UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

[Axis Kast]

Then so must have Germany, France, Israel, the U.K., and a whole slew of others who initially provided opinions that did not dissent from that of George Bush in that Iraq was probably armed with weapons it should not have had, but rather on what the proper course of action was in how to deal with them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Or, bonehead, they weren't secure enough in the intelligence to warrant a hundreds-of-billions-of-dollar war and decades of occupation.

You assume just because they, like us, had nebulous intelligence regarding issues that they should've automatically signed off on war, or they just didn't give a shit about the U.S. Of course you cannot concieve that they didn't feel the intel was reliable enough (which of course, it wasn't, because there were no WMDs).

And besides, his links to terrorism were NOT solid, and reliable delivery systems which could concievably threaten the U.S. and allies were not present.

[Axis Kast]

Or, bonehead, they weren't secure enough in the intelligence to warrant a hundreds-of-billions-of-dollar war and decades of occupation.

You assume just because they, like us, had nebulous intelligence regarding issues that they should've automatically signed off on war, or they just didn't give a shit about the U.S. Of course you cannot concieve that they didn't feel the intel was reliable enough (which of course, it wasn't, because there were no WMDs).

And besides, his links to terrorism were NOT solid, and reliable delivery systems which could concievably threaten the U.S. and allies were not present.

First of all, whether or not they were secure in their intelligence is irrelevant to the issue of their decision on whether or not to support the action in Iraq. As Germany made clear early on, they wouldn’t move to support military action regardless of findings by the survey teams they insisted we send prior to an invasion in the first place.

Secondly, the likelihood of being able to obtain superior intelligence with definitive determinations on whether or not Iraq was armed without an invasion and occupation were very low. If you think the answer was Hans Blix and UNMOVIC, think again. The end result of letting his mission continue would have been public declarations of support for “renewed” sanctions, but almost certainly continued violations nevertheless. And that is exactly what the Bush administration already feared so greatly. Not to mention that UNMOVIC was still operating when Hussein’s regime was fully in power – and therefore still capable of manipulating activity on the ground. Blix wasn’t omnipotent, despite whatever increase in the size of his resources you might be about to suggest. No. The only way to satisfy our security dilemma was to remove Saddam.

[Graeme Dice]

Secondly, the likelihood of being able to obtain superior intelligence with definitive determinations on whether or not Iraq was armed without an invasion and occupation were very low. If you think the answer was Hans Blix and UNMOVIC, think again. The end result of letting his mission continue would have been public declarations of support for “renewed” sanctions, but almost certainly continued violations nevertheless.

What violations, exactly, are you talking about? It's now been laid perfectly clear that there were no weapons of mass distraction in Iraq. Looks to me like the inspections were working exactly the way they were supposed to.

The only way to satisfy our security dilemma was to remove Saddam.

There was no security dilemna since Iraq hasn't been a threat to the U.S. for well over a decade.

[Darth Wong]

No. The only way to satisfy our security dilemma was to remove Saddam.

You honestly believe that, don't you?

[Axis Kast]

What violations, exactly, are you talking about? It's now been laid perfectly clear that there were no weapons of mass distraction in Iraq. Looks to me like the inspections were working exactly the way they were supposed to.

Violations of the sanctions. Until George Bush raised the possibility of war, containment was rapidly falling by the wayside. The late '90s and early '00s were host to a torrent of violations by every major guarantor of the original security policies.

There was no security dilemna since Iraq hasn't been a threat to the U.S. for well over a decade.

Except that the threshhold for what constitutes a danger has fallen off precipitously. They are now dramatically lower. Afghanistan proved to be a fatal threat - and all its government did was look the other way to terrorists within its borders. To say that Iraq - which is decidedly anti-American - was somehow less a problem is absolutely delusional.

[Graeme Dice]

Violations of the sanctions. Until George Bush raised the possibility of war, containment was rapidly falling by the wayside. The late '90s and early '00s were host to a torrent of violations by every major guarantor of the original security policies.

I asked you to specify violations, please do so. Also, please show where the WoMD were found that show that these sanctions were being violated.

Except that the threshhold for what constitutes a danger has fallen off precipitously. They are now dramatically lower. Afghanistan proved to be a fatal threat - and all its government did was look the other way to terrorists within its borders.

Red herring. You've attempted to dodge the point once again. You've yet to show that Iraq was in any way a real danger to the U.S. There are virtually no similarities between the Taliban and Hussein's government. Further, your argument is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy. Please let me know where a country actually starts to be dangerous instead of just picking them by how much the president can use a war to distract the population.

To say that Iraq - which is decidedly anti-American - was somehow less a problem is absolutely delusional.

Please provide evidence that Iraq was in any way supporting terrorist organizations.

[Axis Kast]

I asked you to specify violations, please do so. Also, please show where the WoMD were found that show that these sanctions were being violated.

How about China’s 2000 deal to augment the Iraqi air defense network communications system with fiber-optic cable?

Or the recent revelation that Russians were involved in missile research with Iraqi authorities as late as 2001?

Whether or not these resulted directly in the production or procurement of Weapons of Mass Destruction is irrelevant to the greater issue – namely, that the sanctions were riddled with holes made by its guarantors, and that most violators escaped retribution.

Red herring. You've attempted to dodge the point once again. You've yet to show that Iraq was in any way a real danger to the U.S. There are virtually no similarities between the Taliban and Hussein's government. Further, your argument is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy. Please let me know where a country actually starts to be dangerous instead of just picking them by how much the president can use a war to distract the population.

No, it’s a comparison. You have dismissed Iraq as a threat because of the degradation of its conventional armed forces and its lack of weapons of mass destruction (which is still questionable). Of course, Afghanistan was even less a threat in those two areas than Iraq.

My point is that we don’t want any anti-American governments out there – especially not those with long histories of violating the sanctions meant to keep them from developing new weapons and a proven willingness to attempt to assassinate former American Presidents.

And if you’re so convinced this war is a public relations stunt on the current administration’s part, let’s see documentary proof.

Please provide evidence that Iraq was in any way supporting terrorist organizations.

Well, they did target a former American president for assassination. You might be inclined to ignore it because it was the current president’s father; but, of course, that changes nothing, since if it were anyone else making the point, you wouldn’t be able to do that. This proves above all the dangers of state-managed terrorism from Iraq. They don’t necessarily need al-Qaeda to do dirty work when they’ve got their own intelligence agencies. Or did.

Next, we know they supported Palestinian terrorism in Israel – a country we don’t necessarily trust to do what we’d rather it does. Saddam has paid cash bounties to the families of suicide bombers – it’s clear that he is attempting to destabilize a neighbor. And lest you claim that cash bounties cannot be equated with material support, I remind you that terrorism in Palestine is clearly an act of desperation, and that making it only more appealing by promising several thousands of dollars to the families of men and women who do kill themselves is, in fact, a danger.

[Graeme Dice]

Whether or not these resulted directly in the production or procurement of Weapons of Mass Destruction is irrelevant to the greater issue – namely, that the sanctions were riddled with holes made by its guarantors, and that most violators escaped retribution.

So you'll let me know when the weapons were actually found then. That Saddam was trying to obtain such weapons is utterly and completely irrelevant if he wasn't actually able to procure them.

No, it’s a comparison. You have dismissed Iraq as a threat because of the degradation of its conventional armed forces and its lack of weapons of mass destruction (which is still questionable). Of course, Afghanistan was even less a threat in those two areas than Iraq.

It is not questionable whether Iraq had WoMD. It's painfully obvious that they didn't. You've ignored the point that the governments were completely different. Saddam was not running an Islamic dictatorship.

My point is that we don’t want any anti-American governments out there – especially not those with long histories of violating the sanctions meant to keep them from developing new weapons and a proven willingness to attempt to assassinate former American Presidents.

Right, because being anti-American is a capital offense in your world.

And if you’re so convinced this war is a public relations stunt on the current administration’s part, let’s see documentary proof.

Well, they did target a former American president for assassination. You might be inclined to ignore it because it was the current president’s father; but, of course, that changes nothing, since if it were anyone else making the point, you wouldn’t be able to do that. This proves above all the dangers of state-managed terrorism from Iraq. They don’t necessarily need al-Qaeda to do dirty work when they’ve got their own intelligence agencies. Or did.

Like I said. Let me know when they are an actual threat. You are confusing intent to harm with the capability to harm.

Next, we know they supported Palestinian terrorism in Israel – a country we don’t necessarily trust to do what we’d rather it does.

This sentence is constructed so poorly that I can't figure out what it means. Once again, show how Iraq was a threat to the U.S.

[Elfdart]

I doubt Palestinians blow themselves up for 20 grand. They do it because they're slated for ethnic cleansing and realize they have nothing to lose. The cash might soften the landing for the bombers' next of kin, though. You're putting the chaser before the drink.

If invading a country, removing its leaders, installing a puppet regime and carving up its assets like a roasted turkey is justified because of (a) violations of UN resolutions and (b) support for the slaughter of innocent people, then what about this hypothetical case:

Apartheid-era South Africa violated UN resolutions on a regular basis and supported (not only with money, but with weapons and safe havens) cutthroat organizations like UNITA and RENAMO who killed a vastly larger number of civilians than the various Palestinian groups. Would various countries be justified in a full-scale invasion of South Africa like the one performed on Iraq?

[Axis Kast]

So you'll let me know when the weapons were actually found then. That Saddam was trying to obtain such weapons is utterly and completely irrelevant if he wasn't actually able to procure them.

I see; just as long as there aren’t confirmed reports of a nuclear weapon in an Iraqi silo, you’re content to ignore the matter of containment. Fortunately, not everybody’s willing to take such ridiculous risks. The sanctions regime was punctuated again and again by rampant violations on the part of the same authorities charged with its maintenance. To retain complete faith in such a desiccated system isn’t prudence with intent to avoid mistakes; it’s stupidity.

It is not questionable whether Iraq had WoMD. It's painfully obvious that they didn't. You've ignored the point that the governments were completely different. Saddam was not running an Islamic dictatorship.

And you’ve ignored the point that Iraq proved itself fully capable of terrorist activities despite being a secular nation.

As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the jury is still out. The new ISG head recently castigated David Kay for a job poorly done. We’ll see what he turns up.

Right, because being anti-American is a capital offense in your world.

Nice strawman. Rhetoric is tolerable; attempted assassination and the destabilization of key American allies is not.

Like I said. Let me know when they are an actual threat. You are confusing intent to harm with the capability to harm.

By the time we’ve reached the thresh-hold at which you’ll admit we should act, it will already be too late. That Saddam failed to assassinate an American official once doesn’t mean we can afford to let our guard down indefinately.

This sentence is constructed so poorly that I can't figure out what it means. Once again, show how Iraq was a threat to the U.S.

Frankly, we don’t want Israel pushed into anything by Iraq. We didn’t go to war to defend Israel. We probably did go to war thinking that we didn’t want to have to worry about cleaning up the damage if they were to be attacked, however.

I doubt Palestinians blow themselves up for 20 grand. They do it because they're slated for ethnic cleansing and realize they have nothing to lose. The cash might soften the landing for the bombers' next of kin, though. You're putting the chaser before the drink.

The move was calculated support for terrorism. It makes killing oneself more appealing to already-desperate men.

If invading a country, removing its leaders, installing a puppet regime and carving up its assets like a roasted turkey is justified because of (a) violations of UN resolutions and (b) support for the slaughter of innocent people, then what about this hypothetical case.

It’s not about the violations of the United Nations. It’s about the violations of a system of containment that happens to be under their unfortunately very flimsy purview. It’s also not about defending Israeli innocents as much as preventing the Israeli government from feeling it should do something to take care of Iraq down the road.

[Graeme Dice]

I see; just as long as there aren’t confirmed reports of a nuclear weapon in an Iraqi silo, you’re content to ignore the matter of containment.

You're a fucking idiot. Containment was working, as has been demonstrated by the complete lack of WoMD in Iraq.

As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the jury is still out.

No, it isn't. There have been no weapons found, full stop. If there were any weapons that could have actually threatened the U.S. they would have been found by now.

By the time we’ve reached the thresh-hold at which you’ll admit we should act, it will already be too late. That Saddam failed to assassinate an American official once doesn’t mean we can afford to let our guard down indefinately.

Guess what. As a supposedly freedom loving country you don't get to act. without evidence. You get to react when there's evidence. The attempt on Bush was in 93. If that was an actual reason to go to war, then you would have 10 years ago.

It’s not about the violations of the United Nations. It’s about the violations of a system of containment that happens to be under their unfortunately very flimsy purview

It has already been demonstrated that containment was working.

[Axis Kast]

You're a fucking idiot. Containment was working, as has been demonstrated by the complete lack of WoMD in Iraq.

Unfortunately, I disagree that a sanctions regime whose holes were cauked only on the verge of an invasion to have been "working." There were a number of instances in which the exact nature of the violations weren't even known (i.e. in China's case).

I also don't consider an inspection performed by U.N. authorities while Saddam was still in power to have been very reliable.

No, it isn't. There have been no weapons found, full stop. If there were any weapons that could have actually threatened the U.S. they would have been found by now.

Not according to new ISG leader Charles Duelfer. In fact, he's openly criticized Kay for having come to the conclusion that there was nothing in Iraq after so short a time and so limited a search.

Guess what. As a supposedly freedom loving country you don't get to act. without evidence. You get to react when there's evidence. The attempt on Bush was in 93. If that was an actual reason to go to war, then you would have 10 years ago.

The reasons we acted now were based on a series of events that on their own may seem small, but together constituted proof that Iraq was breaking free of the restraints that we put in place in 1991. The attempted assassination is just one example of their capability to conduct terrorist activities.

It has already been demonstrated that containment was working.

Actually, as I've already pointed out, the conclusiveness of the reports made by Kay and Blix are still under question.

[Graeme Dice]

Unfortunately, I disagree that a sanctions regime whose holes were cauked only on the verge of an invasion to have been "working." There were a number of instances in which the exact nature of the violations weren't even known (i.e. in China's case).

Once again, and maybe it will get through your thick skull this time. Intent to do something does _not_ mean that the capability to do something exists.

I also don't consider an inspection performed by U.N. authorities while Saddam was still in power to have been very reliable.

It's nice to see that you are capable of completely ignoring the evidence presented to you, and that you are capable of repeating the same argument over and over again as though that made it correct. No weapons have been found now that Saddam is out of power, which only illustrates that the UN inspections were working.

No, it isn't. There have been no weapons found, full stop. If there were any weapons that could have actually threatened the U.S. they would have been found by now.

Not according to new ISG leader Charles Duelfer. In fact, he's openly criticized Kay for having come to the conclusion that there was nothing in Iraq after so short a time and so limited a search.

I suggest that you learn to read and stop building strawmen. Note that I said that "there have been no weapons found, full stop". This is an observed fact, and is one that you can't argue with by providing wague generalities about how there just "might" be weapons there. Let me know when you find the weapons that would have actually posed a threat to the U.S.

The reasons we acted now were based on a series of events that on their own may seem small, but together constituted proof that Iraq was breaking free of the restraints that we put in place in 1991.

You've provided no such proof. Of course, the complete lack of evidence to support your position doesn't bother you, because you're incapable of doing anything besides repeating the same argument over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over

The attempted assassination is just one example of their capability to conduct terrorist activities.

The "attempted assasination" happened ten years and two presidential terms before the start of the latest war. Why don't you try and find an example that's actually relevant.

It has already been demonstrated that containment was working.

Actually, as I've already pointed out, the conclusiveness of the reports made by Kay and Blix are still under question.

You've not pointed _anything_ out. You've claimed that the weapons must exist somewhere despite the fact that _all_ evidence points to the contrary.

[Axis Kast]

Unfortunately, your argument that our actions to date have only substantiated the effectiveness of the sanctions regime is fatally flawed. You admitted it yourself, in fact: it took us an invasion to be certain that the system was functioning (not to mention to generate last-minute interest by all the prior violators, which would almost certainly have continued to deteriorate if not for Bush’s sudden interest in Iraq). And that’s generosity on my part, since you’re attempting to rely on the reports of a man whom the ISG now suggests didn’t actually issue a conclusive report at all. This was the problem all along: we were dealing with a system whose results couldn't be verified with reassurance until we had swept Saddam from power.

Then there’s an entirely separate issue, which is whether Iraq posed a threat to American interests even without a large military or functional WMD arsenal whatsoever. The answer, based on Afghanistan’s example, is still yes.

[Graeme Dice]

Unfortunately, your argument that our actions to date have only substantiated the effectiveness of the sanctions regime is fatally flawed. You admitted it yourself, in fact: it took us an invasion to be certain that the system was functioning (not to mention to generate last-minute interest by all the prior violators, which would almost certainly have continued to deteriorate if not for Bush’s sudden interest in Iraq).

Here's a clue. When the evidence supports my argument, and not yours, it probably means that I'm right. The fact that we are only certain now, after the war has started, that there were no WoMD in Iraq is utterly and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. We have now confirmed that the system was working, and working better than many people expected, given the fact that the U.S. tried as hard as possible to make it fail. Our actions to date _have_ supported that the sanctions were working, and you've just admitted it.

And that’s generosity on my part, since you’re attempting to rely on the reports of a man whom the ISG now suggests didn’t actually issue a conclusive report at all.

Like I said, you're an idiot who is completely incapable of reading. I'm not relying on the reports of any person. I'M RELYING ON THE FACT THAT WE NOW KNOW THAT THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION IN IRAQ. This is proof of the argument that they weren't there in the first place.

This was the problem all along: we were dealing with a system whose results couldn't be verified with reassurance until we had swept Saddam from power.

And of course, the UN inspectors and the rest of the world outside of the U.S. (and its many allies such as Narnia), couldn't possibly have been right when they were stating that there were no WoMD in Iraq. After all, the (now demonstrated) fact that there were no WoMD in Iraq is certainly not proof that there were no WoMD in Iraq.

Then there’s an entirely separate issue, which is whether Iraq posed a threat to American interests even without a large military or functional WMD arsenal whatsoever. The answer, based on Afghanistan’s example, is still yes.

Only in your dreamland.

[Vympel]

Violations of the sanctions. Until George Bush raised the possibility of war, containment was rapidly falling by the wayside. The late '90s and early '00s were host to a torrent of violations by every major guarantor of the original security policies.

Oh please. Your "torrent of violations" is nothing but an *entirely inadequate*, pathetic sputter of mundane spare parts from dubious sources to try and prop up Iraq's incredibly decayed military infrastructure, and it was quite clear before the invasion (as Patrick Degan once set out for you exhaustively with reference to reputable journals such as Jane's) that Iraq had been quite unsuccessful in reconstructing its military capability whatsoever- and this was confirmed in entirety. I know how much you love it, but spare us the hyperbole next time- sanctions were objectively and qualitatively, immensely successful.

[Axis Kast]

Here's a clue. When the evidence supports my argument, and not yours, it probably means that I'm right. The fact that we are only certain now, after the war has started, that there were no WoMD in Iraq is utterly and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. We have now confirmed that the system was working, and working better than many people expected, given the fact that the U.S. tried as hard as possible to make it fail. Our actions to date _have_ supported that the sanctions were working, and you've just admitted it.

If it was only after invasion, regime-change, and occupation that we could determine absolutely the success or failure of sanctions, then there was obviously something wrong with the entire system of deterrence. After all, the objective was to make war unnecessary.

Not that I agree that the search for WoMD has yet been closed. But, as you have made clear, you're only interested in errata when issued by the Bush administration, and certainly not by the ISG. Here's a hint: David Kay was lambasted by his peers for a poor search. Duelfer raked his methods over the coals in virtually the same fashion as I pointed out he should be only this past March.

And of course, the UN inspectors and the rest of the world outside of the U.S. (and its many allies such as Narnia), couldn't possibly have been right when they were stating that there were no WoMD in Iraq. After all, the (now demonstrated) fact that there were no WoMD in Iraq is certainly not proof that there were no WoMD in Iraq.

Actually, no major American allies denied that they believed Saddam was armed.

And the United Nations was capable of doing only a farcical job; Saddam was still in power, and their scope-of-action limited.

Only in your dreamland.

Then how do you explain September 11th? Afghanistan helped make a reality the largest terrorist strike in this nation's history by doing something so simple as refusing to lift a finger.

Iraq tried to assassinate a former American leader in the early '90s, and encourages terrorism elsewhere in the world. Knocking down the doors of states with clear anti-American agendas inevitably brings us to knocking down the door of Iraq as a measure of self-defense.

Oh please. Your "torrent of violations" is nothing but an *entirely inadequate*, pathetic sputter of mundane spare parts from dubious sources to try and prop up Iraq's incredibly decayed military infrastructure, and it was quite clear before the invasion (as Patrick Degan once set out for you exhaustively with reference to reputable journals such as Jane's) that Iraq had been quite unsuccessful in reconstructing its military capability whatsoever- and this was confirmed in entirety. I know how much you love it, but spare us the hyperbole next time- sanctions were objectively and qualitatively, immensely successful.

The point isn't that Iraq couldn't build tanks with the items it got from Syria, Vympel. The point is that Chinese technicans and Russian technicans and the representatives of other nations were doing things for Saddam's government that we had no knowledge of whatsoever, save that something of some unspecified nature had taken place. It took us an occupation to determine exactly whether or not those violations had meant anything in the unconventional sense.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love Kast.

What the world is like when whenever it is you worry an enemy maybe developing arms against you, you invade them to ascertain whether they even were in development of said arms at all.

You call yourself realpolitik? What kind of political genius is that? Its inconsistent and as policy is entirely unteniable. Its a financial toilet for which we can throw billions into long-term commitments just to determine what R&D some tinpot despotates in the neighborhood of certain economic interests of ours.

This is laughable. And this is why you're laughable. Sorry, but, in my book, in the book of reasonable, teniable, affordable, and consistent policy, I'm not going to sign off on invasions for the sake of acquiring intelligence.

What a nutbag.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Except that the threshhold for what constitutes a danger has fallen off precipitously. They are now dramatically lower. Afghanistan proved to be a fatal threat - and all its government did was look the other way to terrorists within its borders. To say that Iraq - which is decidedly anti-American - was somehow less a problem is absolutely delusional.

Except that Iraq is not the training and recruitment center, as well as the base of operations for a group with the historical ambitions and logistical scale comparable to al-Queda.

Would you like to back up your shit, rather than your vaporous "absolutely delusional" shit-throw?

[Vympel]

The point isn't that Iraq couldn't build tanks with the items it got from Syria, Vympel.

No, it's also that they couldn't even maintain the equipment they already had.

The point is that Chinese technicans and Russian technicans and the representatives of other nations were doing things for Saddam's government that we had no knowledge of whatsoever, save that something of some unspecified nature had taken place.

I refer to Illuminatus Primus in relation to this (and also that China's minor indiscretions in ripping off Iraq for trying to re-intergrate their crappy air defense system were known well before the invasion).

It took us an occupation to determine exactly whether or not those violations had meant anything in the unconventional sense.

No it didn't. China's irrelevant efforts in terms of fibre-otpic cable and this poorly sourced accusation about Russian techninicans in 2001 means nothing, in the first part because Iraq's air defense system needed a lot more than ineffective kit-bashing by telecommunications people to ever be lethal, and in the second part because missile development/testing is simply not concealable when inspectors are trolling about your country with unlimited access to your entire defense infrastructure.

[Graeme Dice]

If it was only after invasion, regime-change, and occupation that we could determine absolutely the success or failure of sanctions, then there was obviously something wrong with the entire system of deterrence.

Right, because we obviously have to go to war and spend billions of dollars instead of just going by the information we already have. Thanks to the tremendous waste that Bush started though, we now know that it was totally unnecessary.

Not that I agree that the search for WoMD has yet been closed. But, as you have made clear, you're only interested in errata when issued by the Bush administration, and certainly not by the ISG. Here's a hint: David Kay was lambasted by his peers for a poor search.

Which is still irrelevant. The weapons still haven't been found, which confirms the position of those people who said that they didn't exist in the first place.

Actually, no major American allies denied that they believed Saddam was armed.

You might want to avoid writing double negatives if you want to be understood. And yes, I agree that Prince Caspian thought that there were WoMD in Iraq.

And the United Nations was capable of doing only a farcical job; Saddam was still in power, and their scope-of-action limited.

The United Nations was quite effective in 1991. The only reason the UN wasn't effective is that the U.S. decided that it wasn't going to ignore the UN.

The point isn't that Iraq couldn't build tanks with the items it got from Syria, Vympel. The point is that Chinese technicans and Russian technicans and the representatives of other nations were doing things for Saddam's government that we had no knowledge of whatsoever, save that something of some unspecified nature had taken place.

Which is why you do proper inspections and intelligence work, instead of starting wars.

[Patrick Degan]

Still determined to make an utter fool of yourself, Kast? You just never learn...

If it was only after invasion, regime-change, and occupation that we could determine absolutely the success or failure of sanctions, then there was obviously something wrong with the entire system of deterrence. After all, the objective was to make war unnecessary.

False Dilemma Fallacy. Absolute certainty was not required in judging the success of the sanctions regime. Iraq was demonstrably unable to present a threat beyond its own borders or rebuild its military capabilities; a fact well known to Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice when they were caught on the video which was outed by John Pilger. To reiterate:

Linky

Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat
September 23, 2003 - 2:33PM

Australian investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie which could cost George W Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens last night said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.

From the "Bush is either a Liar or a Fool" thread from February.

Not that I agree that the search for WoMD has yet been closed. But, as you have made clear, you're only interested in errata when issued by the Bush administration, and certainly not by the ISG. Here's a hint: David Kay was lambasted by his peers for a poor search. Duelfer raked his methods over the coals in virtually the same fashion as I pointed out he should be only this past March.

Except every search result keeps confirming the earlier inspection results, not refuting them.

And of course, the UN inspectors and the rest of the world outside of the U.S. (and its many allies such as Narnia), couldn't possibly have been right when they were stating that there were no WoMD in Iraq. After all, the (now demonstrated) fact that there were no WoMD in Iraq is certainly not proof that there were no WoMD in Iraq.

Actually, no major American allies denied that they believed Saddam was armed.

But nobody beyond the Coalition of the Bribed felt war was justified by the threat Iraq supposedly presented. Nor did any of the nations which supposedly believed Saddam was armed believed it with absolute certainty. Neither did the CIA.

And the United Nations was capable of doing only a farcical job; Saddam was still in power, and their scope-of-action limited.

And yet the postwar inspections only continue to confirm the prewar inspections and have not refuted those findings —despite the alledgedly "farcical" job by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.

Then how do you explain September 11th? Afghanistan helped make a reality the largest terrorist strike in this nation's history by doing something so simple as refusing to lift a finger.

Non-sequitor. Iraq had, has, and will always have ZERO relevance to September 11th.

Iraq tried to assassinate a former American leader in the early '90s,

And got bombs dropped on it for its trouble, after which it never made a subsequent attempt at such an action.

and encourages terrorism elsewhere in the world.

Our puppet goverment in Iraq encourages terrorism elsewhere in the world, Gracie? I'm waiting for the convolutions which justify THIS formulation.

Knocking down the doors of states with clear anti-American agendas inevitably brings us to knocking down the door of Iraq as a measure of self-defense.

Only if we decide we must quake in our boots at the "might" of every pissant little thug who runs a fifth-rate banana republic and can't even threaten his neighbours, much less a superpower.

Oh please. Your "torrent of violations" is nothing but an *entirely inadequate*, pathetic sputter of mundane spare parts from dubious sources to try and prop up Iraq's incredibly decayed military infrastructure, and it was quite clear before the invasion (as Patrick Degan once set out for you exhaustively with reference to reputable journals such as Jane's) that Iraq had been quite unsuccessful in reconstructing its military capability whatsoever- and this was confirmed in entirety. I know how much you love it, but spare us the hyperbole next time- sanctions were objectively and qualitatively, immensely successful.

The point isn't that Iraq couldn't build tanks with the items it got from Syria, Vympel. The point is that Chinese technicans and Russian technicans and the representatives of other nations were doing things for Saddam's government that we had no knowledge of whatsoever, save that something of some unspecified nature had taken place. It took us an occupation to determine exactly whether or not those violations had meant anything in the unconventional sense.

We found out that the Chinese were active in Iraq and pried out an admission that they were contracted to rebuild their telecom network. Evidently you simply decided to ignore the articles I'd posted on this subject the last time you tried flogging this "proof" that the sanctions regime had failed.

And to reiterate:

Linky

MR. BOUCHER: I think, you know, we've made clear in January to the Chinese that we were concerned about the presence of Chinese firms in Iraq doing work in telecommunications and in area particularly optical fiber projects. We made quite clear our concerns in January. We have continued to pursue this. The Secretary raised it yesterday, and we do still expect to get a response from the Chinese.

—State Dept. press briefing 22.02/01

[Vympel]

Here's a hint: David Kay was lambasted by his peers for a poor search. Duelfer raked his methods over the coals in virtually the same fashion as I pointed out he should be only this past March.

What rubbish. His replacement got up and gave some Congressional committee the old blowjob by blowing some sunshine up their arse with the typical platitudes and vague bullshit about all the work they supposedly have to do, and you twist that as "lambasting Kay for a poor search"- as if Duefler's methods are any bloody different from Kay's. Here's a hint for yourself, Kay had exactly the same ray of sunshine coming out of his arse when *he* started, until he too got hit with a really hard swipe of the smelly reality fish. If Duefler quits in disgust (either that, or the tremendous waste of money the ISG is gets disbanded before that), it'll be the same routine all over again, and I'm sure you'll be right here, making appeals to ignorance and clumsily trying to create unreasonable, excessively paranoid, rabid can't-possibly-ever-admit-how-wrong-you-were doubt about *his* search too.

Christ, the world's moved on Kast- you know what Duelfer's job is? So the desperados can keep saying "but wait, it's not overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!* (fade out)

[Axis Kast]

What the world is like when whenever it is you worry an enemy maybe developing arms against you, you invade them to ascertain whether they even were in development of said arms at all.

Strawman. We are referring now to the sanctions on Iraq specifically, which were not only repeatedly violated by all of the major guarantors (one might say almost at will), but which were also repeatedly bypassed by the Hussein regime itself. Even Kay found evidence that Saddam’s “report” was incomplete; regardless of whether some people here feel the omissions inconsequential, the presentation offered by Iraq of its weaponization and dual-use facilities was not thorough.

You call yourself realpolitik? What kind of political genius is that? Its inconsistent and as policy is entirely unteniable. Its a financial toilet for which we can throw billions into long-term commitments just to determine what R&D some tinpot despotates in the neighborhood of certain economic interests of ours.

This is laughable. And this is why you're laughable. Sorry, but, in my book, in the book of reasonable, teniable, affordable, and consistent policy, I'm not going to sign off on invasions for the sake of acquiring intelligence.

Considering that we were unlikely to be able to put men on the ground save under the auspices of a very visible United Nations survey team which, by definition, wasn’t capable of covering a decent fraction of Iraqi territory or canvassing a decent proportion of their suspected weapons sites at any one time, we had no choice but to make decisions based on the intelligence we did have – namely that Saddam did have ties with the al-Qaeda network, including a “non-aggression” and research-cooperation pact, and that he was still in the process of planning terrorist attacks against the United States (with a functioning military intelligence arm, no less, which is more than one could say of Afghanistan). The choice to act was more than justified.

No, it's also that they couldn't even maintain the equipment they already had.

Irrelevant to the issue that until our forces were on the ground, we had no way of knowing anything specific about the violations themselves, save what was announced by the respective governments involved.

No it didn't. China's irrelevant efforts in terms of fibre-otpic cable and this poorly sourced accusation about Russian techninicans in 2001 means nothing, in the first part because Iraq's air defense system needed a lot more than ineffective kit-bashing by telecommunications people to ever be lethal, and in the second part because missile development/testing is simply not concealable when inspectors are trolling about your country with unlimited access to your entire defense infrastructure.

And again, you continue to whine about Iraq’s conventional defenses when the problem at hand is really that the Chinese could have been bringing anything.

You might want to avoid writing double negatives if you want to be understood. And yes, I agree that Prince Caspian thought that there were WoMD in Iraq.

Don’t tell me you don’t understand how to read now. What part of French and German agreement that Iraq was probably armed escapes you?

The United Nations was quite effective in 1991. The only reason the UN wasn't effective is that the U.S. decided that it wasn't going to ignore the UN.

… except that there were multiple violations to ’98.

But nobody beyond the Coalition of the Bribed felt war was justified by the threat Iraq supposedly presented. Nor did any of the nations which supposedly believed Saddam was armed believed it with absolute certainty. Neither did the CIA.

And we didn’t trust he U.N. inspectorate to provide any greater level of certainty. Therein lies the problem.

Not to mention that you completely ignore the fact that nations such as Belgium and Turkey look at Iraq with a vastly different set of priorities and security problems in mind than the United States. The French determination that they are safe from Iraqi attack is relevant only to Paris.

Non-sequitor. Iraq had, has, and will always have ZERO relevance to September 11th.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. September 11th provided the impetus to go to Iraq. Regardless of whether Saddam was involved, that disaster brought us to recognize a whole new low in terms of the threshold above which enemies were considered dangerous enough to warrant a response.

And got bombs dropped on it for its trouble, after which it never made a subsequent attempt at such an action.

According to new reports from the Russian leadership, that’s not true at all.

Our puppet goverment in Iraq encourages terrorism elsewhere in the world, Gracie? I'm waiting for the convolutions which justify THIS formulation.

Encouraged. That should have been past tense.

And finally, for Vympel …

What rubbish. His replacement got up and gave some Congressional committee the old blowjob by blowing some sunshine up their arse with the typical platitudes and vague bullshit about all the work they supposedly have to do, and you twist that as "lambasting Kay for a poor search"- as if Duefler's methods are any bloody different from Kay's. Here's a hint for yourself, Kay had exactly the same ray of sunshine coming out of his arse when *he* started, until he too got hit with a really hard swipe of the smelly reality fish. If Duefler quits in disgust (either that, or the tremendous waste of money the ISG is gets disbanded before that), it'll be the same routine all over again, and I'm sure you'll be right here, making appeals to ignorance and clumsily trying to create unreasonable, excessively paranoid, rabid can't-possibly-ever-admit-how-wrong-you-were doubt about *his* search too.

Christ, the world's moved on Kast- you know what Duelfer's job is? So the desperados can keep saying "but wait, it's not overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!* (fade out)

Ah, my point substantiated. David Kay is an acceptable source for a final pronunciation on Iraq, in your opinion, but the man chosen to proceed in his wake is not, because that wouldn’t be in fitting with your world-view. I see.

I also find it funny that you claim to speak with authority about Mr. Duelfer’s personal convictions when, in fact, that’s nothing more than an appeal to motive. You can’t speak precisely about any of what he thinks, Vympel. Just like you can’t actually refute Duelfer’s legitimate criticisms of what turned out to be a remarkably short search given initiation estimates and reports issued right up to the twilight of Kay’s work in-country.