first place?

[Vympel]

(1) You’ve shown only that the IAEA came to a different conclusion at one point in time on the subject of an Iraqi weapons program, not that the report was confirmed not to exist.

Returning to your 'prove a negative' antics again? Go ahead, produce this IAEA report that said what Bush claimed. I dare you. Every single media source that's seen fit to cover this gaffe has pointed out that was never said, but apparently, that's no indictment against the all-knowing wisdom of your Messiah.

While you're at it, maybe you can perform your pitiful lie alchemy on this gem, just to see how far you're willing to go:

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him."- Bush, July 15 2003.

Now then ...

I'm wondering, how the fuck do I know that inspectors were let in, and this embarassing chimp that's supposed to be the President didn't? The man's a fucking disgrace, and your increasingly laughable attempts to spin the shit out every word that's ever come out of his (or anyone else's mouth in this matter) speaks volume of how committed to dogma you are.

(2) Citing that the British learned of a plot in Nigeria is not at all a falsification, considering that it was intelligence passed from London to Washington in the first place.

False intelligence which they knew to be false was cited as fact. Hence, lie.

(3) Iraqi UAVs could conceivably have been smuggled into the United States. Whether or not it was considered imminent is irrelevant. Yours is an accusation of irrational assumptions, not lying outright.

More obtuse semantic hairsplitting. It's not a lie, it's just a crazy assumption. Well, that makes me feel much better. It seems I give them more credit than you do, at least I thought they had the brains to know it was bullshit.

(4) Great. Bush has absolute confidence he’ll find something. You’re trying to pass off your personal opinion to the contrary as solid fact. Too bad. You lose.

Sorry, he's readjusted his rhetoric to 'weapons program'. Totally different thing.

You’re ignoring the fact that a great many statements made on all sides are meant for interpretation. You must be much more discriminating between “that which is a falsehood” and “that which critics bend to their own ends”.

They're meant to have a certain interpretation which is provided in the greater context of which they were said. When someone says "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass detruction"- it's pretty hard to interpret that in many ways.

The only other country in the world able to contemplate unilateral action against a third party without incurring significant economic or military consequences would be the PRC, which would be in a position to do so – and has done so in the past – regardless of American action in Iraq. Any other nation would face overwhelming opposition from the rest of the world if it ever sought to pursue unilateral military action. Or do you believe Pakistan could get away with an attack on India with the claim: “Just in case they attacked us first!”?

So what would happen to Pakistan, exactly?

No, we are not. We’re talking about opinions all around. As I’ve said time and again, Iraq is a subjective issue. Viewpoints will necessarily change as you question different people. What you identify as an “imminent threat” is somebody else’s Sunday walk in the park.

The presence of an Iraqi threat is not a subjective issue. It is decided by facts.

All the facts in the world still demand analysis. And no analysis can occur without preconception. Whoever looks at the data will invariably do so within their own frame of reference. At some point, you’ve got to acknowledge the subjective – not objective – nature of the situation. A national security crisis in France does not represent a national security crisis in the United States, just as American national security interests might be the furthest thing from logical according to politicans in Paris.

The analysis of the Iraq situation goes beyond mere preconception to outright "faith-based intelligence", as one insider derisively termed the Office of Special Plans mission in that regard. Proper intelligence is conducted through a long process that attempts to come to the best possible conclusion, not twisted to fit a preconceived notion. Even the CIA and others thought that Saddam may have had BC, they just admitted there was no definitive evidence to that effect and did not think the statements regarding the Iraqi threat were warranted.

Iraq’s long-term outlook as a national with malleable government is far more attractive to the United States than that of Saudi Arabia. Occupation and reconstruction will take time, Vympel. Years. It’s been months. Harping over and over again on the short-term situation will not make your predictions of long-term failure any more valid.

Ah yes, Iraqi hatred is only a short term phenommenon, in time, I'll sure they'll learn to appreciate the American bases on their soil. Saudi Arabia with more cost and more blood is what it is.

Slow but steady circumvention of the sanctions and international nonchalance to 2002 was a dangerous combination. Even after Blix however, Iraq was still free to take action in private, assuming they kept one step ahead of the inspectorate.

Answer the question. What was Iraq going to do?

I’m sorry you fervently believe that anybody but Americans must have a say in American national security interests.That’s self-gratifying opinion, nothing more. That the United States has the potential to use unilateral force hereafter doesn’t make it any more likely than before. And those charges you believe were “trumped up” remain under investigation.

Ah yes, the uranium yellocake, alumimum tubes, UAVs, yeah, they're all still under investigation.

Again, it was not a falsehood. It was, for all intents and purposes, a transmission to the American public of British conclusions.

Which they knew to be wrong. Hence, a lie.

The consequences of the situation are irrelevant to the initial expectations. Just as the Shah’s collapse or the failure in Vietnam were unthinkable to those involved at the outset, the fruits of possible end success seemed to justify the resources put in.

What success? All that's been created is Saudi Arabia the Sequel. Maybe 10 years from now they'll pick up and move to Iran because the Iraqis are sick of them. They can be the squatters of the Middle East

The mainstream media can examine the war all it likes; most Americans still support the action.

Actually they don't, the latest polls indicate.

Bush will win on the basis of the Republican commitment to national security alone. The Democratic candidates get only limited press in a battle now oriented increasingly inward. We lack international credibility as a result of the Iraqi crisis in the first place; it stems from irreconcilable differences in opinion over whether the United States should concoct foreign policy in an opinion vacuum, not from the Nigerian yellowcake claim.

That what they claimed to be in Iraq has not, and will not (at the very BEST case scenario, not the quantities they claimed) be found undoubtedly has an effect on America's international credibility. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

Most Iraqis have a very limited conceptual grasp of their country’s flirtation with WMD at all, let alone a working knowledge of facilities, hiding places, and ongoing programs.

If the Iraqis have been involved with them their 'conceptual grasp' is irrelevant. I'm talking about everyone ever involved with the program, not your average Habib.

What’s more, Saddam Hussein reportedly spent time moving through his capital city while American forces were actually in the area – and yet we still don’t have him in our hands. The same is true of Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda higher-ups. Why couldn’t WMD be just as elusive?

Because it doesn't have legs, and is much harder to move than people.

Saddam’s special units were screened in the first place for extreme loyalty. It’s very likely that many are now hold-outs. And if you want to whine about scientists who didn’t come forward, the Iraqi program was always very modular. Somebody had a specific task related on one segment of the construction or testing, but there was very limited overhead knowledge.

And who invented these idiotic claims? Are you suggesting that scientists are too stupid to know the applications of work they're being asked to do, on top of the remarkable reasoning behind citing 'extreme loyalty' to units that were in dereliction of duty and displayed abject cowardice? Sure.

It’s called expectation, Vympel. If you don’t know you’re bullshitting, you assume things will pan out. Like giving a tip to the police.

This is amazing. You can not know you're bullshitting someone. Did they see Saddam in a hallucination perhaps? Too much opium?

Concession accepted.

Whatever, dumbass.

As in how many people are involved?

It takes ONE disloyal person to give up information.

Absolutely relevant. You’re insisting that large numbers of Iraqis are in a position to know. That’s simply not true.

Those “thousands” wouldn’t be over five – between scientists and régime specialists both. And nobody’s saying they aren’t possibly attempting to inform. Remember, the scientists wouldn’t necessarily have had knowledge of the location of the WMD once it rolled out of their facilities. Hell, if the programs were sufficiently limited in scope, it’s possible only the highest officials knew of them anyway. Discussions, financial transactions, and the like.

It doesn't matter, they could provide testimony that they had worked on it. No scientists have provided such testimony. And your favorite nonsense about 'discussions and financial transactions' has nothing to do with the presence of physical weapons, so drop it.

Not everybody with a story to tell is going to Kuwait, Vympel.

If the story is accurate they are, you dumbshit.

Who’s to say a bunker was meant to be a hidden storage site?

Nah, they're meant to be a classy apartment block

They were compelled to leave because they didn’t want to confront the issue. They allowed themselves to be ejected.

No, they LEFT. VOLUNTARILY. There was no ejection involved.

Iraq took its one-step forward, two-steps back routine two far for posture’s sake alone.

One step forward two steps back? Source please.

No, it’s an opinion.

The threat of one nation to another is objectively decided through evidence, not opinion. If opinion was all that was required, some dumbfuck could successfully make the case that Zanzibar was a threat to China.

That depends on whom you ask.

Yes, I'm sure rabid imperialists would be quick to challenge any threat to their cumstained fantasies.

The reasons put forth – and the reasons underlying – are legitimate from a certain point of view, Vympel. That you don’t share them doesn’t make it any less so.

That 'certain point of view' is a delusional one. Which you share, of course.

Baghdad wasn’t prepared to act without provocation. That provocation was however a march on Baghdad. It doesn’t matter that Saddam didn’t take a missile and lob it in the first place. His contingency plan was still ludicrous.

And this means WHAT in regards to the Iraqi threat to Israel. Jack and shit, and jack just left town. Concession Accepted.

I’m glad to see you put so much faith in the public pronouncements of Saddam Hussein.

How about the fact that there was no attack on Israel, you moron.

Are you honestly attempting to argue that we should necessarily have seen the same deterrence in 2003 as in 1991, Vympel? Oh, please say yes.

No, I'm asking you what that means. I've already presented the possibilities to you below, and none of them help your argument in the least.

Twelve years later, Iraq’s conventional forces were a shadow of their former selves.

Irrelevant.

The country’s missile stockpiles were severely depleted.

Yet if we're to believe claims, SCUDs were still present.

They planned to fill SCUDS with chemicals in the first place; by the time we moved on Baghdad, the country was already falling apart.

Unsupported claim.

We know, thanks to the Los Angeles Times article, that orders were increasingly delusional and contradictory.

Irrelevant to PRE-delegation of launch authority.

Adequate defensive measures were few and far between. We can be assured that the country’s logistical capability became only worse; if there were any launchers remaining or gas designated for use, it’s by no means a leap to suggest that the crews involved either (A) decided not to launch on their own for reasons of self-preservation, (B) never received the order to launch for whatever reason, or (C) were unable to arm their equipment in time. Hell, the missiles of 2003 were a far cry from the missiles of 1991.

The missiles didn't change. It was alleged that Iraq maintained some of its SCUDs. If they weren't there any more, bye bye your argument just got weaker again.

- gas designated for use: if there was none, your argument is weaker.
- decided not to launch for reasons of self-preservation: bullshit. SCUDs operated with impunity in the western desert with the same level of technology at the US disposal then as now (JSTARs etc). Launching and leaving the are would present little danger for some reason
- never received the order to launch for whatever reason. Nonsense. Pre-delegation of launch authority means exactly what it says. Orders weren't required.
- were unable to arm their equipment in time: nonsense. It does not take weeks to prepare a missile for launch.

In 1991, Iraq’s logistical situation was much different. It doesn’t mean that an order without stockpiles on hand was impossible.

Unsupported claim. Moving ammunition requires transport. Nothing more.

Another strike against Saddam’s orders having anything to do with rational behavior.

Hang on, the US talks of its own deterrence campaign saying that if Iraq attacks Israel with NBC it'll respond, and when Iraq doesn't do it, that's not rational?

You know as well as I do that you’re treading dangerously low in the water here.

Sure Comical Ali, sure.

Unprovoked? He considered a march on Baghdad the provocation. The man was delusional. Period. You read the Los Angeles Times article.

"We must march on Baghdad because of what he'd do if we marched on Baghdad."

Dumbass.

Iraq was prepared to target Israel in a last-ditch gambit to end the war when he might have instead threatened Saudi Arabia – with much the same results and absolutely no chance of nuclear retaliation. The situation in 2003 doesn’t even compare remotely; that argument is thus irrelevant.

Oh but it does compare. If the administration's accusations were truth as you so vehemently affirm, then Iraq had the missiles and the warheads. You're trapped. Not fun is it?

Saddam’s being a delusional leader is indeed a problem for Israel. It isn’t my problem that you can’t see that a retaliatory strike on Baghdad at any point in time is in everyone’s worst interests. How many times do I have to remind you? We don’t want the Israelis to have to defend themselves at all.

And yet you've already admitted that Iraq would only do so if provoked and about to have it's capital taken, just like any other country in the same situation. I see you're back to

"We must march on Baghdad because of what they'd do if they march on Baghdad"

When Saudi Arabia would have made the far better target? Absolutely. He could have blackmailed them with promises of strikes on their oil fields – all with the same potential result, and all without the possibility of nuclear counter-strikes.

Oh yeah, attacking another fellow Arab country and further reducing your popularity in the Arab World (quite high around then) is a far better target. Sure.

Battlefield use against American forces might have stalled the advance

No. The US has trained to fight in a full NBC enviornment for 50 years against an Army far more formidable than Iraq. Try again.

and allowed his forces to come together more effectively.

I fail to see the connect with fighting in NBC suits and fighting more effectively. The US would retain the advantage.

I agree however that it wasn’t the optimal choice. Still, you can’t escape that Saudi Arabia was the choice target. Saddam clearly chose Israel for sentimental purposes, not those related to any kind of comparable strategy.

Saudi Arbaia would be the choice target if you were a pariah Jewish state in a mostly Jewish Middle East.

In 2003, not in 1991.

Which is the point of this whole discussion!

Iraq’s chain-of-command and battlefield effectiveness were shot from the start. You continue to discount the possibility that the weapons never made it to their launch points despite the fact that you can’t prove anything to the contrary.

I have common sense and historical precedent on side, whereas you seem to think for the entire war nobody moved an inch. Sure, that's likely.

He’s discussing the dangers of letting rogue leaders sit there as a result of inaction. However, I’m glad you could finally admit that the UN’s failures were indeed a part of his platform.

Wait. Iraq goes to the trouble of unilateral destruction but refuses to permit inspectors so it can puff its chest for the Arab world?

Strawman. Iraq obfuscated and kept the issue vague, but did insist that it had no weapons. It tried to walk a fine line so as not to lose face.

Why not just bury the weapons if you don’t plan on letting anybody inside the country in the first place?

They DID let inspectors in the country, in case you didn't notice.

I've never seen such a spectacular self-destruction of the other side's position. In one fell thread, you've managed to defend falsehoods by being obtuse (the thesaurus would help you as to other words for that) and evasive (so as to save Bush from the 'he lied' stigma), and admitting so, destroying your own argument as to Iraqi threat by pissing all over the threat Iraq supposedly posed in 2003 (including the claims made regarding Iraq's possessions of missiles and WMD), supposedly a cornerstone of your position, and using your patented circular reasoning of we better attack Iraq because of what might happen if we attack Iraq. Well done!

[Axis Kast]

Returning to your 'prove a negative' antics again? Go ahead, produce this IAEA report that said what Bush claimed. I dare you. Every single media source that's seen fit to cover this gaffe has pointed out that was never said, but apparently, that's no indictment against the all-knowing wisdom of your Messiah.

All you’ve done is to provide a report by the IAEA running contrary to statements made by the White House. I’ve seen nothing but your own assertion that there was never any such report in the first place.

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him."- Bush, July 15 2003.

He’s talking about the specific timeframe during which Hussein stalled. That much is rather obvious. His rationale is clear: Iraq played too close to the edge for the sake of face alone.

False intelligence which they knew to be false was cited as fact. Hence, lie.

Incorrect. What Bush did was to inform the American people of British possession of a report that still retained, at the time, high-level proponents in the United Kingdom (Prime Minister Tony Blair among them).

More obtuse semantic hairsplitting. It's not a lie, it's just a crazy assumption. Well, that makes me feel much better. It seems I give them more credit than you do, at least I thought they had the brains to know it was bullshit.

Now you’re attempting to frame as a falsehood any kind of speculative statement not thoroughly in line with your own personal analysis. What President Bush did in warning the American public of the danger of UAVs was to highlight the potentially negative effects of allowing Iraq to possess such equipment in the first place. For all intents and purposes, he outlined a “worst-case scenario.” It might not be likely, but it’s certainly a possibility.

Sorry, he's readjusted his rhetoric to 'weapons program'. Totally different thing.

A quotation in which George Bush abandons his belief in the presence of weapons stockpiles altogether, please. Simply because he moved on to something increasingly more likely doesn’t invalidate his first suspicions.

So what would happen to Pakistan, exactly?

They’d certainly face debilitating economic sanctions from virtually all members of the United Nations. Even assuming that the People’s Republic of China exercised veto power, multilateral action would be virtually assured. Then there’s possible expulsion from the United Nations altogether.

The presence of an Iraqi threat is not a subjective issue. It is decided by facts.

The presence of a threat is indeed a subjective issue because those facts must be analyzed. What one man sees as threatening another may not. The same is true of nations. Tell me this: to whom was Iraq a greater security liability, the United States of America or the Republic of France?

The analysis of the Iraq situation goes beyond mere preconception to outright "faith-based intelligence", as one insider derisively termed the Office of Special Plans mission in that regard. Proper intelligence is conducted through a long process that attempts to come to the best possible conclusion, not twisted to fit a preconceived notion. Even the CIA and others thought that Saddam may have had BC, they just admitted there was no definitive evidence to that effect and did not think the statements regarding the Iraqi threat were warranted.

The point, Vympel, is that American analysts will invariably come to different conclusions related to their own specific situation than say, the Germans. It’s why the definition of Iraq as a threatening nation was so controversial in the first place. Europeans fail to share the American perspective – most especially because they wouldn’t be expected to bear the brunt of intervention down the road.

Ah yes, Iraqi hatred is only a short term phenommenon, in time, I'll sure they'll learn to appreciate the American bases on their soil. Saudi Arabia with more cost and more blood is what it is.

It’s not whether they appreciate it; it’s whether the Iraqi government is more malleable and the Saudis less able to hold anything over our heads in the distant future.

Answer the question. What was Iraq going to do?

Slowly reconstitute a weapons program by currying favor with those not already involved in the region militarily, expanding its capacity both under and after sanctions.

Which they knew to be wrong. Hence, a lie.

And which British stood by continually.

What success?

The potential for future democracy – or something approaching that definition -, as well as a more useful base in the Middle East from which to curb Iranian ambitions (in addition to a variety of other additional boons, including better-assured safety for Israel and elimination of a regime known to have pursued WMD, of course).

Actually they don't, the latest polls indicate.

Most Americans don’t support George W. Bush for reelection? I’d like to see those polls.

That what they claimed to be in Iraq has not, and will not (at the very BEST case scenario, not the quantities they claimed) be found undoubtedly has an effect on America's international credibility. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

You’re comparing apples and oranges. This situation encompasses more than simple threat. The boy who cried, “Wolf!” never had to contend with other ambitious nation-states seeking to safeguard their own best interests, or with a general population envious of his position and influence in general. That was a great deal of the impetus behind the protests.


As for the scientists and “weapons free” orders, I’ll handle that with one large segment of text.


Let me remind you that Iraqi scientists rarely enjoyed “overhead”, if at all. Most efforts – much like those of our Manhattan Project – were segmented, involving specific persons for specific purposes at specific times during the process of construction. While a scientist might have been able to boast the claim that he or she worked with nuclear materials and participated in a nuclear program, there is no reason to suspect that they’d be able to provide clear, constant knowledge of (A) stockpiles, (B) locations, or (C) usage. As for your assertion that Iraqi scientists should be stepping forward, the presence of hidden stockpiles alone would confirm the accusations originally levied by George W. Bush. The “active programs” of the present time needed only be those self-same financial transactions or preliminary discussions about which I have spoken several times already.

Moving on to the units employed by Hussein to deal with WMD, I’d be careful of chalking their ineffectiveness up to disloyalty. More likely, they were regime yes-men with absolutely no practical experience moving the actual “product,” whose whereabouts need not have been fully – or at all – disclosed until an emergency situation. The country falling apart around them and conventional forces all but gone, they’d not have been eager to fight – but that’s a big difference as compared to a willing surrender, or worse, outright treachery.

WMD are far more difficult to locate than Saddam Hussein, considering the number of possible locations in which such equipment could be stored. The Iraqi leadership must move frequently, and probably contains a considerable number of personnel in attendance. The same would not be true of WMD.

Finally, the “tips.” Obviously, no tip was yet worth its salt – although again, I’d like you to provide solid numbers. Fail that and your claim of supposedly widespread Iraqi willingness to give up Saddam falls flat on its face. Just because a tip is false doesn’t mean you would expect it. If you heard something around the time of a crime, you’d inform investigators on your block. It doesn’t mean you’d be guaranteed to have actually helped.

Nah, they're meant to be a classy apartment block

… or a military fortification …

No, they LEFT. VOLUNTARILY. There was no ejection involved.

Then what does the US spy issue have anything to do with it?

One step forward two steps back? Source please.

“We will cooperate – but no destroying our al-Samouds.”

The threat of one nation to another is objectively decided through evidence, not opinion. If opinion was all that was required, some dumbfuck could successfully make the case that Zanzibar was a threat to China.

In order to make a credible argument, facts are required. Again, that does not discount analysis.

And this means WHAT in regards to the Iraqi threat to Israel. Jack and shit, and jack just left town. Concession Accepted.

It means that he was prepared to involve them in half-assed schemes of vengeance that catered to personal hatred rather than military realities.

How about the fact that there was no attack on Israel, you moron.

Because there was no march on Baghdad in 1991.

Irrelevant.

Absolutely relevant. Conventional forces were expected to provide a buffer – especially for Baghdad – in which to better prepare to repulse the Coalition.

Yet if we're to believe claims, SCUDs were still present.

With chemicals immediately on hand?

Unsupported claim.

Iraqi defense began to crumble from day one. We know as much now. You posted the articles on widespread bribery and desertion yourself.

Irrelevant to PRE-delegation of launch authority.

He might have changed orders. Or other orders might now have been complimentary. Chemical units don’t necessarily exist in a vacuum from the point of view of having to do their job.

The missiles didn't change. It was alleged that Iraq maintained some of its SCUDs. If they weren't there any more, bye bye your argument just got weaker again.

- gas designated for use: if there was none, your argument is weaker.
- decided not to launch for reasons of self-preservation: bullshit. SCUDs operated with impunity in the western desert with the same level of technology at the US disposal then as now (JSTARs etc). Launching and leaving the are would present little danger for some reason
- never received the order to launch for whatever reason. Nonsense. Pre-delegation of launch authority means exactly what it says. Orders weren't required.
- were unable to arm their equipment in time: nonsense. It does not take weeks to prepare a missile for launch.

If there were SCUDs (and we know there were some because they were used), chemicals might not have been immediately available. Iraq was under considerable scrutiny at the time.

If there weren’t SCUDs, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t anything else, either. It does however substantiate theories on why Israel survived without a hitch.

It’s not a case of gas designated for use, but of gas being prepared for use.

Chemical-filled warheads and conventional warheads are two different things. Come to think of it, we even have to ask ourselves whether the remaining SCUDs could have been adapted to such a payload at all.

And what if pre-delegation of orders didn’t exist?

It doesn’t take weeks to prepare a missile. It may however take weeks to go through the motions in order to fire a barrage with equipment scattered across the country.

Unsupported claim. Moving ammunition requires transport. Nothing more.

… except for security, camouflage, unearthing, and special care, of course. But you thought that was assumed.

Hang on, the US talks of its own deterrence campaign saying that if Iraq attacks Israel with NBC it'll respond, and when Iraq doesn't do it, that's not rational?

Read again. He did it because we didn’t march on Baghdad in ’91.

"We must march on Baghdad because of what he'd do if we marched on Baghdad."

Dumbass.

No. We must march on Baghdad because of the kind of deductions Hussein is capable of making – and has made in the past. The situation in 2003 is much changed.

As for the, “We must march on Baghdad because of what he’d do,” argument, we’d be letting him call our bluff if we did anything less.

Oh but it does compare. If the administration's accusations were truth as you so vehemently affirm, then Iraq had the missiles and the warheads. You're trapped. Not fun is it?

Trapped? Not at all. Iraq had some missiles and warheads. The use of WMD was however likely on only a limited scale. Remember the constraints after having hid them so long.

And yet you've already admitted that Iraq would only do so if provoked and about to have it's capital taken, just like any other country in the same situation.

Other countries and leaders would most likely choose the better strategic option of the two.

No. The US has trained to fight in a full NBC enviornment for 50 years against an Army far more formidable than Iraq. Try again.

That doesn’t mean forward units mightn’t have been caught with their “pants down,” so to speak, or that we wouldn’t have consolidated our forces and paused shortly before heading onward once more.

I fail to see the connect with fighting in NBC suits and fighting more effectively. The US would retain the advantage.

That doesn’t mean Iraq wouldn’t have had slightly more time.

Saudi Arbaia would be the choice target if you were a pariah Jewish state in a mostly Jewish Middle East.

?!

I have common sense and historical precedent on side, whereas you seem to think for the entire war nobody moved an inch. Sure, that's likely.

Until now, you’ve discounted it all-together. Historical precedent?! Let me get this straight. Throughout history, orders have always been perfectly capable of being carried out by the forces at hand?

Strawman. Iraq obfuscated and kept the issue vague, but did insist that it had no weapons. It tried to walk a fine line so as not to lose face.

Then why not bury the equipment in the first place? If there were inspections, they’d lose face anyway. So why not try to hide something? It’s at least as likely as total, unilateral self-destruction – but without documentation. Now you’re simply taking them on faith.

[Vympel]

All you’ve done is to provide a report by the IAEA running contrary to statements made by the White House. I’ve seen nothing but your own assertion that there was never any such report in the first place.

Continued use of shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Pathetic. Bush cited an IAEA report. No such IAEA report exists. If you wish to alledge it does, YOU provide the proof, for fuck's sake.

He’s talking about the specific timeframe during which Hussein stalled. That much is rather obvious. His rationale is clear: Iraq played too close to the edge for the sake of face alone.

Pitiful. I love it how you insert your spin on a bald faced error like "he wouldn't let them in, so we went in" and call your interpretation 'obvious'.

Incorrect. What Bush did was to inform the American people of British possession of a report that still retained, at the time, high-level proponents in the United Kingdom (Prime Minister Tony Blair among them).

Which they already knew to be wrong, from their own intelligence services, so much so that it was already removed from a speech once (the October one). At this point, you remind me of some sort of cult member, huddled in a corner, repeating dogma.

Now you’re attempting to frame as a falsehood any kind of speculative statement not thoroughly in line with your own personal analysis. What President Bush did in warning the American public of the danger of UAVs was to highlight the potentially negative effects of allowing Iraq to possess such equipment in the first place. For all intents and purposes, he outlined a “worst-case scenario.” It might not be likely, but it’s certainly a possibility.

That Earth will be hit by an asteroid that will wipe out all life is also a possibility. I guess Bush should've mentioned that too- after all- if it's not totally impossible by the laws of physics, however irrational, implausible and bereft of facts, it's not a lie!

A quotation in which George Bush abandons his belief in the presence of weapons stockpiles altogether, please. Simply because he moved on to something increasingly more likely doesn’t invalidate his first suspicions.

No, it just demonstrates his preparation for the inevitable about face where he denies that he or anyone else under him said any such thing, and the intellectual prostitutes who make up his Amen corner will nod their heads in agreement.

[quote
They’d certainly face debilitating economic sanctions from virtually all members of the United Nations. Even assuming that the People’s Republic of China exercised veto power, multilateral action would be virtually assured. Then there’s possible expulsion from the United Nations altogether.[/quote]

Multilateral action against a nuclear armed Pakistan with a superpower supporter such as China would be assured? Sure, that sounds likely.

The presence of a threat is indeed a subjective issue because those facts must be analyzed. What one man sees as threatening another may not. The same is true of nations. Tell me this: to whom was Iraq a greater security liability, the United States of America or the Republic of France?

The USA. To be more specific, the chance of Iraq attacking France was on the order of ... 0.0001%, and the chance of Iraq attacking Americ was ... 0.001%.

The point, Vympel, is that American analysts will invariably come to different conclusions related to their own specific situation than say, the Germans. It’s why the definition of Iraq as a threatening nation was so controversial in the first place. Europeans fail to share the American perspective – most especially because they wouldn’t be expected to bear the brunt of intervention down the road.

Except that even American analysts, except for the kooky mission-from-God Office of Special Plans, agreed with European estimates. Nice try at diversion.

It’s not whether they appreciate it; it’s whether the Iraqi government is more malleable and the Saudis less able to hold anything over our heads in the distant future.

Hold anything over your heads- like say ... oil? I love this, not even a pretense to cover up the veneer of imperialism- it's simply a matter of making them "malleable". I can almost see the strings being pulled on the puppet regime, because we all know that any real democracy in Iraq will quickly put the Shi'ite clerics in power.

Slowly reconstitute a weapons program by currying favor with those not already involved in the region militarily, expanding its capacity both under and after sanctions.

Except it didn't expand jack shit in the 12 years it was under sanctions, it declined, obviously, and was the victim of the swiftest military asskicking ever after having been reduced to the weakest power among it's major neighbours, easily. Nice fantasy you have there. It expanded it's capacity to fart louder. Clearly a massive threat to collective security we had on our hands.

And which British stood by continually.

And which America didn't. Funny, it seems in your desperation to defend this falsehood, you've become somewhat of a multilateralist.

The potential for future democracy

As long as it's 'malleable' to US interests, of course. Some democracy you got there.

– or something approaching that definition -, as well as a more useful base in the Middle East from which to curb Iranian ambitions

What Iranian ambitions?

(in addition to a variety of other additional boons, including better-assured safety for Israel and elimination of a regime known to have pursued WMD, of course).

Ah, so if you've pursued WMD in the past, even though you are under intense sanctions and your economy and military are in the doldrums, it is a 'boon' to insert yourself into this cesspool and get shot at repeatedly for your trouble, all while gaining the increased ire of the Arab world, creating more terrorists, drawing your military out paper thin, and costing billions of dollars a month. Smart. It sounds *so* much better than Saudi Arabia, or (gasp!) going the fuck home!

Most Americans don’t support George W. Bush for reelection? I’d like to see those polls.

Polls regarding support for the war/presence in Iraq.

You’re comparing apples and oranges. This situation encompasses more than simple threat. The boy who cried, “Wolf!” never had to contend with other ambitious nation-states seeking to safeguard their own best interests, or with a general population envious of his position and influence in general. That was a great deal of the impetus behind the protests.[/qutoe]

In simplest terms, when you make a claim that turns out to be bogus, the next time you invoke it, you will have less credibility. Who the people listening are has nothing to do with it.

Let me remind you that Iraqi scientists rarely enjoyed “overhead”, if at all. Most efforts – much like those of our Manhattan Project – were segmented, involving specific persons for specific purposes at specific times during the process of construction. While a scientist might have been able to boast the claim that he or she worked with nuclear materials and participated in a nuclear program, there is no reason to suspect that they’d be able to provide clear, constant knowledge of (A) stockpiles, (B) locations, or (C) usage.

Irrelevant. They testified, unanimously, that there was no PROGRAM. NO WORK WAS BEING DONE, every single last one of them says. They didn't testify as to stockpiles (why the hell would a scientist no where they were hidden), locations (besides locations of where they might be doing work- i.e. nowhere) or useage (that one's real rich).

As for your assertion that Iraqi scientists should be stepping forward, the presence of hidden stockpiles alone would confirm the accusations originally levied by George W. Bush.

Except of course, they haven't been found. Don't bother referring to discoveries that haven't been made, it's so much fluff.

The “active programs” of the present time needed only be those self-same financial transactions or preliminary discussions about which I have spoken several times already.

Yes yes I'm well aware of this obtuse little excuse, luckily if you think anyone will actually buy that if they ever become desperate enough to pull that one out, you really are off with the fairies.

Moving on to the units employed by Hussein to deal with WMD, I’d be careful of chalking their ineffectiveness up to disloyalty.

When you run from combat, that's disloyalty. There was no retreat order given.

More likely, they were regime yes-men with absolutely no practical experience moving the actual “product,”

Ah, so first they're an special force, capable of hiding and moving WMD without ever being found or ever disclosing it's whereabouts, but at the same time, they have no practical experience in moving it, even though they're the ones moving it in the first place. Wow! I don't think I've ever seen a position that can contradict itself so badly.

And of course, we have regime 'yes-men' like General Hussein Kemal, former head of Iraqi WMD programs and Saddam son-in-law to boot, defecting and spilling the beans, which blows a massive hole through your already absurd 100% loyalty claim.

whose whereabouts need not have been fully – or at all – disclosed until an emergency situation.

Ah, I see, the organisation in charge of them didn't know where they were. That makes a helluva lot of sense.

The country falling apart around them and conventional forces all but gone, they’d not have been eager to fight – but that’s a big difference as compared to a willing surrender, or worse, outright treachery.

No. When you are given an order, and you disobey, and melt away, that's dereliction of duty. That will get you shot at dawn anywhere.

WMD are far more difficult to locate than Saddam Hussein, considering the number of possible locations in which such equipment could be stored. The Iraqi leadership must move frequently, and probably contains a considerable number of personnel in attendance. The same would not be true of WMD.

Except that these stockpiles, according to El Shrubo, are supposed to be huge. Many thousands of tons worth.

Finally, the “tips.” Obviously, no tip was yet worth its salt – although again, I’d like you to provide solid numbers.

link

Of course, you're also ignoring all the other regime figures in the deck of cards and Saddam's bodyguards etc to preserve your position.

Fail that and your claim of supposedly widespread Iraqi willingness to give up Saddam falls flat on its face. Just because a tip is false doesn’t mean you would expect it. If you heard something around the time of a crime, you’d inform investigators on your block. It doesn’t mean you’d be guaranteed to have actually helped.

Whether you 'actually' helped or not DOESN'T matter. I'm tired of your wall of ignorance- every single message you simply repackage your previous claims without modification. The point is INTENT to help. That the tip may be wrong, or not acted on quick enough, is not relevant. Go ahead, repeat yourself and repackage your red herring again, I won't be surprised.

And here's something else to ignore, perhaps you'd like to explain why Saddam and WMD are in one *special* category, but his bodyguards, officials, well-known regime figures, and sons aren't.

… or a military fortification …

You think they wouldn't look in military fortifications? Do you know that fortifications (bunkers, trenches, etc) stand out like sore thumbs from the air?

Then what does the US spy issue have anything to do with it?

?? You claimed they were ejected (for the umpteenth time, it seems you'll just try and slip it past wherever you can get away with it), they weren't. Butler pulled em out unilaterally, without consulting the Security Council (naturally, since he was the stooge that torpedoed the inspections by violating the mandate in the first place) when the Iraqis found out about the spying (thanks to aggressive leaking from Kofi Annan, so I hear) and:

The story centers on the Iraq crisis that broke out on December 16, 1998. Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq, had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N. weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced he would launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. Out of concern for their safety, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, and the U.S.-British bombing proceeded.

The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: A December 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellman reported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

I've posted this in various forms 100 times before. Then the Washington Post on Butler:

Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler's decision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. The Washington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his report on Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him about how to frame his conclusions.

According to the Post, a New York diplomat "generally sympathetic to Washington" argued--along with French, Russian, Chinese, and U.N. officials--that Butler, working in collusion with the U.S., "deliberately wrote a justification for war." "Based on the same facts," the diplomat said, "he [Butler] could have just said, 'There were something like 300 inspections and we encountered difficulties in five.'"

As always, you gotta thank Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for actually remembering what the hell was being said 5 years ago.

“We will cooperate – but no destroying our al-Samouds.”

Except they did. Facts don't seem to be your strong point. No, wait, I know, it's just my opinion that they destroyed em, right?

In order to make a credible argument, facts are required. Again, that does not discount analysis.

And we've all seen the quality of facts put out by the administration. This is where you appeal to top secret facts that will never be revealed, of course.

It means that he was prepared to involve them in half-assed schemes of vengeance that catered to personal hatred rather than military realities.

If Baghdad was about to fall. Good idea leaving that little caveat out when it suits you, and ignoring the evidence that Saddam refused to use WMD on any country that could retaliate in any other scenario.

Because there was no march on Baghdad in 1991.

And none in 2003 too

Absolutely relevant. Conventional forces were expected to provide a buffer – especially for Baghdad – in which to better prepare to repulse the Coalition.

Except of course that you're operating on the deluded view that it takes weeks to prepare missiles for launch.

With chemicals immediately on hand?

I don't see why they would seperate the warheads from their missiles, if they were there in the first place. If they were seperated, it would not take weeks to mate them up.

Iraqi defense began to crumble from day one. We know as much now. You posted the articles on widespread bribery and desertion yourself.

Nice try. I refer to "they planned to fill SCUDS with chemicals in the first place"

Your reference for this? Astrology maybe?

He might have changed orders.

Boom-crash. So much for Saddam's honor strike theory.

Or other orders might now have been complimentary. Chemical units don’t necessarily exist in a vacuum from the point of view of having to do their job.

More adding non-existent caveats to straight-faced, unequivocal evidence. Do you understand the purpose behind a pre-delegation of launch authority? It's a doomsday measure. You don't attach other orders to it that contradict it- if you do, the measure is as good as gone. In which case your argument's in the crapper again. The orders were simple: if Baghdad is under attack, launch.

If there were SCUDs (and we know there were some because they were used)

No, the Pentagon denies that any SCUDs were ever launched. You're probably operating from the media misconception that any enemy missile that's ever launched by anyone at anything is a 'scud'. SCUD refers to a specific missile model.

chemicals might not have been immediately available. Iraq was under considerable scrutiny at the time.

Of course, for this rationalisation to work the Iraqis have reverted to digging and transporting warheads with their bare hands.

If there weren’t SCUDs, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t anything else, either.

There were Al-Samouds and anti-ship missiles- neither of which had the tiniest fraction of the range to go anywhere near Israel. Try again.

It does however substantiate theories on why Israel survived without a hitch.

Hence no threat to Israel. Boom-crash.

It’s not a case of gas designated for use, but of gas being prepared for use.

Prepared for use? What, like making the stuff? Oh please go there ...

Chemical-filled warheads and conventional warheads are two different things. Come to think of it, we even have to ask ourselves whether the remaining SCUDs could have been adapted to such a payload at all.

If not, then there was no threat to Israel.

And what if pre-delegation of orders didn’t exist?

Then Saddam clearly didn't favor the honor-strike any more. Which means the threat to Israel you just harped on just went further down the toilet.

It doesn’t take weeks to prepare a missile. It may however take weeks to go through the motions in order to fire a barrage with equipment scattered across the country.

A coordinated barrage isn't required. All it takes is one SCUD to reach it's launch position and shoot for Bush to have his proof.

… except for security

It's called a truck with men in it. What were you waiting for, Voltron to assemble or something?

camouflage

Yup, it must've taken them like MINUTES to put a camo net on it (assuming they bothered), jeez, no wonder it too kso long. No wait- they were ordering a plasma stealth device from Russia! Yeah, that's the ticket. Use it, it's not 100% impossible, so it's not like you're lying

unearthing

Hours. Or less, depedning on how well they buried it.

and special care

Well, that certainly accounts for weeks worth of incompetence.

No. We must march on Baghdad because of the kind of deductions Hussein is capable of making – and has made in the past. The situation in 2003 is much changed.

The situation in 2003 has dramatically changed much to your argument's detriment. Iraq was clearly incapable of any military agression, and would remain so as long as sanctions were in place. It could not order military hardware. It was not free to spend it's oil wealth with impunity. It's conventional forces were in shambles. It's chemical and biological infrastructure was destroyed. The Kurds had eked out a position in the North. Yet, after all this, you think it's somehow convincing to just say "well, he made this here deduction 12 years ago, so you never know, he might make like another ... deduction (whatever that is) ... and ... yeah"

Whatever.

As for the, “We must march on Baghdad because of what he’d do,” argument, we’d be letting him call our bluff if we did anything less.

That's just brilliant: "well, we've bruised our chests so bad, we better do it now just so he doesn't get out of it and make us look stupid!" I see history starts for you the night before the war. No wonder you have such a problem with this.

Trapped? Not at all. Iraq had some missiles and warheads. The use of WMD was however likely on only a limited scale. Remember the constraints after having hid them so long.

Only on a limited scale? Are you suggesting they were used?

Other countries and leaders would most likely choose the better strategic option of the two.

Yeah, attacking another fellow Arab nation when the subject of the entire region's ire is sitting within your grasp is the better strategic option

That doesn’t mean forward units mightn’t have been caught with their “pants down,” so to speak, or that we wouldn’t have consolidated our forces and paused shortly before heading onward once more.

An extremely minor gain if the US forces were incompetent enough to let it happen, which would still give you a zero chance of long term success.

That doesn’t mean Iraq wouldn’t have had slightly more time.

To do what? Dig more of their tanks in the dirt and hope US units would just waltz by their guns like they were doing?

?!

Exactly. It makes just as much as sense as your bizarre 'attacking Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons' idea.

I
Until now, you’ve discounted it all-together. Historical precedent?! Let me get this straight. Throughout history, orders have always been perfectly capable of being carried out by the forces at hand?

No, but they've been carried out to SOME extent. You however, think that it's possible for a pre-delegation command to go by completely unacted upon, to the point where nothing was done, at all for the entire war.

Then why not bury the equipment in the first place? If there were inspections, they’d lose face anyway.

But not as much if they had weapons hidden there and the inspectors found them all, despite Iraqi denials, and proceded to publically castrate them. Almost literally.

So why not try to hide something? It’s at least as likely as total, unilateral self-destruction – but without documentation. Now you’re simply taking them on faith.

And unanimous testimony to that effect from people who would know. And in one case, were killed for it (Kemal).

[Axis Kast]

Continued use of shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Pathetic. Bush cited an IAEA report. No such IAEA report exists. If you wish to alledge it does, YOU provide the proof, for fuck's sake.

You made the original claim. You provide the proof. There’s a difference, you realize, between proof of nonexistence (published, say, by the United Nations itself) and your own assertion that an unsuccessful fifteen-minute search on Google is damning evidence of an outright lie. The IAEA drafted a specific position contrary to that of George W. Bush at one point in time, yes. But you’ve still got nothing to work with except your own accusations as far as conclusive determination of a lie is concerned.

Pitiful. I love it how you insert your spin on a bald faced error like "he wouldn't let them in, so we went in" and call your interpretation 'obvious'.

Not as much as I enjoy your grasping at everything under the sun in trying to bash the 43rd man in the Oval Office. It’s quite clear that Bush was referring to a time frame – using the fact of Iraq’s early intransigence as belated justification. Whether or not you find merit in such accusations is one thing. Whether or not Bush was lying outright is quite another.

Which they already knew to be wrong, from their own intelligence services, so much so that it was already removed from a speech once (the October one). At this point, you remind me of some sort of cult member, huddled in a corner, repeating dogma.

And yet Tony Blair remained firm in his position: the reports were valid. Bush saw fit to make that known to the American public. It was misleading; it was not a falsification.

That Earth will be hit by an asteroid that will wipe out all life is also a possibility. I guess Bush should've mentioned that too- after all- if it's not totally impossible by the laws of physics, however irrational, implausible and bereft of facts, it's not a lie!

You’re sinking your own boat here. For the second time this go-around: be mindful that you do not again confuse personal disagreement for falsehoods or untruths.

No, it just demonstrates his preparation for the inevitable about face where he denies that he or anyone else under him said any such thing, and the intellectual prostitutes who make up his Amen corner will nod their heads in agreement.

Outright speculation on your part. This has no credible relevance in any realm as to the question of Bush’s being genuine on the case of Iraq.

Multilateral action against a nuclear-armed Pakistan with a superpower supporter such as China would be assured? Sure, that sounds likely.

Are you denying the overwhelming likelihood that the entire Western world would at once close ranks against the Pakistanis? That the United States and European Union are each free to enact independent sanctions of their own? That it probably wouldn’t be necessary considering the fact that most nations would find Pakistan’s actions repugnant regardless? It’s most likely that even were Beijing to “cover” for Pakistan – not assured by a long shot considering the negative and unintentional message it might send to North Korea -, the rest of the United Nations would forge ahead without them, even over the veto. Do you deny any of this?

The USA. To be more specific, the chance of Iraq attacking France was on the order of ... 0.0001%, and the chance of Iraq attacking Americ was ... 0.001%.

Opinion. You’ve answered the question however: France stood less risk of a negative impact resultant of Iraqi action than the United States. Perhaps this has something to do with such utterly divergent takes on the crisis?

Except that even American analysts, except for the kooky mission-from-God Office of Special Plans, agreed with European estimates. Nice try at diversion.

Some. Not all. Never unanimously.

Hold anything over your heads- like say ... oil? I love this, not even a pretense to cover up the veneer of imperialism- it's simply a matter of making them "malleable". I can almost see the strings being pulled on the puppet regime, because we all know that any real democracy in Iraq will quickly put the Shi'ite clerics in power.

If you had any faith that Iraq would be truly free from American influence, you’re more blithely naïve than I give you credit for. It’s clear that Baghdad will take directions in the short term (and suggestions in the long term) from Washington.

I’d also be careful of labeling radical Islam all that popular before actual democracy is put in place. Many Iraqis are now oriented towards religion as much for its unique voice as for its goals.

Except it didn't expand jack shit in the 12 years it was under sanctions, it declined, obviously, and was the victim of the swiftest military asskicking ever after having been reduced to the weakest power among it's major neighbours, easily. Nice fantasy you have there. It expanded it's capacity to fart louder. Clearly a massive threat to collective security we had on our hands.

It was able to break sanctions on numerous occasions and win backing among a variety of those supposedly committed to the cause of its isolation. What part of “dangerous indication” do you fail to comprehend?

“The swiftest military ass-kicking” is a conventional matter; weapons of mass destruction are not.

As long as it's 'malleable' to US interests, of course. Some democracy you got there.

Closer than anything outside Israel, for sure.

What Iranian ambitions?

Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed their journey toward nuclear fission.

Ah, so if you've pursued WMD in the past, even though you are under intense sanctions and your economy and military are in the doldrums, it is a 'boon' to insert yourself into this cesspool and get shot at repeatedly for your trouble, all while gaining the increased ire of the Arab world, creating more terrorists, drawing your military out paper thin, and costing billions of dollars a month. Smart. It sounds *so* much better than Saudi Arabia, or (gasp!) going the fuck home!

The ire of the Arab world is a constant. We can only hope to ameliorate it. One of the ways in which to do so is to perform a decent job of democratizing Iraq, no less.

Withdrawing our military forces is simply anathema to everything on which Bush has staked this nation’s credibility. Our word must be kept for the sake of stability.

Polls regarding support for the war/presence in Iraq.

Let’s see some.

In simplest terms, when you make a claim that turns out to be bogus, the next time you invoke it, you will have less credibility. Who the people listening are has nothing to do with it.

The United States does not yet have to deal with this issue; there is no other nation besides Iraq that merits this flavor of concern and yet evades more complete knowledge by American authorities.

Irrelevant. They testified, unanimously, that there was no PROGRAM. NO WORK WAS BEING DONE, every single last one of them says. They didn't testify as to stockpiles (why the hell would a scientist no where they were hidden), locations (besides locations of where they might be doing work- i.e. nowhere) or useage (that one's real rich).

Again, that doesn’t mean there was evidence of ongoing study (also prohibited) into the affair, or stockpiles hidden since 1991.

Except of course, they haven't been found. Don't bother referring to discoveries that haven't been made, it's so much fluff.

Time will tell; it’s too soon yet.

Yes yes I'm well aware of this obtuse little excuse, luckily if you think anyone will actually buy that if they ever become desperate enough to pull that one out, you really are off with the fairies.

It’s a theory, Vympel. That’s all we can put forth at this time. The investigation is still underway.

When you run from combat, that's disloyalty. There was no retreat order given.

You overestimate the severity of the issue considering that those units would have faced certain destruction for a very low likelihood of mission success. Saving one’s own skin need not involve treachery of the highest order. Soldiers don’t always fulfill their objectives; failure is certainly not conclusive proof of a breach in loyalties.

Ah, so first they're an special force, capable of hiding and moving WMD without ever being found or ever disclosing it's whereabouts, but at the same time, they have no practical experience in moving it, even though they're the ones moving it in the first place. Wow! I don't think I've ever seen a position that can contradict itself so badly.

And of course, we have regime 'yes-men' like General Hussein Kemal, former head of Iraqi WMD programs and Saddam son-in-law to boot, defecting and spilling the beans, which blows a massive hole through your already absurd 100% loyalty claim.

No. Read it again. These are alternatives to your ridiculous claims that (A) orders must equal ready munitions and (B) Iraqis should be stepping forward in droves to reveal WMD.

There are several possibilities. A special unit might have been unable to remove the WMD from hiding before they were swept up in a general retreat. That would have made deployment a folly in the first place – especially if the equipment hadn’t already been unearthed.

You must also acknowledge the following: units with the capability to move, transport, and ultimately hide or deploy WMD needn’t have had access to live munitions in the past. That possibility rings especially loudly as far as Iraq is concerned. Saddam boasted a relatively poor conventional military – as if the specter of United Nations scrutiny wouldn’t have given pause to “live” drills, anyway.

We have “yes-men” such as Kemal in custody. Then again, this special unit would have been recruited almost exclusively from within Saddam’s own clan – and under constant observation. Not every member – especially the newer and less reliable – would have direct knowledge of what, exactly they were doing until it was fully underway anyway. If the original mission went “sour,” they’d probably have little information of use to dispense.

Ah, I see, the organisation in charge of them didn't know where they were. That makes a helluva lot of sense.

No. The organization in charge of them didn’t deign to inform the rank-and-file. They’d be moved to the proper location at the proper time, in any case. But then, you knew this.

No. When you are given an order, and you disobey, and melt away, that's dereliction of duty. That will get you shot at dawn anywhere.

Not by commanders equally as concerned with self-preservation. You’re insisting that in order to maintain any credible connection to the régime that these troops would had to have signed their own death warrants. Unreasonable.

Except that these stockpiles, according to El Shrubo, are supposed to be huge. Many thousands of tons worth.

Possible, even if we’re talking only about the remnants of ’91.

Of course, you're also ignoring all the other regime figures in the deck of cards and Saddam's bodyguards etc to preserve your position.

I asked for solid numbers. You tossed me: “The number of Iraqis supplying information on his possible whereabouts had risen greatly since the killing of his sons Uday and Qusay on Tuesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.” Great. What were the original numbers in the first place?

As for having had “close calls” and some low-profile “catches,” I remind you that we’ve yet to nab the “big fish”. If the whereabouts of less-infamous are to be had so easily, why is it that the most important ones slip through our fingers so often?

Oh! And I just noticed. The tip referred to a security chief rather than Hussein himself. It was assumed that Saddam would have been found by connection with some kind of entourage. Nobody “gave him up” directly, however.

Whether you 'actually' helped or not DOESN'T matter. I'm tired of your wall of ignorance- every single message you simply repackage your previous claims without modification. The point is INTENT to help. That the tip may be wrong, or not acted on quick enough, is not relevant. Go ahead, repeat yourself and repackage your red herring again, I won't be surprised.

And here's something else to ignore, perhaps you'd like to explain why Saddam and WMD are in one *special* category, but his bodyguards, officials, well-known regime figures, and sons aren't.

You haven’t provided a single solid number regarding tips. In fact, all you’ve done is insist we’ve made excellent progress because we’ve captured others. You’re avoiding the original issue. You ask how it is that Iraq could possess WMD without it having become public knowledge by this time. I ask you how Hussein could remain at large despite the large collection of other prisoners at this time. It isn’t that everybody else is in a “special” category. It’s that the time Hussein has spent in large justifies the argument: not everybody with credible information is making it – for whatever reason – to the table.

You think they wouldn't look in military fortifications? Do you know that fortifications (bunkers, trenches, etc) stand out like sore thumbs from the air?

But is every engineer reporting: “I worked on the following installations?” I seriously doubt as much. The number of bunkers in Iraq is, moreover, absolutely tremendous. There’s also the possibility that WMD would be stored underground.


Moving on the issue of the United Nations weapons inspections …

The fact that nobody pushed for their resumption after Clinton’s bombing campaign was over proves an unwillingness to act on the part of others in the international community. It in fact vindicates America’s own aggressive approach.

Except they did. Facts don't seem to be your strong point. No, wait, I know, it's just my opinion that they destroyed em, right?

After waffling back and forth in the face of an invasion. He decided to call our bluff over a two-week period.

And we've all seen the quality of facts put out by the administration. This is where you appeal to top secret facts that will never be revealed, of course.

No. It’s whether I cover all the bases and remind you that there are other views of the situation out there, each different from your own.

If Baghdad was about to fall. Good idea leaving that little caveat out when it suits you, and ignoring the evidence that Saddam refused to use WMD on any country that could retaliate in any other scenario.

Saudi Arabia could not retaliate. They were the choice target from a strategic point of view. What part of: “Saddam tied Israel into his plans as a result of personal animosity rather than effective military planning,” do you not understand?

And none in 2003 too.

Different situation. Irrelevant for reasons already stated numerous times before.

Except of course that you're operating on the deluded view that it takes weeks to prepare missiles for launch.

When they’ve been buried? Possibly. Especially with a war that went as quickly as it did under leadership as ineffective as it was and with conventional forces as unreliable as they were.

I don't see why they would seperate the warheads from their missiles, if they were there in the first place. If they were seperated, it would not take weeks to mate them up.

It’s standard operating procedure elsewhere. Again, see above. We’re talking about items stored for years beneath the desert and troops whom we cannot guarantee have had actual hands-on experience with “live” equipment beforehand – not to mention the constant threat of obliteration from the air by Coalition aircraft and an increasingly closer front line from which were pouring dozens of units unwilling to fight.

Nice try. I refer to "they planned to fill SCUDS with chemicals in the first place"

Your reference for this? Astrology maybe?

To act against Israel, yes.

And now I’ll go for the “one fell swoop” statement.

You cannot defend yourself with the false rationalization that Hussein didn’t launch in ’91. Coalition ground forces never encircled Baghdad. The fact of the matter is that the plans – and the “triggers” – were on the table. Hussein clearly eschewed favorable military strategy, instead choosing to prepare for launch – with only a possibility of the preferred reaction on Israel’s part – against a personal target.

Again, nobody ever said that Hussein’s stream of orders had to by logical. Read the Los Angeles Times article. Other orders might have unexpectedly conflicted with the so-called “doomsday measure.” Predelegation of authority doesn’t necessarily mean that everything had to be on hand – especially after ’91 and ‘98. In fact, it’s unlikely the order was ever given this time around. We still return to the original issue: Hussein abandoned the choice military strategy with a risky “honor strike” in mind as the alternative. No comfort there. The man clearly allowed himself to take illogical steps. He was a danger – and still is, if we accept precedent.

No, the Pentagon denies that any SCUDs were ever launched. You're probably operating from the media misconception that any enemy missile that's ever launched by anyone at anything is a 'scud'. SCUD refers to a specific missile model.

And this helps your argument in what way, exactly?

Of course, for this rationalisation to work the Iraqis have reverted to digging and transporting warheads with their bare hands.

An excavation in the middle of a war is supposed to go unnoticed? The security measures are going to be effectively clandestine? The men true to a timetable they might never have worked against with “live” equipment before?

There were Al-Samouds and anti-ship missiles- neither of which had the tiniest fraction of the range to go anywhere near Israel. Try again.

Again, you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

Hence no threat to Israel. Boom-crash.

No. Think again. The fact that he had these plans at all prove him to be dangerously illogical and given to rather “unconventional” plots targeting preferred rather than realistic targets. Saddam was indeed a threat to Israel. Whether or not you believe Tel Aviv can take care of itself is irrelevant.

Prepared for use? What, like making the stuff? Oh please go there ...

Unearthed, transported, attached, armed and loaded, launched …

If not, then there was no threat to Israel.

Again, it’s the plan that should concern us at this point.

Then Saddam clearly didn't favor the honor-strike any more. Which means the threat to Israel you just harped on just went further down the toilet.

No. It could simply mean he didn’t have the capability to utilize that option at this point in time. It doesn’t mean the dangerous behavior is completely eradicated – or that future gambits are impossible.

A coordinated barrage isn't required. All it takes is one SCUD to reach it's launch position and shoot for Bush to have his proof.

So a unit is going to risk itself for just one missile? Now it’s even less likely that Israel would retaliate very harshly – especially with American troops on the ground.

It's called a truck with men in it. What were you waiting for, Voltron to assemble or something?

Try many trucks, with many men. Around an entire area. Moving in a convoy. With armored vehicles or troop carriers. Even in cars it’d be difficult to conceal from military eyes.

Yup, it must've taken them like MINUTES to put a camo net on it (assuming they bothered), jeez, no wonder it too kso long. No wait- they were ordering a plasma stealth device from Russia! Yeah, that's the ticket. Use it, it's not 100% impossible, so it's not like you're lying.

Effective camouflage – especially for excavations – is time-consuming to prepare.

Hours. Or less, depedning on how well they buried it.

How many hours? With what type of equipment? How conspicuous? How volatile are the chemicals involved? How complete the security and safety measures?

The situation in 2003 has dramatically changed much to your argument's detriment. Iraq was clearly incapable of any military agression, and would remain so as long as sanctions were in place. It could not order military hardware. It was not free to spend it's oil wealth with impunity. It's conventional forces were in shambles. It's chemical and biological infrastructure was destroyed. The Kurds had eked out a position in the North. Yet, after all this, you think it's somehow convincing to just say "well, he made this here deduction 12 years ago, so you never know, he might make like another ... deduction (whatever that is) ... and ... yeah"

Whatever.

Iraq was clearly incapable of conventional aggression. Sanctions were sliding; we had to push to get them this far. There were more holes in those plans than Swiss Cheese. Iraq did order military hardware – and did get it, too. Its chemical and biological infrastructure; how about its complete stockpiles? You’re still heaping faith on unilateral self-destruction.

Yes. The deduction is what matters, Vympel. Saddam is the man making them. The possibility of Iraq’s rising to its fit sometime in the near future was becoming greater. Thus action was most favorable – in our terms – at this point in time.

That's just brilliant: "well, we've bruised our chests so bad, we better do it now just so he doesn't get out of it and make us look stupid!" I see history starts for you the night before the war. No wonder you have such a problem with this.

That’s actually a strong reason for a continued commitment to Iraq. With every action, messages are sent. Or didn’t you realize that it was because of ineffective actions like random cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan that bolstered the Taliban’s confidence that sponsorship of terrorism wasn’t “a big deal”?

Only on a limited scale? Are you suggesting they were used?

Note the word likely.

Yeah, attacking another fellow Arab nation when the subject of the entire region's ire is sitting within your grasp is the better strategic option.

Of giving the invaders pause rather than the possibility of (A) nuclear retaliation, (B) no retaliation (and thus no coalition fragmentation), or (C) that the Coalition forces would face down the blackmail (as the Western world would have been obliged to do) and thus render the final, last gasp utterly ineffective?

An extremely minor gain if the US forces were incompetent enough to let it happen, which would still give you a zero chance of long term success.

It would improve the time Hussein had to muster defenders.

To do what? Dig more of their tanks in the dirt and hope US units would just waltz by their guns like they were doing?

Yes. But as I said before, the Saudi option was best.

Exactly. It makes just as much as sense as your bizarre 'attacking Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons' idea.

Not chemical. Conventional.

No, but they've been carried out to SOME extent. You however, think that it's possible for a pre-delegation command to go by completely unacted upon, to the point where nothing was done, at all for the entire war.

Wait. Orders are always carried out to “some” extent? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?!

I think it’s possible for a predelegated command to go completely unfulfilled. Considering the short duration of the war and the breakdown of Iraq’s military spine, I’d say it’s a strong possibility. You’re simply attempting to avoid having to make the acknowledgement yourself. And failing.

But not as much if they had weapons hidden there and the inspectors found them all, despite Iraqi denials, and proceded to publically castrate them. Almost literally.

Hiding small stockpiles in select locations wouldn’t have carried a major risk.

And unanimous testimony to that effect from people who would know. And in one case, were killed for it (Kemal).

Documentation is what matters. We know some kind of destruction occurred. Nobody can however give us precise numbers. That’s the kicker, Vympel. Without those, you’re taking their word for it – and that alone.

[Vympel]

You made the original claim. You provide the proof.

Non-existence of something is not a claim, you fucking moron. It's the defalult posiiton.

There’s a difference, you realize, between proof of nonexistence (published, say, by the United Nations itself)

Ah yes, the UN is going to publish a report saying there was no such report. Dickhead. You find the fucking report, you let me know.

Not as much as I enjoy your grasping at everything under the sun in trying to bash the 43rd man in the Oval Office.

Yes, your Messiah is so persecuted ...

And yet Tony Blair remained firm in his position: the reports were valid. Bush saw fit to make that known to the American public. It was misleading; it was not a falsification.

Semantic bullshitting.

You’re sinking your own boat here. For the second time this go-around: be mindful that you do not again confuse personal disagreement for falsehoods or untruths.

It is so unlikely and beyond common sense, and contrary to the facts of Iraq's UAV development (which even the USAF agreed were for recon purposes), it is a lie.

Outright speculation on your part. This has no credible relevance in any realm as to the question of Bush’s being genuine on the case of Iraq.

When someone modifies their standard of proof after the fact to deal with the fact that his origiinal claims were bullshit, that says exactly how genuine he was being.

Are you denying the overwhelming likelihood that the entire Western world would at once close ranks against the Pakistanis? That the United States and European Union are each free to enact independent sanctions of their own? That it probably wouldn’t be necessary considering the fact that most nations would find Pakistan’s actions repugnant regardless?

Just as repugnant as they found the US actions in Iraq. Doesn't mean there'll be any consequences worth a damn.

It’s most likely that even were Beijing to “cover” for Pakistan – not assured by a long shot considering the negative and unintentional message it might send to North Korea -, the rest of the United Nations would forge ahead without them, even over the veto. Do you deny any of this?

Yes. You've presented the absolute worst case scenario and tried to pass it off as absolute truth. Not to waste any more time dealing with this red herring (brought about by your trying to divert attention from your slip of Shrub creating a 'unilateral reality'), but I don't think it's very likely the US would place any sanctions on Musharaff whatsoever. Afghanistan/War on Terror ring a bell?

Opinion. You’ve answered the question however: France stood less risk of a negative impact resultant of Iraqi action than the United States. Perhaps this has something to do with such utterly divergent takes on the crisis?

So fucking what? This is the second time you've brought up France. Am I French? Do I give a fuck? No.

Some. Not all. Never unanimously.

Which is still no basis to go to war on.

If you had any faith that Iraq would be truly free from American influence, you’re more blithely naïve than I give you credit for.

I have NO faith, you idiot, that's what I'm saying.

It’s clear that Baghdad will take directions in the short term (and suggestions in the long term) from Washington.

Just like the Shah in Iran? Remember what happened to him?

I’d also be careful of labeling radical Islam all that popular before actual democracy is put in place. Many Iraqis are now oriented towards religion as much for its unique voice as for its goals.

You want to pretend there's some sort of great secularist movement in Iraq, you go ahead and give reasoning, rather than challenging the prima facie case which is obvious to all observers.

It was able to break sanctions on numerous occasions and win backing among a variety of those supposedly committed to the cause of its isolation. What part of “dangerous indication” do you fail to comprehend?

More handwaving with no qualitative or quantative backing. Anything that managed to get in to Iraq was of the pure spare parts variety for their obsolescent weapons systems, and they couldn't even get enough of *that*. None of the countries whom you pretend had significant 'backing' were ever prepared to put anything on the line for Iraq to the point of actually making it remotely more dangerous.

“The swiftest military ass-kicking” is a conventional matter; weapons of mass destruction are not.

Funny, because in terms of WMD you have absoutely no evidence of any sanction breaking at all.

Closer than anything outside Israel, for sure.

Red herring.

Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed their journey toward nuclear fission.

And? So what? Why should anyone give a shit?

The ire of the Arab world is a constant.

Unsupported claim.

We can only hope to ameliorate it. One of the ways in which to do so is to perform a decent job of democratizing Iraq, no less.

Making a malleable puppet state and democratization are mutually exlcusive. Pick one.

Withdrawing our military forces is simply anathema to everything on which Bush has staked this nation’s credibility. Our word must be kept for the sake of stability.

Word to who? The Saudis wanted you out.

Let’s see some.

From 86% in March to 56% now.

The United States does not yet have to deal with this issue; there is no other nation besides Iraq that merits this flavor of concern and yet evades more complete knowledge by American authorities.

Ah, classic short sightedness.

Again, that doesn’t mean there was evidence of ongoing study (also prohibited) into the affair, or stockpiles hidden since 1991.

Actually, I'd like you to find where it says that study of such things (i.e. research papers etc) is prohibited, out of curiosity.

You overestimate the severity of the issue considering that those units would have faced certain destruction for a very low likelihood of mission success.

Irrelevant to disloyalty.

Saving one’s own skin need not involve treachery of the highest order.

If it was a mere retreat and not AWOL, the soldiers could get away with it, the officers would still be court-martialed. You clearly don't have the slightest inkling of what would happen.

Soldiers don’t always fulfill their objectives; failure is certainly not conclusive proof of a breach in loyalties.

Complete bullshit. There is a big difference between failing to carry out an attack successfully and being repulsed, and just buggering off home without trying.

No. Read it again. These are alternatives to your ridiculous claims that (A) orders must equal ready munitions and (B) Iraqis should be stepping forward in droves to reveal WMD.

There are several possibilities. A special unit might have been unable to remove the WMD from hiding before they were swept up in a general retreat. That would have made deployment a folly in the first place – especially if the equipment hadn’t already been unearthed.

I was unaware there was a general retreat throughout the entire country the moment a war started.

You must also acknowledge the following: units with the capability to move, transport, and ultimately hide or deploy WMD needn’t have had access to live munitions in the past.

Organisations are bigger than those who man them. I presume you're trying to seriously maintain that they didn't know where their own weapons were, or that they were so incompetent digging them out was too big a job for them

That possibility rings especially loudly as far as Iraq is concerned. Saddam boasted a relatively poor conventional military – as if the specter of United Nations scrutiny wouldn’t have given pause to “live” drills, anyway.

We have “yes-men” such as Kemal in custody. Then again, this special unit would have been recruited almost exclusively from within Saddam’s own clan – and under constant observation. Not every member – especially the newer and less reliable – would have direct knowledge of what, exactly they were doing until it was fully underway anyway. If the original mission went “sour,” they’d probably have little information of use to dispense.

Do you know who Kemal (aka Kamel, whatever) was? Obviously not. He defected willingly. He was in charge of the whole fucking thing. And you think you can seriously sustain a claim to 100% loyalty when their leader can bugger off? Sure.

No. The organization in charge of them didn’t deign to inform the rank-and-file. They’d be moved to the proper location at the proper time, in any case. But then, you knew this.

The core of the claim is the same, and it's still bullshit. The officers in charge would know. Officers give commands to other officers. Those officers command the rank-and-file. This isn't rocket science, but then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks dereliction of duty because you might die is acceptable behavior

Not by commanders equally as concerned with self-preservation.

Boom crash. There goes your 100% loyalty claim again- the officers are just as spineless as the rest of them. Of course, after the war they won't even *think* to reap the awards of opening their mouths, out of their obviously admirable loyalty and military discipline

You’re insisting that in order to maintain any credible connection to the régime that these troops would had to have signed their own death warrants. Unreasonable.

Tell you what, you go join the army, you get told to attack a machine gun position, and you drop your gun and bugger off. Maybe you can tell the firing squad you thought you had signed your own death warrant, so you weren't being a spineless coward and a traitor. See what happens.

Possible, even if we’re talking only about the remnants of ’91.

There's no evidence of any other stockpiles.

I asked for solid numbers. You tossed me: “The number of Iraqis supplying information on his possible whereabouts had risen greatly since the killing of his sons Uday and Qusay on Tuesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.” Great. What were the original numbers in the first place?

Amazing, you can actually roll your eyes while your argument is a bloodied corpse. Do you expect them to say "well, we got 10 tips yesterday, but we got 20 tips today!" People are willing to give up Saddam, his family, his bodyguards, his officers and his officials.

As for having had “close calls” and some low-profile “catches,” I remind you that we’ve yet to nab the “big fish”. If the whereabouts of less-infamous are to be had so easily, why is it that the most important ones slip through our fingers so often?

Because they're guarded better?

Oh! And I just noticed. The tip referred to a security chief rather than Hussein himself. It was assumed that Saddam would have been found by connection with some kind of entourage. Nobody “gave him up” directly, however.

Actually, it says that they were fairly certain they'd find Saddam with him.

You haven’t provided a single solid number regarding tips. In fact, all you’ve done is insist we’ve made excellent progress because we’ve captured others. You’re avoiding the original issue. You ask how it is that Iraq could possess WMD without it having become public knowledge by this time.

No, actually, I was referring to the people involved with the program, all of them, not saying a word about it, and being unanimous in their denials, despite the incentives to talk. YOU brought up the SH issue.

I ask you how Hussein could remain at large despite the large collection of other prisoners at this time. It isn’t that everybody else is in a “special” category. It’s that the time Hussein has spent in large justifies the argument: not everybody with credible information is making it – for whatever reason – to the table.

Or, that Saddam is far more skilled at hiding and has his rather experienced bodyguards with him, is obviously constantly moving, and so is hard to catch, irrespective of the information that is being given on his whereabouts.

But is every engineer reporting: “I worked on the following installations?” I seriously doubt as much. The number of bunkers in Iraq is, moreover, absolutely tremendous. There’s also the possibility that WMD would be stored underground.

All bunkers are underground. There's a difference between obvious fortification bunkers which can be seen by all and underground bunkerrs which don't form part of fortifications.

Moving on the issue of the United Nations weapons inspections …

The fact that nobody pushed for their resumption after Clinton’s bombing campaign was over proves an unwillingness to act on the part of others in the international community. It in fact vindicates America’s own aggressive approach.

The Reichstag fire also vindicated the Nazis aggressive approach- oh wait, that doesn't sound right- they caused that, didn't they

After waffling back and forth in the face of an invasion. He decided to call our bluff over a two-week period.

Ah, so because they weren't destroyed over a picked out of a hat arbitrary quick enough period, that's justification for military action. That's really credible. What happened, did the threat from Iraq increase over that two-week period?

Saudi Arabia could not retaliate. They were the choice target from a strategic point of view. What part of: “Saddam tied Israel into his plans as a result of personal animosity rather than effective military planning,” do you not understand?

And what part of attacking Saudi Arabia would get him nothing, including solidifying Arab opinion against him, do you not understand, you dickhead? Do you think chemical weapons can damage oil fields? Are you retarded?

Different situation. Irrelevant for reasons already stated numerous times before.

It'd be irrelevant if you had the slightest bit of basic knowledge required to actually make statements worth a damn on the subject.

When they’ve been buried? Possibly. Especially with a war that went as quickly as it did under leadership as ineffective as it was and with conventional forces as unreliable as they were.

'A war that went as quickly as it did' and '3-4 weeks' are mutally exclusive. Leadership is irrelevant. They had their orders before the war began. If they didn't, your argument about the 'honor strike' is gone.

It’s standard operating procedure elsewhere. Again, see above. We’re talking about items stored for years beneath the desert and troops whom we cannot guarantee have had actual hands-on experience with “live” equipment beforehand – not to mention the constant threat of obliteration from the air by Coalition aircraft and an increasingly closer front line from which were pouring dozens of units unwilling to fight.

Yes, the oh so reasonable dichotomy between amateurish 'special' (I guess in the 'short bus' rather than 'elite' sense) WMD units incapable of carrying out their orders to *any* extent, who then derelict their duty (your abject ignorance of what is acceptable in a military nonwithstanding) but remain absolute unanimity in not making a buck off telling the US wherethey are.

To act against Israel, yes.

I'm sorry, I believe I asked for evidence.

And now I’ll go for the “one fell swoop” statement.

You cannot defend yourself with the false rationalization that Hussein didn’t launch in ’91. Coalition ground forces never encircled Baghdad. The fact of the matter is that the plans – and the “triggers” – were on the table. Hussein clearly eschewed favorable military strategy, instead choosing to prepare for launch – with only a possibility of the preferred reaction on Israel’s part – against a personal target.

The alternative you provide is fucking moronic.

Again, nobody ever said that Hussein’s stream of orders had to by logical. Read the Los Angeles Times article. Other orders might have unexpectedly conflicted with the so-called “doomsday measure.”

And what order would that be? This is where you invent non-existent evidence to save your argument again is it?

Predelegation of authority doesn’t necessarily mean that everything had to be on hand – especially after ’91 and ‘98. In fact, it’s unlikely the order was ever given this time around.

Boom crash. There goes your 'honor strike'.

We still return to the original issue: Hussein abandoned the choice military strategy with a risky “honor strike” in mind as the alternative. No comfort there. The man clearly allowed himself to take illogical steps. He was a danger – and still is, if we accept precedent.

"Duh ... he made like ... a ... deduction ... in 1991, right ... where he did ... like ... in my (moron) opinion ... bad ... der. .. things. .. and so ... he might do it again .... so ... he's a danger. Yeah ... that's the ticket"

And this helps your argument in what way, exactly?

I'm sorry, the fact that none were used helps your argument? Remarkable.

An excavation in the middle of a war is supposed to go unnoticed?

Hey, even better, if it was noticed, you can guarantee that forces would've been directed to take the site. Never happened.

The security measures are going to be effectively clandestine? The men true to a timetable they might never have worked against with “live” equipment before?

I love this 'live' equipment stuff. You'll just grab on to any straw you can. Transporting ammo is transporting ammo.

Again, you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

Bye bye threat to Israel. And I'm supposed to be shooting myself in the foot You've been stabbing your argument to death with a knife for some time now.

No. Think again. The fact that he had these plans at all prove him to be dangerously illogical and given to rather “unconventional” plots targeting preferred rather than realistic targets.

Yeah mate, attacking Saudi Arabian oil fields with chemical weapons is a 'realistic' target. First, it'll cause negligible short term damage (it'll only be out of a commision for days at most) and second will further fuck up his support among the Arabs, giving him zero chance of success.

Saddam was indeed a threat to Israel.

Article of faith again. You've already admitted that Iraq didn't have the missiles, admitted to the possibility that predelgation of authority wasn't there, and the fact staring you in the face that nothing actually happened when the chips were down.

Whether or not you believe Tel Aviv can take care of itself is irrelevant

Well it could actually. Look up the Arrow system.

Unearthed, transported, attached, armed and loaded, launched …

A job of hours.

Again, it’s the plan that should concern us at this point.

Bullshit. Kenya can plan to invade America, that doesn't mean America should be concerned.

No. It could simply mean he didn’t have the capability to utilize that option at this point in time. It doesn’t mean the dangerous behavior is completely eradicated – or that future gambits are impossible.

Ah, so it's 'dangerous behavior' and 'future gambits' rather than actual capability to carry them out, which you've already admitted he had absolutely none, and furthermore, no evidence that any of his small time sanction liberties could possibly get him what he needed to go anywhere NEAR the Iraq of 1991, either unconventionally or unconventionally. There's a realistic world view.

So a unit is going to risk itself for just one missile?

Welcome to the military. Please get a clue. Maybe you get your idea of military duty from watching Star Trek, where they can disobey orders wherever they feel like it, because they personally think it's unreasonable. And of course, you're assuming that they even know which one of them will be successful.

Now it’s even less likely that Israel would retaliate very harshly – especially with American troops on the ground.

Supposedly, WMD and pre-delegation of launch authority was there wasn't it? It's amazing that you can look at your position, see absolutely no evidence for it's veracity, and instead just invent line after line of pathetic rationalisation for why you might be right, without a shred of supporting fact.

Try many trucks, with many men. Around an entire area. Moving in a convoy. With armored vehicles or troop carriers. Even in cars it’d be difficult to conceal from military eyes.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the security measures around the SCUD launchers in 1991, and get back to me, before you keep talking out of your ass. It's embarassing.

Effective camouflage – especially for excavations – is time-consuming to prepare.

How time-consuming?

How many hours? With what type of equipment? How conspicuous? How volatile are the chemicals involved? How complete the security and safety measures?

I don't know. In fact, you should know that they couldn't be buried at any appreciable depth unless there was a facility to house them, in which case it'd be merely a case of digging down to the door of the bunker and opening it up, assuming it just wasn't camoflaged in the first place. If they were buried 'Iraqi air force style', it would take much less time than even that. As regards equipment, engineering variants of armored vehicles would be a good bet. Security measures= guards. Safety measures= don't break them. I don't know what the hell you're thinking.

Iraq was clearly incapable of conventional aggression. Sanctions were sliding; we had to push to get them this far. There were more holes in those plans than Swiss Cheese. Iraq did order military hardware – and did get it, too.

Spare parts doesn't equal military hardware.

Its chemical and biological infrastructure; how about its complete stockpiles? You’re still heaping faith on unilateral self-destruction.

It's stockpiles, without infrastructure, would soon become useless. Even the BEST manufactured BC weapons exceed their service lives, and the Iraqi stuff was of universally poor quality.

Yes. The deduction is what matters, Vympel. Saddam is the man making them. The possibility of Iraq’s rising to its fit sometime in the near future was becoming greater. Thus action was most favorable – in our terms – at this point in time.

The evidence is clear that Iraq was getting weaker and weaker.

That’s actually a strong reason for a continued commitment to Iraq. With every action, messages are sent. Or didn’t you realize that it was because of ineffective actions like random cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan that bolstered the Taliban’s confidence that sponsorship of terrorism wasn’t “a big deal”?

Nice way to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. History on Iraq did not start the night before the war. This whole bullshit should never have been started.

Note the word likely.

No, likely doesn't enter into it. They weren't used. At all.

Of giving the invaders pause rather than the possibility of (A) nuclear retaliation, (B) no retaliation (and thus no coalition fragmentation), or (C) that the Coalition forces would face down the blackmail (as the Western world would have been obliged to do) and thus render the final, last gasp utterly ineffective?

Chemical attacks on oil fields will give them pause? Is there some kind of new chemical weapon they developed that made vast tracts of open country uninhabitable for generations or something? A chemical attack on oil fields effects would be felt for days if not mere hours. Compeltely different from an attack on a populated centre.

It would improve the time Hussein had to muster defenders.

To do what? Dig more of their tanks in the dirt and hope US units would just waltz by their guns like they were doing?

Yes. But as I said before, the Saudi option was best.

Only if you don't even understand what chemical weapons can do.

Not chemical. Conventional.

They did that. Didn't you know?

"On Jan. 18, 1991 a scud missile launched by Iraq targeted Dhahran with 10 further scud missiles launched at Riyadh and Dhahran on Jan. 20-21, 1991. More scud attacks were launched within a few days and also targeted barracks at al-Khubar in which 28 US soldiers were killed and 100 injured."

Wait. Orders are always carried out to “some” extent? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?!

More abject, glorious ignorance. When you give an order to attack, you can have some confidence if your military is worth a damn that the order will attempt to be carried out. Whehter it is successful or not is another matter- you might not succeed in breaking through the enemy defences, or only one company out of your battalion will succeed, or maybe one regiment out of your division. You've already indicated that you think it's acceptable behavior to simply drop your guns and run without even bothered to try to carry out the order.

I think it’s possible for a predelegated command to go completely unfulfilled. Considering the short duration of the war and the breakdown of Iraq’s military spine, I’d say it’s a strong possibility. You’re simply attempting to avoid having to make the acknowledgement yourself. And failing.

Yeah, I'm crapping my pants from your unassialable arguments made in outright defiance of military common sense.

Hiding small stockpiles in select locations wouldn’t have carried a major risk.

And what would you do with these small stockpiles? And what good would they be when they exceed their service lives?

Documentation is what matters. We know some kind of destruction occurred. Nobody can however give us precise numbers. That’s the kicker, Vympel. Without those, you’re taking their word for it – and that alone.

Taking the word of a defector who was killed for it (e.g. not a plant), inspectors who agree, scientists who agree, and the evidence that has since been gathered to that effect, and the common sense that without their infrastructure, anything they might have hidden can't be a lot, can't be reconstituted and can't last forever.

[Axis Kast]

Ah yes, the UN is going to publish a report saying there was no such report. Dickhead. You find the fucking report, you let me know.

And why not? If that’s their position relative to accusations levied by George W. Bush, it’s only logical that they would publish just such a denial. Thus far, only you have leveled the direct accusation of non-existence – which, of course, demands written proof to retain credibility. It isn’t my responsibility to do the research to bear out your own arguments, Vympel.

Semantic bullshitting.

Incorrect. An important distinction. Bush did not lie. His statement was misleading, though it did not include any falsehoods.

It is so unlikely and beyond common sense, and contrary to the facts of Iraq's UAV development (which even the USAF agreed were for recon purposes), it is a lie.

This isn’t even semantic bullshit. It’s personal redefinition in a moment of duress. Admit it, Vympel. Bush didn’t lie. This isn’t a case of falsification – it’s a case of disagreement.

When someone modifies their standard of proof after the fact to deal with the fact that his origiinal claims were bullshit, that says exactly how genuine he was being.

Your assumption that “his original claims were bullshit,” of course.

I agree that the new focus on weaponization programs rather than stockpiles is a political maneuver. This does not however tell us anything about the original accusation of the presence of stockpiles other than that they are proving more difficult to locate than once expected. Programs were, after all, one of the pillars on which Bush made his case for war at the close of last year.

Just as repugnant as they found the US actions in Iraq. Doesn't mean there'll be any consequences worth a damn.

For unprovoked nuclear war? Now you’re casting off the deep edge to save yourself, Vympel. The Western world might periodically wave a hand to murderous régimes with their own domestic crisis; we wouldn’t be nearly as lenient, nor as accommodating to offensive nuclear activity however.

Yes. You've presented the absolute worst case scenario and tried to pass it off as absolute truth. Not to waste any more time dealing with this red herring (brought about by your trying to divert attention from your slip of Shrub creating a 'unilateral reality'), but I don't think it's very likely the US would place any sanctions on Musharaff whatsoever. Afghanistan/War on Terror ring a bell?

What is a “unilateral reality,” exactly? Why is it dangerous for the United States to act alone? Because we encourage others to do so as well? That’s an absolutely unfounded claim; our particular circumstances differ from those of every other nation worldwide with the exception of the People’s Republic of China – which has, incidentally, engaged in unilateral aggression since the 1950s. You’re comparing apples and oranges, Vympel.

As for Pakistan, we might cut back-door deals with Musharrif. That’s hardly to say we wouldn’t join the rest of the international community in condemnation and general embargo. He would never be able to live down the consequences imposed on him by the outside world – even assuming India was thereafter powerless to respond.

I’ll say it once more for your benefit: no other nation in the world (except perhaps China, and then only on a very small scale and in a very limited region) can afford to do as we have. Period.

So fucking what? This is the second time you've brought up France. Am I French? Do I give a fuck? No.

I’m pointing out that analysis can differ – even with the same facts – from location to location. The French “take” on the War in Iraq is far different from that of the United States – and for a variety of different reasons, including self-interest.

Which is still no basis to go to war on.

It depends on which analysis was found to be most telling by the White House. Certainly a range of intelligence agencies brought some kind of case against Iraq – particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. Again, need I remind you that Europe’s completely different circumstances color their own views more than just considerably?

I have NO faith, you idiot, that's what I'm saying.

American influence on Iraq isn’t necessarily a bad thing from certain points of view. A “successful” peace and occupation – and it’s too early, at a few months in, to declare all of our efforts for naught – resulting in a relatively stable, relatively prosperous Iraq wouldn’t exactly be the end of the world for anybody anyway.

Just like the Shah in Iran? Remember what happened to him?

He proved a most useful – and loyal – pillar of our Middle Eastern policy while still in power. His was an ouster suffering the lack of foresight. Considering that he also managed to lose control of the only military forces in the country, I’d say Iraq looks to be much different. American servicemen and –women aren’t exactly Iranian conscripts, Vympel.

You want to pretend there's some sort of great secularist movement in Iraq, you go ahead and give reasoning, rather than challenging the prima facie case which is obvious to all observers.

Iraq was among the most secular societies in the Persian Gulf before this most recent crisis. If anything, its population is more amicable to the concept of “Western living” than any other outside Israel or Turkey. The outpouring of support for religious institutions at this point in time tells us that a large, grassroots movement has existed for some time – but can also be misleading from the point of view that there are no credible political alternatives available. I also daresay that one half of Iraqi society – its women – won’t give up their say so easily. Women held valuable positions during Hussein’s rule; it’s unlikely they’ll be all that willing to sit down without some kind of argument or fight.

More handwaving with no qualitative or quantative backing. Anything that managed to get in to Iraq was of the pure spare parts variety for their obsolescent weapons systems, and they couldn't even get enough of *that*. None of the countries whom you pretend had significant 'backing' were ever prepared to put anything on the line for Iraq to the point of actually making it remotely more dangerous.

The fact that Iraq managed to smuggle so much military and dual-purpose equipment with the knowledge of major powers at all indicates dangerously large gaps in oversight and intention. We’re talking about companies from Germany to Russia to the United States numbering somewhere in the middle hundreds between 1998 and 2002. I’m not sure how it looks to you, Vympel, but for many Americans – whose nation just happens to be the chief guarantor of peace in that area -, those aren’t exactly welcome developments. Where tank shells and fiber-optic defense systems can be transported into Iraq, so too can small components of a weaponization program.

Funny, because in terms of WMD you have absoutely no evidence of any sanction breaking at all.

Again, still under investigation.

Red herring.

Now you’re going to deny that even “American democracy” in Iraq would be a negative conclusion for global security as compared to delusional military dictatorship?

And? So what? Why should anyone give a shit?

Perhaps because Iran is today the globe’s must active state sponsor of terrorism, not to mention a virulent critic of American foreign policy in the Middle East?

Unsupported claim.

Bullshit. Just look at the history of the region since the 1970s. Ever since the British left, that region has been volatile. Successive defeats at the hand of Israel and long collusion with the Soviets left a jaded view of the United States and the Western world at large (Suez didn’t help Europe, either). We were hated even before Bin Laden and Iraq; September 11th was an indication of a larger symptom. Iraq has temporarily disturbed the hornet’s nest. That isn’t to say the insects wouldn’t still bite without that particular provocation. In the end, successful democratization will most likely be a positive rather than negative influence.

Making a malleable puppet state and democratization are mutually exlcusive. Pick one.

Says who? You? Democratization on some scale – virtually any scale – would be an improvement over what existed heretofore.

Word to who? The Saudis wanted you out.

Withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and Iraq are too different issues. Even when we abandoned the Saudis for a shift toward Iraq, we needed that alternative in the first place.

From 86% in March to 56% now.

First of all, I’d like a source.

Second of all, the question was whether most Americans still supported George W. Bush. The answer – even with a 56% approval rating – is still yes.

Ah, classic short sightedness.

What other rogue nation was as “ready” for invasion, Vympel? Completion of even the first stages of nation-building in Iraq will put us in a prime position to exert a stabilizing influence over the entire region – especially vis a vie Iran, our next logical opponent with or without invasion.

Actually, I'd like you to find where it says that study of such things (i.e. research papers etc) is prohibited, out of curiosity.

I’ll play ball with this one. I can’t provide direct evidence that research is illegal. Still, that doesn’t help your overall argument at all.

For what other reason would Iraq launch a feasibility study, Vympel, than as a precursor to reinstitution of a weaponization plan? It represents the very first step on the road to prohibited offensive capability. Certainly a feasibility study is evidence of an intention to renew the threat – on which basis Bush would be proven correct, no less.


Now, as to the issue of the special troops and the “Israeli plan” …

Yes, retreat from the field is on some level an indicator of disloyalty (or rather, a lack of loyalty “to the extreme”). Failure by a particular unit to carry out their mission – particularly under these extenuating circumstances – does not however necessarily represent any kind of desire to mutiny against Hussein or the régime in general.

We don’t know for certain whether or not the units “buggered home without trying” – though even if they did, considering the near-suicide mission status of their probable orders and the complete breakdown of the Iraqi military as time went on, that doesn’t say much either. Remember that these men were screened for loyalty anyway; they have tribal allegiance to factor into their actions as well.

No, the retreat didn’t begin on day one, but the signs were clear. The Los Angeles Times article is a heavy counter to your position, Vympel. Hussein’s orders were apparently off-the-cuff and uninformed – or dangerously presumptive. Assuming it took any time at all to unearth the weapons – again assuming the SCUDs were there in the first place -, it’s very possible a unit fresh to the task of “live” action could fail to roll into action before the whole affair began to seem pointless (and overly dangerous). Am I also insinuating that these special troops might have been incompetent? Absolutely. Considering Iraq’s status before the war, I’d say it’s more than likely that many had absolutely no experience dealing with actual, “live” munitions. Am I saying they might not have been able to excavate their own equipment? Again, absolutely, considering the possible size of the task. Am I saying that the rank-and-file might not have particular knowledge of where weaponry was hidden? Again, yes. It’s a logical security measure. And is it possible that all the higher-ups except for Kemal have yet to come forward? Again, yes. These people were screened for loyalty. And considering that we don’t have the operational size of this unit in the first place …

Do you know who Kemal (aka Kamel, whatever) was? Obviously not. He defected willingly. He was in charge of the whole fucking thing. And you think you can seriously sustain a claim to 100% loyalty when their leader can bugger off? Sure.

His full title? A link?

The core of the claim is the same, and it's still bullshit. The officers in charge would know. Officers give commands to other officers. Those officers command the rank-and-file. This isn't rocket science, but then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks dereliction of duty because you might die is acceptable behavior.

Acceptable – or just likely? Who was likely to be there to court-martial them, Vympel?

Boom crash. There goes your 100% loyalty claim again- the officers are just as spineless as the rest of them. Of course, after the war they won't even *think* to reap the awards of opening their mouths, out of their obviously admirable loyalty and military discipline.

Or because of tribal allegiance and the fact that WMD could be known to only a select few?

Tell you what, you go join the army, you get told to attack a machine gun position, and you drop your gun and bugger off. Maybe you can tell the firing squad you thought you had signed your own death warrant, so you weren't being a spineless coward and a traitor. See what happens.

Who was going to shoot these men as entire units moved off into the chaos of the larger picture? Since when does saving oneself immediately equate with a desire to become a turncoat? Answer these questions, Vympel, or give up the argument.

There's no evidence of any other stockpiles.

As opposed to new-build weapons, of course.

Amazing, you can actually roll your eyes while your argument is a bloodied corpse. Do you expect them to say "well, we got 10 tips yesterday, but we got 20 tips today!" People are willing to give up Saddam, his family, his bodyguards, his officers and his officials.

Again, I want solid numbers. Surely something must have been said about the number of tips. If my argument is “a bloodied corps,” why can’t you stop dancing around when I ask you to substantiate the numbers?

Because they're guarded better?

You mean because they’re better-hidden and take more precautionary action? Just like WMD stockpiles?

Actually, it says that they were fairly certain they'd find Saddam with him.

Our troops, or the informant? The exceptions of our own troops are irrelevant if the informer didn’t provide the data about Hussein in the first place. It’s clear: the target of the information was a security officer, not Hussein himself.

No, actually, I was referring to the people involved with the program, all of them, not saying a word about it, and being unanimous in their denials, despite the incentives to talk. YOU brought up the SH issue.

The number of people involved has dwindled since ’91 or ’98. The number of people with complete overhead or knowledge of the location of stockpiles is unknown. It’s easy to deny something you were locked out of or kept in the dark about – especially if stockpiles and paper trails among a particular elite are the only remnants. Kemal is dead. What kind of incentive is that?

Or, that Saddam is far more skilled at hiding and has his rather experienced bodyguards with him, is obviously constantly moving, and so is hard to catch, irrespective of the information that is being given on his whereabouts.

And WMD couldn’t have been equally as well-hidden in numerous locations?

All bunkers are underground. There's a difference between obvious fortification bunkers which can be seen by all and underground bunkerrs which don't form part of fortifications.

Who says it was obvious to the men building the things?

The Reichstag fire also vindicated the Nazis aggressive approach- oh wait, that doesn't sound right- they caused that, didn't they.

Red herring. What does the false impetus of the Reichstag fire have to do with the fact that nobody on the United Nations saw fit to act until America clanged the bell?

Ah, so because they weren't destroyed over a picked out of a hat arbitrary quick enough period, that's justification for military action. That's really credible. What happened, did the threat from Iraq increase over that two-week period?

It’s not a major or sole justification, but it isn’t exactly encouraging, either.

And what part of attacking Saudi Arabia would get him nothing, including solidifying Arab opinion against him, do you not understand, you dickhead? Do you think chemical weapons can damage oil fields? Are you retarded?

Watch it with the name-calling. You can be civil, Vympel.

Who says they needed to be chemical warheads? Why not conventional? Or were you too quick to accuse me that you forgot to take into account other possibilities besides, “Bomb Israel!”

Threatening to make mince-meat of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields wouldn’t have served to give Riyadh pause? How about American command-and-control centers? They got a few of those during the first war, too.

It'd be irrelevant if you had the slightest bit of basic knowledge required to actually make statements worth a damn on the subject.

That’s no argument. Concession accepted.

'A war that went as quickly as it did' and '3-4 weeks' are mutally exclusive. Leadership is irrelevant. They had their orders before the war began. If they didn't, your argument about the 'honor strike' is gone.

False dilemma regarding the war – especially if the unit waited at all before moving into action. You’re also talking about two different things. The precursors for the existing orders weren’t met in ’91. In ’03, the orders might not have been there at all (aside, of course, from the possibility that the units didn’t carry them out in the first place).

Yes, the oh so reasonable dichotomy between amateurish 'special' (I guess in the 'short bus' rather than 'elite' sense) WMD units incapable of carrying out their orders to *any* extent, who then derelict their duty (your abject ignorance of what is acceptable in a military nonwithstanding) but remain absolute unanimity in not making a buck off telling the US wherethey are.

When would these units have worked with “live” munitions, Vympel? The country was under sanctions. It would have been dangerous in the extreme.

We don’t know how small these units are. They were already screened for loyalty. Many probably would not have been able to return home safely had they given up. Kemal is dead. People are attempting to kill high-profile informants.

I'm sorry, I believe I asked for evidence.

Of what? I can’t understand the original request.

The alternative you provide is fucking moronic.

Of attempting to force Saudi Arabia out of the war by way of threatening to destroy their oil fields? Any more moronic than attempting to force Israel out of the war with a single chemical warhead on a random target – and then expecting a number of things to fall into place perfectly (such as effective retaliation or the Coalition’s turning back)?

And what order would that be? This is where you invent non-existent evidence to save your argument again is it?

Orders in general. Again I refer you to the Los Angeles Times article for discussion of Hussein’s delusional behavior.

Boom crash. There goes your 'honor strike'.

The “honor strike” plan of ’91 is an indicator, Vympel.

"Duh ... he made like ... a ... deduction ... in 1991, right ... where he did ... like ... in my (moron) opinion ... bad ... der. .. things. .. and so ... he might do it again .... so ... he's a danger. Yeah ... that's the ticket"

Concession accepted.

I'm sorry, the fact that none were used helps your argument? Remarkable.

It certainly helps explain why they weren’t used this time around (among other things). Once more, it’s the orders themselves – the plan itself – that are so important to our analysis.

Hey, even better, if it was noticed, you can guarantee that forces would've been directed to take the site. Never happened.

That’s why.

I love this 'live' equipment stuff. You'll just grab on to any straw you can. Transporting ammo is transporting ammo.

Forgetting, of course, the excavation, security, deployment, arming, and launch – in caravan.

Yeah mate, attacking Saudi Arabian oil fields with chemical weapons is a 'realistic' target. First, it'll cause negligible short term damage (it'll only be out of a commision for days at most) and second will further fuck up his support among the Arabs, giving him zero chance of success.

Try conventional weapons with the likelihood of complete destruction. How did you come to harp on the assumption that they’d have to use chemical weapons in order to prove Hussein delusional in the first place?

Well it could actually. Look up the Arrow system.

One-hundred percent effective, is it? What part of: “We do not want Sharon making his own decisions vis a vie retaliation against Iraq,” do you fail to understand?

A job of hours.

In the Western world and under optimal condiitons …

Bullshit. Kenya can plan to invade America, that doesn't mean America should be concerned.

Kenya and Iraq are two very different nations. Hussein’s delusional plans were always a concern from the standpoint of Israeli – and thus regional – security.

Ah, so it's 'dangerous behavior' and 'future gambits' rather than actual capability to carry them out, which you've already admitted he had absolutely none, and furthermore, no evidence that any of his small time sanction liberties could possibly get him what he needed to go anywhere NEAR the Iraq of 1991, either unconventionally or unconventionally. There's a realistic world view.

We’re still investigating the capability, but ultimate intentions are still a problem for a nation with the history and potential of Iraq – especially since the sanctions were coming undone until our resurrection of the issue.

Who says he had to be near the status he had in 1991 to be a threat? That’s your own standard, again.

Welcome to the military. Please get a clue. Maybe you get your idea of military duty from watching Star Trek, where they can disobey orders wherever they feel like it, because they personally think it's unreasonable. And of course, you're assuming that they even know which one of them will be successful.

And who, exactly, was going to shoot them? Space aliens on Hussein’s payroll?

Supposedly, WMD and pre-delegation of launch authority was there wasn't it? It's amazing that you can look at your position, see absolutely no evidence for it's veracity, and instead just invent line after line of pathetic rationalisation for why you might be right, without a shred of supporting fact.

Since when do the presence of WMD somewhere in Iraq and pre-delegation of launch authority (which we don’t know were to be had this time around) have anything to do with whether or not the mission will be carried out effectively?

Why do I bring this up? Perhaps because we’re arguing over the possibilities? roll:

Perhaps you'd like to explain the security measures around the SCUD launchers in 1991, and get back to me, before you keep talking out of your ass. It's embarassing.

SCUDs acted alone in 1991. Then again, we had forces hunting them in the desert since before the war this time around. We also don’t know whether he had SCUDs this time around. It doesn’t change the fact that Hussein was delusional in the first place – which was, by the way, the ultimate point of the discussion over Israel. So do you or do you not acknowledge that the man was delusional?

How time-consuming?

That, of course, depends on the comprehensiveness of the camouflage scheme.

I don't know. In fact, you should know that they couldn't be buried at any appreciable depth unless there was a facility to house them, in which case it'd be merely a case of digging down to the door of the bunker and opening it up, assuming it just wasn't camoflaged in the first place. If they were buried 'Iraqi air force style', it would take much less time than even that. As regards equipment, engineering variants of armored vehicles would be a good bet. Security measures= guards. Safety measures= don't break them. I don't know what the hell you're thinking.

As with everything with you, Vympel, is always so simple.

Where was the construction equipment coming from? An engineering formation operating in convoy at a particular location in the desert wouldn’t be suspicious? “Security measures= guards?” How many guards? With what kind of transportation and equipment? “Safety measures= don’t break them?” With old weapons, how easy is that for people who might have worked with mock-ups only?

Spare parts doesn't equal military hardware.

It’s hardware and it’s part of the military apparatus and stockpile.

It's stockpiles, without infrastructure, would soon become useless. Even the BEST manufactured BC weapons exceed their service lives, and the Iraqi stuff was of universally poor quality.

If the stockpiles are there at all, it’s proof of non-compliance, Vympel.

The evidence is clear that Iraq was getting weaker and weaker.

But weak enough to the point that reconstitution over a long period was impossible? That’s still open for debate.

Nice way to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. History on Iraq did not start the night before the war. This whole bullshit should never have been started.

Opinion. Once we made the commitment, we were virtually required to go to maintain a veneer of credibility behind our foreign policy pronouncements.

No, likely doesn't enter into it. They weren't used. At all.

That’s correct. And that does what, for you, exactly?

They did that. Didn't you know?

"On Jan. 18, 1991 a scud missile launched by Iraq targeted Dhahran with 10 further scud missiles launched at Riyadh and Dhahran on Jan. 20-21, 1991. More scud attacks were launched within a few days and also targeted barracks at al-Khubar in which 28 US soldiers were killed and 100 injured."

At the oil fields in Saudi Arabia?

I’ll ignore the chemical issue, since it’s patently ridiculous.

More abject, glorious ignorance. When you give an order to attack, you can have some confidence if your military is worth a damn that the order will attempt to be carried out. Whehter it is successful or not is another matter- you might not succeed in breaking through the enemy defences, or only one company out of your battalion will succeed, or maybe one regiment out of your division. You've already indicated that you think it's acceptable behavior to simply drop your guns and run without even bothered to try to carry out the order.

What kind of incentive did this unit have to do its job in a country that was falling apart? And who said I think it’s “acceptable?” There’s a difference between “acceptable” and “likely,” Vympel. We’re talking about possibilities, not moral precedents. Nice try, though.

Yeah, I'm crapping my pants from your unassialable arguments made in outright defiance of military common sense.

Considering what I see above, that’s not far from the truth.

And what would you do with these small stockpiles? And what good would they be when they exceed their service lives?

Keep them for possible use in the near future. You keep items around even though they may eventually spoil, Vympel. If you hide them in the first place, throwing them away is a bit taboo.

Taking the word of a defector who was killed for it (e.g. not a plant), inspectors who agree, scientists who agree, and the evidence that has since been gathered to that effect, and the common sense that without their infrastructure, anything they might have hidden can't be a lot, can't be reconstituted and can't last forever.

Just because he was killed doesn’t mean he wasn’t a plant – although I agree it’s quite likely he wasn’t some kind of agent.

Inspectors who agree on the result of limited investigation. Some scientists who agree without having been there. Evidence gathered over a short period and an incomplete run of inspections. Common sense that excludes the possibility of hidden stockpiles? Whether or not they can last forever is irrelevant; if they are there at all, we have proof of non-compliance and the lack of absolute trust behind intrusive inspections.

Incidentially, could you please pare your response down to the general topics of (A) Bush’s claims and the precedents, (B) Iraq and the sanctions, (C) the question of the special units and informants, (D) the Israeli issue, and (D) closing arguments? I’d appreciate if these debates became increasingly smaller; we’re almost at the point that we’ll have to abandon this one out of circular movement anyway.

[Vympel]

And why not? If that’s their position relative to accusations levied by George W. Bush, it’s only logical that they would publish just such a denial. Thus far, only you have leveled the direct accusation of non-existence –

If I must oblige you ...

"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist."

Courtesy of the Washington TImes.

which, of course, demands written proof to retain credibility. It isn’t my responsibility to do the research to bear out your own arguments, Vympel.

More burden of proof fallacies. NON-EXISTENCE IS NOT A CLAIM. You think there's a report, you provide the proof. End of story.

Incorrect. An important distinction. Bush did not lie. His statement was misleading, though it did not include any falsehoods.

Bullshit. Misleading someone and lying is the same thing by any reasonable standard, but you've already shown that you will go far beyond reasonable standards to defend Bush.

This isn’t even semantic bullshit. It’s personal redefinition in a moment of duress. Admit it, Vympel. Bush didn’t lie. This isn’t a case of falsification – it’s a case of disagreement.

Ah yes, Bush 'disagreed' with the USAF on UAVs. Just like he disagreed with the Department of Energy on aluminum tubes. He misled the public. Misleading is dishonesty. Dishonesty is lying.

Your assumption that “his original claims were bullshit,” of course.

Supported by a mountain of evidence, which you continue to rail against by presenting hypothetical, unsupported scenario after scenario.

I agree that the new focus on weaponization programs rather than stockpiles is a political maneuver. This does not however tell us anything about the original accusation of the presence of stockpiles other than that they are proving more difficult to locate than once expected. Programs were, after all, one of the pillars on which Bush made his case for war at the close of last year.

If the administration makes a political maneuver to lift pressure off it in preparation for the time when they'll eventually have to make an about face (and they will), it speaks directly to what they know, or rather, what they didn't know, about how strong their position really was.

For unprovoked nuclear war? Now you’re casting off the deep edge to save yourself, Vympel. The Western world might periodically wave a hand to murderous régimes with their own domestic crisis; we wouldn’t be nearly as lenient, nor as accommodating to offensive nuclear activity however.

Hello strawman. Where did I say nuclear?

What is a “unilateral reality,” exactly? Why is it dangerous for the United States to act alone? Because we encourage others to do so as well? That’s an absolutely unfounded claim; our particular circumstances differ from those of every other nation worldwide with the exception of the People’s Republic of China – which has, incidentally, engaged in unilateral aggression since the 1950s. You’re comparing apples and oranges, Vympel.

Classic problem of acting alone is that you piss people off. In case you didn't notice, the US has been running around with its hat in its hand pleading for troops for Iraq. So far, none of the major UN nations worth a damn are providing any meaningful relief.

As for Pakistan, we might cut back-door deals with Musharrif. That’s hardly to say we wouldn’t join the rest of the international community in condemnation and general embargo. He would never be able to live down the consequences imposed on him by the outside world – even assuming India was thereafter powerless to respond.

I’ll say it once more for your benefit: no other nation in the world (except perhaps China, and then only on a very small scale and in a very limited region) can afford to do as we have. Period.

Short-sighted might makes right reasoning.

I’m pointing out that analysis can differ – even with the same facts – from location to location. The French “take” on the War in Iraq is far different from that of the United States – and for a variety of different reasons, including self-interest.

And why do I care what the hell the French think?

It depends on which analysis was found to be most telling by the White House. Certainly a range of intelligence agencies brought some kind of case against Iraq – particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. Again, need I remind you that Europe’s completely different circumstances color their own views more than just considerably?

The European intelligence services in their analyses were tasked with the job of judging an Iraqi threat based on what the US provided with them- in particular, whether Iraq had WMD. That was the standard Bush successfully made the war about. The case was not made successfully to them. The German ambassador (or FM? doesn't matter) said so point blank to Rumsfeld in the lead up to war.

American influence on Iraq isn’t necessarily a bad thing from certain points of view. A “successful” peace and occupation – and it’s too early, at a few months in, to declare all of our efforts for naught – resulting in a relatively stable, relatively prosperous Iraq wouldn’t exactly be the end of the world for anybody anyway.

Those certain points of view being whoose? It is obvious that every Iraqi, including even that bastard construct, the INC, is desperate to get America out of the country. You think they'll tolerate American meddling in Iraqi internal affairs without doing anything about it, indefinitely?

He proved a most useful – and loyal – pillar of our Middle Eastern policy while still in power. His was an ouster suffering the lack of foresight. Considering that he also managed to lose control of the only military forces in the country, I’d say Iraq looks to be much different. American servicemen and –women aren’t exactly Iranian conscripts, Vympel.

Ah, so you're going to suggest that Iraq should be permanently occupied in order to prevent a replay?

Iraq was among the most secular societies in the Persian Gulf before this most recent crisis.

No, the Ba'ath Party is secular. The Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims clearly didn't have much of their identity invested in it.

If anything, its population is more amicable to the concept of “Western living” than any other outside Israel or Turkey. The outpouring of support for religious institutions at this point in time tells us that a large, grassroots movement has existed for some time – but can also be misleading from the point of view that there are no credible political alternatives available. I also daresay that one half of Iraqi society – its women – won’t give up their say so easily. Women held valuable positions during Hussein’s rule; it’s unlikely they’ll be all that willing to sit down without some kind of argument or fight.

If Iraqi women were able to present a credible front representative of the entire population in a secular manner, it'd be the first time in history.

The fact that Iraq managed to smuggle so much military and dual-purpose equipment with the knowledge of major powers at all indicates dangerously large gaps in oversight and intention.

No, it doesn't. You would have to show significant large scale purchases of modern weapons and increased training to even begin to make that case.

We’re talking about companies from Germany to Russia to the United States numbering somewhere in the middle hundreds between 1998 and 2002. I’m not sure how it looks to you, Vympel, but for many Americans – whose nation just happens to be the chief guarantor of peace in that area -, those aren’t exactly welcome developments.

No quantative or qualitative reasoning. Those companies provided spare parts for Iraq's pre-existing weaponry, and the war showed conclusively that after 12 years, Iraq had deteriorated, not improved. Hell, Iraq couldn't even bring in spare barrels for it's tanks.

Where tank shells and fiber-optic defense systems can be transported into Iraq, so too can small components of a weaponization program.

Complete leap in logic. Spare parts and ammunition are nowhere in remotely the same league as NBC components.

Now you’re going to deny that even “American democracy” in Iraq would be a negative conclusion for global security as compared to delusional military dictatorship?

No, you said it would be democratic more than any other country in the region with exception of Israel. I don't give a shit about Israel. As to claiming American 'democracy' will be better, you've already argued that it should be malleable to American interests and home to American troops, and we know for a fact that not a single Iraq wants America to stay for more than 1 millisecond than it has to. That spells eventual problems.

Perhaps because Iran is today the globe’s must active state sponsor of terrorism, not to mention a virulent critic of American foreign policy in the Middle East?

Ah, so because it supports the Palestinians, it's going to give them a nuclear weapon. No leaps in logic there.

Bullshit. Just look at the history of the region since the 1970s. Ever since the British left, that region has been volatile. Successive defeats at the hand of Israel and long collusion with the Soviets left a jaded view of the United States and the Western world at large (Suez didn’t help Europe, either). We were hated even before Bin Laden and Iraq; September 11th was an indication of a larger symptom. Iraq has temporarily disturbed the hornet’s nest. That isn’t to say the insects wouldn’t still bite without that particular provocation. In the end, successful democratization will most likely be a positive rather than negative influence.

Self contradiction. Successful democratization and a malleable country being used as a base for the legions do not go together.

If the ire of the Arab world is a constant, explain what happened to Egypt.

Says who? You? Democratization on some scale – virtually any scale – would be an improvement over what existed heretofore.

Until of course they get sick of your troops on their territory and your government telling there's what to do. The US has already said it won't tolerate any type of democracy in Iraq if it's not what it wants. And of course, you think the Iraqis are just going to take that up the ass.

Withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and Iraq are too different issues. Even when we abandoned the Saudis for a shift toward Iraq, we needed that alternative in the first place.

Yes, what a brilliant alternative it was. Perhaps you can add up the body counts resulting from the two places and see where American troops are worse off.

First of all, I’d like a source.

Unlike you, I don't make shit up

Second of all, the question was whether most Americans still supported George W. Bush. The answer – even with a 56% approval rating – is still yes.

With a drop in points of how much?

What other rogue nation was as “ready” for invasion, Vympel? Completion of even the first stages of nation-building in Iraq will put us in a prime position to exert a stabilizing influence over the entire region – especially vis a vie Iran, our next logical opponent with or without invasion.

Bingo- you're so short sighted you can't even think of where action might be required again. A 'stabilizing' influence is an interesting way of putting it, how exactly are you stablizing anything?

I’ll play ball with this one. I can’t provide direct evidence that research is illegal. Still, that doesn’t help your overall argument at all.

Nor yours.

For what other reason would Iraq launch a feasibility study, Vympel, than as a precursor to reinstitution of a weaponization plan? It represents the very first step on the road to prohibited offensive capability. Certainly a feasibility study is evidence of an intention to renew the threat – on which basis Bush would be proven correct, no less.

In case you forgot, the opinion and testimony is that Iraq would try and wait until sanctions were lifted and it was off the agenda to rebuild its arsenal.

Now, as to the issue of the special troops and the “Israeli plan” …

Yes, retreat from the field is on some level an indicator of disloyalty (or rather, a lack of loyalty “to the extreme”). Failure by a particular unit to carry out their mission – particularly under these extenuating circumstances – does not however necessarily represent any kind of desire to mutiny against Hussein or the régime in general.

There is clear evidence of widespread disloyalty in the aftermath of the war towards the entire Ba'ath party, and in General Kamel and his brother, evidence of that before the war, among the very officers who knew the most. That noone has talked when they knew something stretched credibility to breaking point.

We don’t know for certain whether or not the units “buggered home without trying” – though even if they did, considering the near-suicide mission status of their probable orders and the complete breakdown of the Iraqi military as time went on, that doesn’t say much either. Remember that these men were screened for loyalty anyway; they have tribal allegiance to factor into their actions as well.

The prima facie case is that they didn't try, because not a single prohibited shell or anything of that nature has been discovered.

No, the retreat didn’t begin on day one, but the signs were clear. The Los Angeles Times article is a heavy counter to your position, Vympel. Hussein’s orders were apparently off-the-cuff and uninformed – or dangerously presumptive. Assuming it took any time at all to unearth the weapons – again assuming the SCUDs were there in the first place -, it’s very possible a unit fresh to the task of “live” action could fail to roll into action before the whole affair began to seem pointless (and overly dangerous). Am I also insinuating that these special troops might have been incompetent? Absolutely. Considering Iraq’s status before the war, I’d say it’s more than likely that many had absolutely no experience dealing with actual, “live” munitions. Am I saying they might not have been able to excavate their own equipment? Again, absolutely, considering the possible size of the task. Am I saying that the rank-and-file might not have particular knowledge of where weaponry was hidden? Again, yes. It’s a logical security measure. And is it possible that all the higher-ups except for Kemal have yet to come forward? Again, yes. These people were screened for loyalty. And considering that we don’t have the operational size of this unit in the first place …

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that they couldn't accomplish their mission. What I will not accept is that they couldn't even begin to try and carry out their orders- as we argue below.

His full title? A link?

The original Newsweek article by John Barry is best:

"KAMEL WAS SADDAM Hussein’s son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq’s nuclear, chemical,
biological and missile programs."

And from FAIR: Kamel is no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his departure from Iraq carrying crates of secret documents on Iraq's past weapons programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. In 1999, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council (1/25/99), UNSCOM reported that its entire eight years of disarmament work "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."

Acceptable – or just likely? Who was likely to be there to court-martial them, Vympel?

Stop trying to change the subject. We're talking about disloyalty, and you just conceded what their loyalty was -i.e. pretty fucking poor.

Or because of tribal allegiance and the fact that WMD could be known to only a select few?

Tribal alleigance didn't prevent Uday and Qusay getting turned in by their own cousin, did it?

Who was going to shoot these men as entire units moved off into the chaos of the larger picture?

Not the point. By even bringing this up, you are saying their loyalty extends only so far as "will I get killed for not doing it?" And you think this is helping you?

Since when does saving oneself immediately equate with a desire to become a turncoat? Answer these questions, Vympel, or give up the argument.

Since it indicates disloyalty. If they're willing to derelict their duty to the point that they'll follow no orders whatsoever, they're certainly willing to make a buck after the war is gone and their old masters who they obviously did not respect are gone too.

As opposed to new-build weapons, of course.

No evidence of new build weapons either, obviously.

Again, I want solid numbers. Surely something must have been said about the number of tips. If my argument is “a bloodied corps,” why can’t you stop dancing around when I ask you to substantiate the numbers?

The numbers haven't been revealed. You're unable to respond to why so many of these Ba'athists are being turned in, and so you try and make it about Saddam specifically.

You mean because they’re better-hidden and take more precautionary action? Just like WMD stockpiles?

Oh yeah, that's brilliant, there are SSO guards around WMD stockpiles as we speak.

Our troops, or the informant? The exceptions of our own troops are irrelevant if the informer didn’t provide the data about Hussein in the first place. It’s clear: the target of the information was a security officer, not Hussein himself.

And yet the same article establishes tips were being given against Saddam, and Ba'athist high level officials continue to be caught and/or killed.

The number of people involved has dwindled since ’91 or ’98.

Source please. I though the administration claimed Iraq's programs were more advanced than they had been in 1991, IIRC?

The number of people with complete overhead or knowledge of the location of stockpiles is unknown.

Ridiculously high standard.

It’s easy to deny something you were locked out of or kept in the dark about

Sure, they were all kept in the dark. And you think they could get any work done when noone knew

– especially if stockpiles and paper trails among a particular elite are the only remnants. Kemal is dead. What kind of incentive is that?

Do you EVER, even bother to read up on anything before opening your mouth? Kamel was killed when he was lured back to Iraq in 1996. Is it 1996? Last I checked ... ummm ... no.

And WMD couldn’t have been equally as well-hidden in numerous locations?

Oh yeah, I'm sure in Iraq right now trucks full of WMD are moving about being guarded, unnoticed by the 150,000+ troops there.

Who says it was obvious to the men building the things?

Oh yeah, skilled engineers don't know what they're building Even I could tell what a fortification/military storage/command bunker differences were.

Red herring. What does the false impetus of the Reichstag fire have to do with the fact that nobody on the United Nations saw fit to act until America clanged the bell?

No, it's not a red herring, it's the same fucking logic. Set fire to the building, then use the fire as a reason to crackdown. That's bullshit.

Watch it with the name-calling. You can be civil, Vympel.

Not when I (think, admittedly) hear stupid things like chemical weapons on oil fields.

Who says they needed to be chemical warheads? Why not conventional? Or were you too quick to accuse me that you forgot to take into account other possibilities besides, “Bomb Israel!”

I'm sure you know by now they did attack SA with conventional SCUDs.

Threatening to make mince-meat of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields wouldn’t have served to give Riyadh pause? How about American command-and-control centers? They got a few of those during the first war, too.

They had enough SCUDs to target both, as you know now. Furthermore, SCUDs don't have the accuracy to cause significant damage to oil fields. It's a crap shoot by any measure.

That’s no argument. Concession accepted.

Only in your mind, padawan.

False dilemma regarding the war – especially if the unit waited at all before moving into action. You’re also talking about two different things. The precursors for the existing orders weren’t met in ’91. In ’03, the orders might not have been there at all (aside, of course, from the possibility that the units didn’t carry them out in the first place).

If the orders weren't there, your argument isn't either.

When would these units have worked with “live” munitions, Vympel? The country was under sanctions. It would have been dangerous in the extreme.

*Someone* knew where they were- you think it's credible that not one would talk? I dont.

We don’t know how small these units are. They were already screened for loyalty.

Obviously not very well screened= Kamel.

Many probably would not have been able to return home safely had they given up. Kemal is dead. People are attempting to kill high-profile informants.

Kamel's death doesn't help your case. He was killed by Saddam 6 years ago. Totally different situation.

Of what? I can’t understand the original request.

That Iraq was planning to attack Israel in 2003. Remember?

Of attempting to force Saudi Arabia out of the war by way of threatening to destroy their oil fields?

Iraq didn't have the capability to destroy SA's oil fields.

Any more moronic than attempting to force Israel out of the war with a single chemical warhead on a random target – and then expecting a number of things to fall into place perfectly (such as effective retaliation or the Coalition’s turning back)?

Yes, more moronic than that.

Orders in general. Again I refer you to the Los Angeles Times article for discussion of Hussein’s delusional behavior.

Which does not apply to pre-delegation of launch authority.

The “honor strike” plan of ’91 is an indicator, Vympel.

An indicator of absolutely nothing.

Concession accepted.

You're looking so much like the Black Knight off Monty Python right now.

It certainly helps explain why they weren’t used this time around (among other things). Once more, it’s the orders themselves – the plan itself – that are so important to our analysis.

No it is not. Anyone can just fucking plan. If you can't carry out your threats, you are not a threat, by definition. You are full of shit, not a threat.

That’s why.

What's why?

Forgetting, of course, the excavation, security, deployment, arming, and launch – in caravan.

Launch in caravan? Oh ye gods ...

Try conventional weapons with the likelihood of complete destruction. How did you come to harp on the assumption that they’d have to use chemical weapons in order to prove Hussein delusional in the first place?

Because I thought you were clued in enough to know what Iraq exactly did in 1991, which included use of SCUDs on Saudi Arabia.

One-hundred percent effective, is it? What part of: “We do not want Sharon making his own decisions vis a vie retaliation against Iraq,” do you fail to understand?

And what part of 'Iraq couldn't attack anyway and had no inclination to attack if not provovked, ever' do you not understand?

In the Western world and under optimal condiitons …

Nah, digging something out of the dirt takes days in suboptimal conditions ...

Kenya and Iraq are two very different nations. Hussein’s delusional plans were always a concern from the standpoint of Israeli – and thus regional – security.

Empty rhetoric. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself just for emphasis, but the fact remains Iraq was no threat to anyone. It had no teeth, wasn't getting any teeth, and would never get any teeth.

We’re still investigating the capability, but ultimate intentions are still a problem for a nation with the history and potential of Iraq – especially since the sanctions were coming undone until our resurrection of the issue.

No, they weren't coming undone. That Iraq's forces were on the decline is demonstrable objective fact.

Who says he had to be near the status he had in 1991 to be a threat? That’s your own standard, again.

Considering the trouncing he got in 1991, I don't see how anyone could realistically argue that a shittier Iraq could be a threat

And who, exactly, was going to shoot them? Space aliens on Hussein’s payroll?

You'd make a great soldier- your ability to carry out orders extends only so far as to whether you'll be shot for not doing it. Way to completely miss the point ... and this is supposed to strengthen your argument as to the loyalty of his troops? Think before you say something.

Since when do the presence of WMD somewhere in Iraq and pre-delegation of launch authority (which we don’t know were to be had this time around) have anything to do with whether or not the mission will be carried out effectively?

Again, if pre-delegation wasn't there, your argument is weaker. That you persist that they would be a 100% failure in their mission is another matter.

SCUDs acted alone in 1991. Then again, we had forces hunting them in the desert since before the war this time around.

No different from the last war. Try again.

We also don’t know whether he had SCUDs this time around. It doesn’t change the fact that Hussein was delusional in the first place – which was, by the way, the ultimate point of the discussion over Israel. So do you or do you not acknowledge that the man was delusional?

As I said, he had delusional tendencies, but was clearly cogent enough to not launch an unprovoked attack on Israel. And I continue to reject your bullshit that what Iraq *could do* was unimportant as opposed to what it *might want to do* at some point in the future.

As with everything with you, Vympel, is always so simple.

That's because I don't need to overly complicate matters to protect my crumbling position.

Where was the construction equipment coming from? An engineering formation operating in convoy at a particular location in the desert wouldn’t be suspicious? “Security measures= guards?” How many guards? With what kind of transportation and equipment? “Safety measures= don’t break them?” With old weapons, how easy is that for people who might have worked with mock-ups only?

What does this have to do with the ORDER? You present a bunch of mundane, easy as pie tasks as evidence of WHAT, exactly? That because of this going through the motions logistics procedure it's impossible that any of them could be remotely successful in actually breaking dirt? Please.

It’s hardware and it’s part of the military apparatus and stockpile.

Ah, more glorious ignorance. You're on a roll in this thread. Military hardware= complete weapon systems. Not spare parts. Not that this semantics is relevant, considering you'd be hard pressed to even begin to argue that Iraq got any new weapons at all over the last 12 years.

If the stockpiles are there at all, it’s proof of non-compliance, Vympel.

Which is not the point. We're talking about whether Iraq still has them, and the reasons for why it may or may not.

But weak enough to the point that reconstitution over a long period was impossible? That’s still open for debate.

Hardly. If Iraq was ever in the position to buy new hardware to the point of being a threat to it's neighbours, and actually tried to, it would be noticed. Guaranteed.

Opinion. Once we made the commitment, we were virtually required to go to maintain a veneer of credibility behind our foreign policy pronouncements.

Which is not what I'm talking about. IMO, the decision should not have been made.

That’s correct. And that does what, for you, exactly?

Helps my argument that they weren't fucking there, for one.

At the oil fields in Saudi Arabia?

Not that I'm aware of. Did it occur to you that a missile with a CEP of several hundred metres would be hardpressed to do any significant damage to an oil field in the middle of nowhere? You have to set fire to them. Not the easiest job in the world.

What kind of incentive did this unit have to do its job in a country that was falling apart? And who said I think it’s “acceptable?” There’s a difference between “acceptable” and “likely,” Vympel. We’re talking about possibilities, not moral precedents. Nice try, though.

What a fine soldier you'd make. If only the Germans defending Berlin had your lack of intestinal fortitude. You still completely miss the point. By admitting that if there were orders, missiles, and gas, and that the people tasked with accomplishing the order chickened out and ran because "well fuck, we'e gonna lose anyway" you admit that these are not the caliber of people who wouldn't sing like birds. Oh well.

Considering what I see above, that’s not far from the truth.

Glad to see you're finally admitting your lack of common sense.

Keep them for possible use in the near future. You keep items around even though they may eventually spoil, Vympel. If you hide them in the first place, throwing them away is a bit taboo.

Yet they will still become useless if you don't use them by their use by date. At that time, you are de facto disarmed.

Inspectors who agree on the result of limited investigation. Some scientists who agree without having been there.

I'm sorry, the scientists in Iraq at the time weren't there?

Evidence gathered over a short period and an incomplete run of inspections.

Yup over 7 years sure is a short period.

Common sense that excludes the possibility of hidden stockpiles? Whether or not they can last forever is irrelevant; if they are there at all, we have proof of non-compliance and the lack of absolute trust behind intrusive inspections.

Bullshit. If you destroy their infrastructure and any weapons they have hidden obviously can't last forever, in some cases not even years, the country is disarmed. Resumed production would be detected. Therefore, Iraq is disarmed.

This isn't about excluding the possibility of hidden stockpiles. That's a fancy round-about way of shifting the burden of proof. There is overwhelming evidence that Iraq was disarmed. There is no evidence that Iraq was armed at this time.

Incidentially, could you please pare your response down to the general topics of (A) Bush’s claims and the precedents, (B) Iraq and the sanctions, (C) the question of the special units and informants, (D) the Israeli issue, and (D) closing arguments? I’d appreciate if these debates became increasingly smaller; we’re almost at the point that we’ll have to abandon this one out of circular movement anyway.

I don't see what possibly more could be said- we're like that toy with the two boxers in the ring who go at each other indefinitely.