The Dixie Chicks were right.

[Perinquus]

And it was bloody well too late by then. They stalled and obfuscated,

Only if you've already made up your mind.

Yeah, and you know what? After over a decade of violations and lack of cooperation, you have every right to say: "That's it. Enough is enough."

and shot at U.S. planes for 12 years,

Heaven forbid they defend the very sovereignty that's affirmed in the resolution the US claimed justification from.

They don't get that kind of consideration for their soverignty. They forfeited that consideration. They had just lost an aggressive war of conquest. Don't squawk at me about their sovereignty. If you want others to respect your rights, you damn well better respect the rights of others. They showed no respect whatsover for the sovereignty of a smaller, weaker neighbor country. They initiated an aggressive war against that neighbor. They then lost that war when others came to Kuwait's rescue. As a consequence of losing that war, which started with their violation of another nation's sovereignty, they lose certain rights of their own, at least for a certain period.

You might as well be standing up for an escaped criminal, or one who's resisting arrest, claiming he's just defending his right to liberty. Well he foreited that right to liberty when he committed his crime. Iraq forfeited a degree of sovereignty when it committed its crime.

Hardly. Your version of events is the typical mythology that's arisen about Iraq for the past 12 years. What 'cooperation' would've satisfied you? Evidence of WMD which you're obviously convinced they had despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary?

How about not lying about things? They unquestionably lied. I'll repeat a post form the UN document I cited earlier:

70. The biological weapons area is a revealing example of these facts. For half of the eight-year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no biological weapons programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.

They were LYING! I am stupefied that people like you can read statements like this, which make it quite clear the Iraqis were not being honest, and then sit there and and say "we have no proof they weren't complying."

The Iraqis gave the UN a story about its bioweapons. When it became clear to them that the UN wasn't buying this anymore, they changed their story to something else that international experts on "multiple occasions" would also not believe or could not verify.

THEY WERE LYING!

Also, how about being forthcoming when asked to provide information? another line from that same document makes it clear that Iraq never fully disclosed information on its VX weapons. Again I remind you that this is a UN not a US document. And it makes it quite clear that Iraqis were not being as cooperative as they needed to be.

You ask what standard of proof would satisfy me. Simple. Not lying about things. Not witholding information. Things like that.

Ah yes, the inevitable trite comparison to WW2 rears its ugly head. What a high opinion you have of your self interested little jaunt into a region that despises you.

Yes, I'm sure the majority of Iraqis would love to have Saddam back. I'm sure the majority of the Iraqis just hate our guts for ending his hold over them.

I'm utterly unconvinced that any real effort will be made to give the Iraqi people a better life, just different overlords- as long as they follow orders, of course. Like previous scum the US has propped up or supported in the past.

Would that include the post-WWII governments of Italy, Germany, and Japan? Yeah, they really turned out to be a pack of bloodthirsty tyrants, unwaveringly marching to the beat of the American drum.

You may get your version of history from Ann Coulter, but I suffer no such delusions.

Fuck off smegbreath. I have, as a matter of fact, been quite critical of Ann Coulter for a long time, and have even posted messages to that effect on other threads on this board.

Neither Savage nor Coulter is beloved of me or of many other conservatives, nice blanket generalization.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... ter#530475

And I'd hardly take Ann Coulter as typical of conservative commentators. Coulter is basically a female, conservative version of Michael Moore (albeit slimmer and not nearly as much of a slob). She has a tendency to engage in exactly the same kind of name calling she blasts the left for, and also a tendency to take extreme positions, and make hasty generalizations about liberals. Her recent defense of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and her recent charactization of a liberal political philosophy as basically treasonous is a perfect example. As a result, you have other conservative pundits like Andrew Sullivan and David Horowitz writing columns that basically say she's gone around the bend into crackpot conservatism, and whatver good points she does occasionally make get lost in all the extreme garbage she comes up with. I think they're absolutely right about that; she has gone around the bend.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... ter#614643

But of course, you couldn't be bothered to actually try and comprehend my actual outlook, viewpoint, whatever - it's far easier and more convenient for you to try and dismiss me as one of Coulter's disciples. Blow me.

So you're suggesting that the United States should emulate the ruthless tactics of an authoritarian state whoose existence was based on terror because of once incident where terrorists got cold feet?

Did I ever sugget we should go to that length? Funny, I don't think I did. I merely point to this as an example of how people will avoid screwing with you if make them think it will cost them too dear. And I am making that point to illustrate how, despite your snide dismissal of the idea, reputation and credibility most certainly have real world consequences.

Saddam felt safe in defying the U.S. because he felt we had gone soft.

And every country is obliged to follow your orders now?

After they've been defeated by us in a war they started? You damn betcha!

Yes, Emperor. Sorry, but you can keep your imperial delusions, I'll only accept the legimitacy of the use of force where self defense is imperative.

Then you are suffering from something all to common in this day and age I fear - you are like many, many others who have exalted squeamishness, and made it out to be a virtue. I would point out that by that logic, France and Britain were absolutely right not to intervene against Germany before 1939. And before you squawk at me about comparing to WWII again, this comparison is exactly, 100%, right dead on the money. Britain did not have to go to war with Nazi Germany. Hitler made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that he did not want war with the British. Even after it began, he hoped to persuade them to negotiate a peace with him. Hitler was far too focused on his obsession with invading Russia. Hell, he even admired the British, and was quite willing to leave them alone. So for Britain, from a strictly self defense point of view, it was not imperative to fight Nazi Germany. And the doves in Britain in the 1930s made many of the same arguments you are using: "he's not a threat to us"; "we can't prove he's violating the terms of the Versailles Treaty"; "the Versailles Treaty wasn't legitimate; it's terms were too harsh and the Germans have a right to defend their sovereignty" etc. etc.

People like you haven't learned from history, and you are determined to repeat its mistakes.

As I said earlier, they saw us as the U.S. that ran out of Vietnam when it got too tough, that ran out of Lebanon when a few of our marines got killed, that ran out of Somalia when just 18 of our soldiers got killed. The U.S. with no stomach for a fight. The U.S. that had plenty of high-tech weapons and no courage. The U.S. that will fire off a few cruise missiles, but won't risk shedding precious blood. Listen to Osama Bin Laden’s rants. That's exactly how he saw us, and there's no denying it.

So attacking Iraq was the perfect placebo for such action eh? Funny, last I heard you had no evidence for showing that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. If this was an argument about Afghanistan (you know, that shithole you've tossed to the wolves?), you might have a point.

Thank you for completely missing the point. Once again, it goes back to credibility and reputation. In the Arab world, only resolve is respected. Outrage can be generated against America by portraying America to the Arab masses as a bully. But to physically attack America (as happened on 9/11), or American interests abroad (as in the cases of the embassy bombings and the USS Cole), requires that America also be depicted as weak and vulnerable.

Acts of terrorism are encouraged by the belief that America is essentially weak, vulnerable, and capable of being brought to its knees by a high body-bag count before it has achieved its strategic objectives. It has been this perceived “softness” that has encouraged terrorists like al Qaeda and rogue nations like Iraq, Iran and Syria to act against America and American interests abroad. In the Middle Eastern mindset, it is fatal for any nation to be perceived as weak and vulnerable. Far from attacking the United States because it is a “big bully,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others have urged attacks to prove that the United States was just a “paper tiger.”

Saddam Hussein also tried to persuade Arabs and Muslims of U.S. weakness. He interpreted U.S. efforts at conciliation as "proof" that Washington feared confronting him. By evincing no strong reaction to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, threats against Israel, outspoken anti-Americanism, or ultimatum to Kuwait, U.S. policy helped precipitate the first Gulf War. In a February 24, 1990, speech to an Arab summit, Saddam told Arabs that America feared military confrontations and losses. It had shown "signs of fatigue, frustration, and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon" when some marines were killed" by suicide bombers in 1983. Experience had shown, he concluded, that if Iraq acted boldly, the United States would do nothing - a classical example of "misperception leading to war". If the United States' reputation and credibility (which you are so ready to sneer at as inconsequential), had stood higher, it is just possible that Hussein would never have gambled on war, and all those lives might ot hae been lost.

So despite your cavalier dismissal of the importance of a nation's credibility and reputation, I can assure you that the Arab world doesn't see it that way. Unfortunately, America has never considered how her actions (and reactions) are being perceived from the Arab perspective. The cultural differences between our societies allow the Arab world to see our efforts at "peace making" as "another aspect of weakness and vulnerability."

So what should Washington do in the face of this Arab "perception" problem?

Answer - forget friendly persuasion, concessions and written accords when dealing with terrorists and dictatorships like Iraq, Iran and Syria. Making concessions will only encourage further contempt for America and confirm the Arab perception of us as "cowards."

U.S. policymakers should understand that American public relations efforts, apologies, acts of appeasement, concessions, compromises resulting in "written agreements," attempts to build UN coalitions, or policy shifts will not do away with anti-American hatred. Only when the Arab regimes that manufacture and encourage this hatred are deposed will popular opinion change. Until then, promoting hatred of America will remain a necessary diversion for despots and dictators. Only when Arab women are empowered, only when the Arab masses are educated, and only when Arab society is democratized will changes come about.

In the interim, the United States must show steadfast support for its interests and its allies, and must be firm in following the Bush Doctrine. Our enemies must be convinced that democracy, while slow to anger is relentless when angered.

Sure, so if you just threw your weight around and killed a few people every now and then to enforce your imperial edicts, you could guard against the potential future crimes of others through fear. I understand perfectly. Never mind that you're probably just the type of person to refuse to accept any responsibility for WHY the US is attacked. Let me guess: they just hate freedom, right? Does the word 'vicious cycle' mean anythign to you?

See above

How about not obstructing the inspectors to the point where they could no longer do their jobs at all, and left the country. So what if it was Butler who ordered them out?

Because they were exceeding their mandate and performing illegal espionage. Keep leaving that part out.

As I said, they may take their case to the world and the UN, but as the vanquished in an aggressive war they started, they do not get the option of categorical non-compliance. If they try it, they get slapped down. That's the price they pay.

Actually, it'd be more likely that was exactly what the US intended when it tried that moron stunt. The Iraqis had been cooperating up to 1998 (not without whining about it, obviously), and oh, I suppose it's just *coincidence* that they stop cooperating when they find out the US has seeded the team with spies eh?

"had been cooperating up to 1998"? I draw your attention, once again, to line 70 of that previously cited UN document. You remember? the one which states:

...For half of the eight-year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no biological weapons programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.

You do understand that this eight-year period refers to the time from the end of Gulf War I in '91 to '98? And according to the UN, during this eight-year period, when you say they were cooperating, the Iraqis were lying about their bioweapons program.

Yeah, right. They were cooperating up until 1998. Sure. Whatever.

Do you have ANY idea how many weapons the inspectors destroyed?

I don't care if they destroyed 99/100ths. They aren't allowed to have any. We were supposed to have full cooperation with the inspection teams so they could verify the destruction, and that's not what we got.

No, there's what you know.

No, there isn't. If you don't have evidence, you don't KNOW anything. The WMD scandal has proven that QUITE well.

Since it is still early days, I would say the jury is still out.

The war is over. Can you explain where this 'classified' intellignece is now? Your appeal to unknowable bullshit is lame.

You do remember (well, no, since you don't learn from history I guess you wouldn't), that Britain's WWII Ultra program remained classified into the 1970s?

Nevermind the fact that some of our intel could come from sources placed in other Arab governments, or other places where they might be in danger if revealed. The war's over, I guess that means everything has to be declassified immediately.

That's because it's not. I want to hear a good, credible explanation how, for 12 years the Iraqis can violate no less than 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and remain in material breach of disarmament obligations,

Justify your claim of material breach, since UNMOVIC never made any such claim.

Jesus H. Christ! Security council resolution 1441 flatly states:

...that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

and still be "cooperating". You haven't given me one.

Your 17 security council resolutions are irrelevant if they do not regard disarmament, which is what the issue of cooperation is about.

It's certainly what 1441 was about.

Now then, do explain where your claim of material breach comes from? Because for the life of me, I don't recall where any such declaration was made.

See above.

Axis Kast answered that for me.

And he's yet to provide a satsifactory answer to my criticsms of his false analogies.

False in what way. In Germany, as in Iraq, we were in nominal control of a defeated country, and we were looking for certain key materials, and trying to rebuild the country into a functioning state at the same time. Sounds like a pretty good analogy to me. In fact, In germany, in at least one respect, we had it easier, since there was not an ongoing guerrilla war keeping us tied up.

I
Which never would have been forthcoming, since the inspectors' success was contingent upon volunary cooperation from Saddam's regime, which they weren't getting.

Not in the opinion of the inspectors, sorry.

Would that be those same inspectors who delivered reports that made it clear Iraq was lying?

If the Iraqis unconvered spies, they still don't get to stop cooperating.

Yes, they do. The inspectors had a clear mandate and the US abused it. Too bad.

The Iraqis lost a war of their own making, and have to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms. Too bad.

As Brennus the Gaul said to the Romans in 395BC “Vae Victis!” They can protest in the security council, and take the matter to the court of world opinion. Maybe that would get them a satisfactory result, and maybe not - though there are plenty of nations opposed to the US in the UN who would have helped them apply diplomatic pressure. But they don't get to defy their obligations under the cease fire.

Ah, an appeal to authority of some dead Gaul. Impressive.

Not an appeal to authority, but an example of an age old principle which holds that the winning side dictates the terms.

Oh come off it. I am talking about the way international politics is played in the real world. Grow up little boy.

Translation: "I have no principles, and will merely smugly decalre 'that's the way things are' no matter how unethical, and then have the audacity to claim moral high ground".

There is a certain amount of machiavellianism in international relations. There always has been. There always will be. Your country will prosper far more if you face up to this simple fact of life. It may not be especially ethical, but that's the way it is. The world is what it is, not what you wish it to be. Engaging in wishful thinking is dangerous.

It is simply unrealistic to expect the US or any other nation not to seek to gather intelligence on an untrustworthy and tyrannical ruler such as Saddam Hussein.

Shouldn't have done it through the inspectors. Sorry. You were the ones dumb enough to get caught.

Getting caught, I'll grant you, was dumb. The attempt itself was inevitable.

You really know how to cherry pick your evidence and hope to God the other party doesn't have the sense to check the dates, huh? This was made just prior to the inspector's leaving, following Iraqi noncooperation after the spies were discovered, and was under the ambit of Richard Butler, the same patsy who agreed to violate his mandate in the first place and pull his inspectors out without even asking the Security Council.

I am well aware of the dates. And this document indicates a pattern of noncooperation going back several years.

Well, as you say, it’s your opinion – and one I don’t happen to share. We allow a certain extra amount of latitude in diplomacy, but when you get right down to it, you’re still dealing with people, so the same principles still apply. Come to that, when you deal with Saddam, you’re still dealing with a thug, so the same principles really apply.

Except that your actions do not apply to just one man, they apply to millions of people as well.

So principle is a matter of numbers? At what point does your perspective change? When a hundred people are affected? A thousand? A million?

[Perinquus]

Can we maybe get a moderator to clean up the extras? It's my own damn fault I know, but the thing kept timing out, and when I went back to check, it hadn't posted, which is why I tried again.

[Vympel]

Ok, summary time.

If you feel I've ignored one your arguments, say so.

Yeah, and you know what? After over a decade of violations and lack of cooperation, you have every right to say: "That's it. Enough is enough."

And you fall back to the UN. Unfortunately, if you feel that Iraq wasn't cooperating enough with the conditions the UN imposed on Iraq, then you must also admit that the UN has final authority over the matter. Nowhere did the UN authorize military conflict, nor did it abrogate it's authority and hand it to the US to exercise unilaterally. You can have it one way, or the other, you can't pick and choose.

They don't get that kind of consideration for their soverignty. They forfeited that consideration.

Not according to the UN. It's in the Security Council resolution. Which means everyone approved. Including the US.

How about not lying about things? They unquestionably lied. I'll repeat a post form the UN document I cited earlier:

You're talking about 1998! This is 2003! Do you know the difference between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC? Regardless, see below on your lying claim- it doesn't help the case at all- did they lie about at one time having biological weapons? Yes. Did they lie about having them at the time, or now? The evidence at this time indicates a resounding no. Your standard of lying isn't any meaningful standard that relates to what the US claimed, but one of "look what they did here!" whether it justifies action in 2003 or not.

They were LYING!

And this has what relation to UNMOVIC and 2003? That *is* the issue you know.

Yes, I'm sure the majority of Iraqis would love to have Saddam back. I'm sure the majority of the Iraqis just hate our guts for ending his hold over them.

They hate your guts for occupying them, in case you didn't notice, and wrecking the countries infrastructure, and in the latest development, appointing an entirely undemocratic 'council'.

Would that include the post-WWII governments of Italy, Germany, and Japan? Yeah, they really turned out to be a pack of bloodthirsty tyrants, unwaveringly marching to the beat of the American drum.

And what about Iran, Chile, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan for starters? They don't enter into it I suppose, even though they are of FAR more relevance?

But of course, you couldn't be bothered to actually try and comprehend my actual outlook, viewpoint, whatever - it's far easier and more convenient for you to try and dismiss me as one of Coulter's disciples. Blow me.

When you try and gloss over America's history of leg breaking and destroying democratic government out of expedience and/or advantage or abetting already existing repressive government, I call a spade a spade.

Did I ever sugget we should go to that length? Funny, I don't think I did. I merely point to this as an example of how people will avoid screwing with you if make them think it will cost them too dear. And I am making that point to illustrate how, despite your snide dismissal of the idea, reputation and credibility most certainly have real world consequences.

And you're wrong- you point to one example of Lebanese kidnappers being scared to death of the KGB. Did North Vietnam and the Viet Cong stop fighting the US because it cost them too dearly? Do the Chechens stop attacking the Russians because of the cost?

After they've been defeated by us in a war they started? You damn betcha!

Where did you compel their surrender? Where did you refuse to follow the resolutions of the Security Council of which the US is a member? History does not support your view, you're just pulling out justification after justification after the fact.

Then you are suffering from something all to common in this day and age I fear - you are like many, many others who have exalted squeamishness, and made it out to be a virtue. I would point out that by that logic, France and Britain were absolutely right not to intervene against Germany before 1939.

I was waiting for this one.

- The Allies had an alliance with Poland. Germany invaded a sovereign state, you 'smeghead'.

Furthermore, if you want to talk before 1939, GB and France did absolutely *nothing* to curtail Germany's building military and remilitarization of the Rhineland, unlike the UN and Iraq. The classic false dilemma from the pro war crowd- either you advocate war, or you are an appeaser and advocate nothing.

People like you haven't learned from history, and you are determined to repeat its mistakes.

And people like you haven't learnt logic and deploy blatant false dilemmas and analogies to shore up your position.

On credibility:

Your baseless assumptions of what the Arab world 'respects' are not borne out by the facts. In case you didn't notice, the Arabs DO INDEED think America is a bully precisely BECAUSE they now occupy Iraq- and they will keep on attacking you until you leave. You know that whenever Iraqis find out a US convoy is attacked, they cheer? That attacks have occured now in both the North, centre, and South? The Palestinians are Arabs. Are they impressed by Israeli resolve to keep on grinding them under foot? What did you think would happen? You've provided the greatest opportunity for the growth of terrorism than Osama could ever have DREAMED of.

So what should Washington do in the face of this Arab "perception" problem?

Answer - forget friendly persuasion, concessions and written accords when dealing with terrorists and dictatorships like Iraq, Iran and Syria

Who said I advocated any of that? Noone. I just don't think war is the answer, in any of those cases- they should be restrained internationally and incur punishment for not respecting human rights, etc. But attacking them when they haven't been proven to have attacked you? No.

"had been cooperating up to 1998"? I draw your attention, once again, to line 70 of that previously cited UN document.

The exact history of the matter is as follows:

Iraq did not declare any biological materials, weapons, research, or facilities in its initial declaration to UNSCOM in April 1991, and no biological stockpile was ever uncovered. UNSCOM focused initially on the major research and development site at Salman Pak (gutted and partially buried by Iraq shortly before the first inspection began) and later on the Al Hakam facility south of Baghdad (dismantled by UNSCOM June 20, 1996). In August 1991, Iraq admitted that it had a biological weapons research program. In July 1995, Iraq modified its admission by acknowledging it had an offensive biological weapons program and that it had produced 19,000 liters of botulinum, 8,400 liters of anthrax, and 2,000 liters of aflatoxin and clostridium. In August 1995, Iraq confessed to having produced 191 biological bombs, of which 25 were missile warheads, loaded with anthrax, botulinum, and aflatoxin for use in the Gulf war, but Iraq claims to have destroyed the bombs after the Gulf conflict. UNSCOM monitored 86 biological sites during 1994 -1998.

UNSCOM’s position was that Iraq’s biological declarations were not credible or verifiable. According to UNSCOM, Iraq imported a total of 34 tons of growth media for producing biological agents during the 1980s, of which 4 tons remain unaccounted for. generators for biological dissemination, as well as the fate of the biological munitions. In early April 2001, Iraq wrote to Secretary General Annan that it plans to refurbish the Doura laboratory, destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996 on the grounds it could be used for biological weapons. Iraq says it needs the plant to produce vaccines against foot and mouth disease.

As I pointed out, the referecne to "credible or verifiable" evidence is in all liklihood related to Iraq's policy of unilateral disarmament. Until you find their weapons and evidence of their biological weapons programs, that will remain the case. As you can see above, Iraq could not account for 4 tons of biological growth material- that doesn't automatically mean it was *hiding* it, or lying. You'll note again what Hussein Kemal said. In fact, the very document you provided cites Iraq's unilateral disarmament with disapproval. Stupid of Iraq, yes, but no proof of WMD.

In case you didn't notice, you'll see the above claim or Iraq's weapons that it had produced was repeated almost exactly by Dubya. Typical half truth: he neglected to mention Iraq had undoubtedly destroyed these *types* of weapons unilaterally, but in such a manner that the UN could not verify the amounts destroyed. As I mentioned previously.

I don't care if they destroyed 99/100ths. They aren't allowed to have any. We were supposed to have full cooperation with the inspection teams so they could verify the destruction, and that's not what we got.

That's what you got in 2002-2003, according to UNMOVIC, and prior to that there had already been evidence out there that Iraq had nevertheless been disarmed- including from Hussein Kemal, who insisted that the weapons were destroyed. This was withheld until recently, though that didn't stop them from citing his cataloging of Iraq's weapons but not noting his qualifier that it had been destroyed.

You do remember (well, no, since you don't learn from history I guess you wouldn't), that Britain's WWII Ultra program remained classified into the 1970s?

Nevermind the fact that some of our intel could come from sources placed in other Arab governments, or other places where they might be in danger if revealed. The war's over, I guess that means everything has to be declassified immediately.

When the publically provided information is shit you're damn right it should.

Jesus H. Christ! Security council resolution 1441 flatly states:

Hey: "since UNMOVIC never made any such claim."

Are you going to answer the question now? I should've read your wording more carefully, but "in breach of disarmament obligations" and "disarmed" are not the same thing.

And while you're relying on Resolution 1441, you know it doesn't authorize military action?

It's certainly what 1441 was about.

And it provides no authorization for military action. By all means, keep picking and choosing between unilateralism and the UN.

False in what way. In Germany, as in Iraq, we were in nominal control of a defeated country, and we were looking for certain key materials, and trying to rebuild the country into a functioning state at the same time. Sounds like a pretty good analogy to me.

Yeah just a brilliant analogy, tell me, was the war against Germany about WMD? Is the credibility of the US fixated on it's discovery? Do you have any evidence of the nature and extent of the effort to find WMD? No? Then both you and as usual Kast are wasting my time.

Would that be those same inspectors who delivered reports that made it clear Iraq was lying?

No, that would be UNMOVIC. You know, the one headed by the guy who wouldn't pander to US requests to violate it's mandate on Iraq?

t an appeal to authority, but an example of an age old principle which holds that the winning side dictates the terms.

Oh but they did! The UN clearly laid out the resolutions, and the US agreed. If you don't like that, then I'm afraid you're cherry picking.

There is a certain amount of machiavellianism in international relations. There always has been. There always will be. Your country will prosper far more if you face up to this simple fact of life. It may not be especially ethical, but that's the way it is. The world is what it is, not what you wish it to be. Engaging in wishful thinking is dangerous.

Appeal to tradition. The way things are is the way things are. It doesn't justify them.

So principle is a matter of numbers? At what point does your perspective change? When a hundred people are affected? A thousand? A million?

Yes. Would you advocate killing a criminal if one innocent person would have to die with him? I wouldn't.

Your experience as a cop doesn't apply. The laws of international relations are different from the laws governing individuals, necessarily, because they recognize the fact that nations are not individuals. They are governments, with collective responsibilities. However, they are still laws, and the good of the people within those countries still has to be considered by anyone with a shred of morality. Iraq did not attack the United States, it's allies, or any other countries in the region, and so it's population did not deserve to be invaded because it's dictator is a Very Bad Man. The laws governing the standards of behavior it was expected to follow are quite specific. None of them assigned the US a right to wage war.

So the war was illegal. So what. Not the same as if the war was the right thing to do. So was it the right thing to do? Not in my opinion, no, for the reasons I have already established.

I've laid it down on the record many times: I didn't care even if Iraq did have biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It did not attack the United States, had no motivation to attack the United States, was making no preparations to attack the United States, and didn't have the capability to attack the United States. Only the imminent threat of attack from Iraq could justify a preemptive war- not the suspicion that it might commit some future aggression, sometime, maybe.

However, the case Bush made, which was not in my opinion the right one, wasn't even satisfied. He presented awful evidence, claiming absolute knowledge, and you expect me to believe there's some secret, really good evidence, that they won't disclose, all the while why they reduce their burden of proof, backpedal, and stutter/try and change the subject when they get in Iraq and can't find anything, even though they put on airs of knowing exactly where the weapons would be? Right.

[Edi]

They don't get that kind of consideration for their soverignty. They forfeited that consideration. They had just lost an aggressive war of conquest. Don't squawk at me about their sovereignty. If you want others to respect your rights, you damn well better respect the rights of others. They showed no respect whatsover for the sovereignty of a smaller, weaker neighbor country. They initiated an aggressive war against that neighbor. They then lost that war when others came to Kuwait's rescue. As a consequence of losing that war, which started with their violation of another nation's sovereignty, they lose certain rights of their own, at least for a certain period.

Too bad the UN resolutions happen to explicitly disagree with you, especially #688. They'd been beaten down and kicked out of Kuwait, and in the aftermath when Gulf War was wrapped up, Iraq was reaffirmed as being a sovereign nation and that its territorial integrity was to be respected by all countries, including the US, which happened to also sign resolution 688. You can spin it whatever way you want until the heat death of the universe but it still won't change that fact and the fact that your assertion above was pulled out of your ass and is just wishful thinking and an attempt at using smoke and mirrors to confuse those who disagree with you. Doesn't work.

You might as well be standing up for an escaped criminal, or one who's resisting arrest, claiming he's just defending his right to liberty. Well he foreited that right to liberty when he committed his crime. Iraq forfeited a degree of sovereignty when it committed its crime.

False analogy. With resolution 688, Iraq's right to sovereignty and territorial integrity was explicitly acknowledged. This means that the requirement for destruction of WMD and the damage and death incurred during the war to kick them out of Kuwait was determined to be sufficient punishment. Iraq's sovereignty was never stripped away even by implication and was expressly reaffirmed with resolution 688.

And every country is obliged to follow your orders now?

After they've been defeated by us in a war they started? You damn betcha!

Not when your country has explicitly reaffirmed their sovereignty, see resolution 688.

Yes, Emperor. Sorry, but you can keep your imperial delusions, I'll only accept the legimitacy of the use of force where self defense is imperative.

Then you are suffering from something all to common in this day and age I fear - you are like many, many others who have exalted squeamishness, and made it out to be a virtue. I would point out that by that logic, France and Britain were absolutely right not to intervene against Germany before 1939.

You might have a point here if you weren't omitting facts.

And before you squawk at me about comparing to WWII again, this comparison is exactly, 100%, right dead on the money. Britain did not have to go to war with Nazi Germany. Hitler made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that he did not want war with the British. Even after it began, he hoped to persuade them to negotiate a peace with him. Hitler was far too focused on his obsession with invading Russia. Hell, he even admired the British, and was quite willing to leave them alone. So for Britain, from a strictly self defense point of view, it was not imperative to fight Nazi Germany.

Hitler's wants were rather immaterial. The UK had a formal alliance with poland that required them to come to Poland's aid in case it was attacked by another country, which left the British no option but to declare war on Germany if they wanted their word to be worth a damn, and at the same time there was the self-defense/defense of others against aggression justification at the same time: Hitler had invaded Poland without provocation. You've brought up a perfect analogy to the First Gulf War: A powerful nation going to war against another one who had invaded and conquered a weaker nation without provocation.

And the doves in Britain in the 1930s made many of the same arguments you are using: "he's not a threat to us"; "we can't prove he's violating the terms of the Versailles Treaty"; "the Versailles Treaty wasn't legitimate; it's terms were too harsh and the Germans have a right to defend their sovereignty" etc. etc.

And right up until the 1939 invasion of Poland those arguments were quite valid. You can stop with the bullshit now.

People like you haven't learned from history, and you are determined to repeat its mistakes.

Based on your omission of facts, we seem to have read it better than you have, and aren't spinning it to try and justify something that is an entirely different issue.

As I said earlier, they saw us as the U.S. that ran out of Vietnam when it got too tough, that ran out of Lebanon when a few of our marines got killed, that ran out of Somalia when just 18 of our soldiers got killed. The U.S. with no stomach for a fight. The U.S. that had plenty of high-tech weapons and no courage. The U.S. that will fire off a few cruise missiles, but won't risk shedding precious blood. Listen to Osama Bin Laden’s rants. That's exactly how he saw us, and there's no denying it.

So attacking Iraq was the perfect placebo for such action eh? Funny, last I heard you had no evidence for showing that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. If this was an argument about Afghanistan (you know, that shithole you've tossed to the wolves?), you might have a point.

Thank you for completely missing the point. Once again, it goes back to credibility and reputation. In the Arab world, only resolve is respected. Outrage can be generated against America by portraying America to the Arab masses as a bully. But to physically attack America (as happened on 9/11), or American interests abroad (as in the cases of the embassy bombings and the USS Cole), requires that America also be depicted as weak and vulnerable.

The US had no business in Vietnam in the first place, so I don't see how Vietnam is in any way relevant here, but if you want to talk about perception of US weakness, Somalia is a good example. If you're intending to go in with great fanfare and instantly back out when a few soldiers get killed (43 or 44 total, with 18 in the BH Down incident), how else is your country's population as a whole to be evaluated? Well, 9/11 happened for that and other reasons, but you showed in Afghanistan that if anybody strikes at you, you'll hit back. That message was heard loud and clear. And you got near-unanimous support for your war there. The problem with Iraq is that the US started making noises about removal of Saddam and turned it into a matter of face when it was not necessary to do so in the first place. Any damage to US credibility resulting from that is completely of its own making, only you managed to pick a really bad alternative, as you shot down your credibility in the eyes of your allies, after you'd already reestablished it with your enemies in Afghanistan. Real fucking smart move.

Acts of terrorism are encouraged by the belief that America is essentially weak, vulnerable, and capable of being brought to its knees by a high body-bag count before it has achieved its strategic objectives.

Through whose fault? You pulled out of Somalia before strategic objectives were achieved, after a frankly pathetic performance.

It has been this perceived “softness” that has encouraged terrorists like al Qaeda and rogue nations like Iraq, Iran and Syria to act against America and American interests abroad. In the Middle Eastern mindset, it is fatal for any nation to be perceived as weak and vulnerable. Far from attacking the United States because it is a “big bully,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others have urged attacks to prove that the United States was just a “paper tiger.”

And Afghanistan failed to dispell that myth how? Why was the Iraq war needed for US credibility? Would that be because the Bush Administration turned it into a credibility issue and matter of face through their own warmonegring?

Saddam Hussein also tried to persuade Arabs and Muslims of U.S. weakness. He interpreted U.S. efforts at conciliation as "proof" that Washington feared confronting him. By evincing no strong reaction to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds,

You were allies of convenience with him at that point, so you might as well stop rewriting history.

threats against Israel, outspoken anti-Americanism, or ultimatum to Kuwait, U.S. policy helped precipitate the first Gulf War. In a February 24, 1990, speech to an Arab summit, Saddam told Arabs that America feared military confrontations and losses. It had shown "signs of fatigue, frustration, and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon" when some marines were killed" by suicide bombers in 1983. Experience had shown, he concluded, that if Iraq acted boldly, the United States would do nothing - a classical example of "misperception leading to war". If the United States' reputation and credibility (which you are so ready to sneer at as inconsequential), had stood higher, it is just possible that Hussein would never have gambled on war, and all those lives might ot hae been lost.

So, Saddam made a miscalculation in 1990 and had his army brought down around his ears and kicked out of Kuwait. Should have been quite sufficient to reestablish US credibility in that regard. Why the fuck was Gulf War II needed with regard to credibility, especially with the Afghanistan campaign behind only a year before?

So despite your cavalier dismissal of the importance of a nation's credibility and reputation, I can assure you that the Arab world doesn't see it that way. Unfortunately, America has never considered how her actions (and reactions) are being perceived from the Arab perspective.

Seems like the US often doesn't consider its actions and reactions from any other perspective but the one of its current Administration.

The cultural differences between our societies allow the Arab world to see our efforts at "peace making" as "another aspect of weakness and vulnerability."

So what should Washington do in the face of this Arab "perception" problem?

Are you still arguing, after the examples of Gulf War I and Afghanistan that there is a perception that the US won't smack down those who attack it or its allies? Just how delusional are you?

Answer - forget friendly persuasion, concessions and written accords when dealing with terrorists and dictatorships like Iraq, Iran and Syria. Making concessions will only encourage further contempt for America and confirm the Arab perception of us as "cowards."

It might help if the US wasn't swinging the stick all the time and acting like a bully and threatening war, there wouldn't be a need for the Arab leaders to necessarily bluster so much to retain their credibility in the eyes of their own people. You're encouraging them to go that way. Isolate and ignore has worked with NK and they're starving in the dark. Syria after Hafez Assad is pretty much a nonentity in several respects and certainly nothing of a threat, but still the US almost precipitated another political crisis by excessive saber-rattling. If you used a little bit more of silk gloves with a clearly perceptible iron fist inside, it might help more than publicly drawing the saber and yelling until you're red in the face. When you do the latter, the other guy must follow suit to retain his credibility and it becomes a matter of face. It's fucking stupid and childish.

U.S. policymakers should understand that American public relations efforts, apologies, acts of appeasement, concessions, compromises resulting in "written agreements," attempts to build UN coalitions, or policy shifts will not do away with anti-American hatred.

No, that sort of empty gestures won't. Maybe a shift in foreign policy would help?

Only when the Arab regimes that manufacture and encourage this hatred are deposed will popular opinion change. Until then, promoting hatred of America will remain a necessary diversion for despots and dictators. Only when Arab women are empowered, only when the Arab masses are educated, and only when Arab society is democratized will changes come about.

Yes, so why not shift foreign policy so that you don't provide such a convenient lightning rod for their frustration? If you keep pushing them around and kicking them down one after another, it'll just make the problem worse.

In the interim, the United States must show steadfast support for its interests and its allies, and must be firm in following the Bush Doctrine. Our enemies must be convinced that democracy, while slow to anger is relentless when angered.

There's already ample enough evidence of US relentlessness, but it's going to mean fuck-all if you continue with the present foreign policy of saber-rattling. You talk about steadfastly supporting allies even when doing exactly that runs directly counter to US interests (e.g support of Israel) and makes problems worse. Israel already behaves like a bully and your helping them only makes you appear more of one than otherwise.

Sure, so if you just threw your weight around and killed a few people every now and then to enforce your imperial edicts, you could guard against the potential future crimes of others through fear. I understand perfectly. Never mind that you're probably just the type of person to refuse to accept any responsibility for WHY the US is attacked. Let me guess: they just hate freedom, right? Does the word 'vicious cycle' mean anythign to you?

See above

Why don't you take your own advice and reread what I just wrote?

As I said, they may take their case to the world and the UN, but as the vanquished in an aggressive war they started, they do not get the option of categorical non-compliance. If they try it, they get slapped down. That's the price they pay.

So, after the US affirms Iraq's sovereignty and right to territorial integrity, as per resolution 688, it is still free to violate those very same things as it sees fit because it won the Gulf War? Nope, still doesn't fly.

I don't care if they destroyed 99/100ths. They aren't allowed to have any. We were supposed to have full cooperation with the inspection teams so they could verify the destruction, and that's not what we got.

So you're justified in starting another war to destroy that 100th part of the previous amount of weapons, when you don't even have evidence that they actually have that 100th part? Ooh, yeah, that's sound reasoning right there.

If the Iraqis unconvered spies, they still don't get to stop cooperating.

Yes, they do. The inspectors had a clear mandate and the US abused it. Too bad.

The Iraqis lost a war of their own making, and have to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms. Too bad.

Yes, they lost the war, and the inspections regime was under strict guidelines on what they could and could not do, and since the US fucked that up, they were quite justified in ceasing cooperation. They'd already submitted to restrictions on their freedoms, but US abuse of the inspections mandate nullifies any claims it might have had in that regard.

Not an appeal to authority, but an example of an age old principle which holds that the winning side dictates the terms.

Yes, and the winning side, the US led coalition under a UN mandate dictated the terms after the war, and Iraq complied. Reluctantly, but it complied. That the US sought to extend those terms beyond their scope after already having accepted and signed off on them is not my problem, but it's a big problem for you when you try to justify it.

Oh come off it. I am talking about the way international politics is played in the real world. Grow up little boy.

Translation: "I have no principles, and will merely smugly decalre 'that's the way things are' no matter how unethical, and then have the audacity to claim moral high ground".

There is a certain amount of machiavellianism in international relations. There always has been. There always will be. Your country will prosper far more if you face up to this simple fact of life. It may not be especially ethical, but that's the way it is. The world is what it is, not what you wish it to be. Engaging in wishful thinking is dangerous.

Concession accepted. You've tried to justify the US actions on ethical and legal grounds and dragged this shit along for an eternity, and now you just admitted that those had fuck-all to do with the real motives, which was furthering US self-ínterest.

It is simply unrealistic to expect the US or any other nation not to seek to gather intelligence on an untrustworthy and tyrannical ruler such as Saddam Hussein.

Shouldn't have done it through the inspectors. Sorry. You were the ones dumb enough to get caught.

Getting caught, I'll grant you, was dumb. The attempt itself was inevitable.

Which still does not make doing it through the inspectors justified as you tried to argue before.

Edi

[Perinquus]

And you fall back to the UN. Unfortunately, if you feel that Iraq wasn't cooperating enough with the conditions the UN imposed on Iraq, then you must also admit that the UN has final authority over the matter. Nowhere did the UN authorize military conflict, nor did it abrogate it's authority and hand it to the US to exercise unilaterally. You can have it one way, or the other, you can't pick and choose.

The whole idea of taking the matter to the UN was something I was not too keen on from the beginning. I think that where matters of our national security are concerned, giving the UN the potential abiltity to thwart us in our aims was a mistake. The only good that may come of it is that it shook the faith of the American people in that instution. As I said earlier, any organization that can give a country like Libya chairmanship of a human rights commission can only be taken so seriously.

Yet the fact that even this organization found considerable evidence of Iraqi non-cooperation is telling.

Not according to the UN. It's in the Security Council resolution. Which means everyone approved. Including the US.

The justification for the no-fly zones was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way. Again, this action stemmed from Iraqi crimes -- specifically a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north, both groups having peen previously targeted for atrocities by Saddam's regime. Once again, I maintain that the commission of crimes results in the forteiture of certain rights by the offending party. Are you really keen to take the opposite position -- that Iraqi soveriegnty must be respected at all costs, even if that gives them the ability to continue committing atrocities against all certain peoples? Interesting set of prioroties you have there.

How about not lying about things? They unquestionably lied. I'll repeat a post form the UN document I cited earlier:

You're talking about 1998! This is 2003! Do you know the difference between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC?

Yes, and I am aware that in 2000 UNMOVIC was still being barred from Iraq (more non-cooperation!). As I have maintained all along, you only put up with shit for so long before you say "enough is enough". If Saddam was trying to deceive the UN and was not cooperating fully immediately after one of the most stinging defeats in the annals of military history, it was not likely that time had causes him to moderate his position any.

And I remind you yet again that Bush never presented the Iraqi threat as immediate, but maintained that that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous warlord with a history of deception and crimes against humanity, and it would be far easier to deal with him now, while he was still weak, than to wait for him to grow strong again and more secure in his position. I think we had more than enough provocation to take that view.

They were LYING!

And this has what relation to UNMOVIC and 2003? That *is* the issue you know.

Not quite. The WMDs were used as a casus belli, but the real issue, and Geo. W. Bush made this clear from the beginning, was the long term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and the need to deal with him decisively now, since he would have to be removed eventually and that it would be better, more prudent, and in the end, less costly, to do it while he was sstill relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable.

They hate your guts for occupying them, in case you didn't notice, and wrecking the countries infrastructure, and in the latest development, appointing an entirely undemocratic 'council'.

Yes, they all hate us. I'm sure those Iraqis cheeiring Saddam's downfall and waving American flags at the conclusion of the war were secretly hoarding weapons with which to attack us.

Most of the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure was, in fact, done by Saddam's forces, not ours. And let's not forget, Iraq has intentionally placed military targets in civilian areas in an attempt to maximize civilian casualties.

You apparently chosen to hearkern exclusively to the negative reports of the reconstruction of Iraq, and ignore positive ones such as this:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... ts/774.htm

News about Iraqis welcoming American forces or cooperating with American forces are not is not as exciting as the other kind, so it has been given short shrift in the media. You are making one hell of a generalization in contending that all the Iraqis are preactically thirsting for yankee blood.

And what about Iran, Chile, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan for starters? They don't enter into it I suppose, even though they are of FAR more relevance?

Are they? We didn't occupy any of those countries following a war the way we did Italy, Germany, Japan. Our situation in Iraq is a closer parallel with our post-WWII occupations than with our relations with the countries you name.

When you try and gloss over America's history of leg breaking and destroying democratic government out of expedience and/or advantage or abetting already existing repressive government, I call a spade a spade.

I will concede that Saddam was a monster at least partly of American making, given that we supported him for a long time. But since we helped make that mess, you'd think people would be at least relieved we finally we cleaned it up. Apparently, America can do no right.

And you're wrong- you point to one example of Lebanese kidnappers being scared to death of the KGB. Did North Vietnam and the Viet Cong stop fighting the US because it cost them too dearly?

They might have, but Vo Nguyen Giap has set it down on record in his memoirs, that he and Ho Chi Minh took heart from the anti-American and anti-war movement in the West, particularly in America itself. He saw America losing the will to fight... which gets right back to that whole matter of resolve. Let the world perceive that you lack it, and potential enemies will be more willing to attack you, not less.

Do the Chechens stop attacking the Russians because of the cost?

Let thecost get high enough and they might. Many a rebellion in history had been crushed by force.

Where did you compel their surrender? Where did you refuse to follow the resolutions of the Security Council of which the US is a member? History does not support your view, you're just pulling out justification after justification after the fact.

I think our victory is a justification of enforcing the no-fly zones. The fact that we apparently lacked the will to take the hard line on it was out mistake. Once you have dictated certain terms, as we did when we told the Iraqis they couldn't fly the planes in certain zones, letting them get away with attacking our aircraft was a bad mistake. Letting them get away with that once again damaged our reputation, and convinced them we lacked resolve.

I was waiting for this one.

- The Allies had an alliance with Poland. Germany invaded a sovereign state, you 'smeghead'.

And Iraq invaded a sovereign state you idiot! Why are the Poles more deserving of help than the Kuwaitis? Or is it the issue of the alliance. Would you have said "hey, we don't have an alliance with the Kuwaitis. Fuck 'em then. They're on their own"?

And for that matter, what compelling interest did Britain have to enter into such an alliance against a nation that never intended to attack Britain. It was hardly necessary for Britain's self defense. If you are in favor of using force only in matters where self defense is imperative (your word), how do you justify entering into alliances with weaker nations that may draw you into fights that are not necessary for you to defend yourself?

Furthermore, if you want to talk before 1939, GB and France did absolutely *nothing* to curtail Germany's building military and remilitarization of the Rhineland, unlike the UN and Iraq. The classic false dilemma from the pro war crowd- either you advocate war, or you are an appeaser and advocate nothing.

Since those measures were apparently not enough to force Iraqi cooperation, even if they are not appeasing, they are certainly not helping to come up with a permanent solution to the problem.

On credibility:

Your baseless assumptions of what the Arab world 'respects' are not borne out by the facts.

Baseless assumptions? I go by explicit statements made by these people themselves. I listen to what they say about the United Staes, and what sort of force they perceive it to be. I listen to what a man like Osama bin Laden says before and after he carries out the bloodiest attack on US soil since the Civil War. I simply listen to what Saddam Hussein said about being able to invade Kuwait without worrying about US intervention, right before he goes and does just that. I simply listen to what they are saying, and take them seriously, and yet I'm making baseless assumptions. My god! Are you disconnected from reality or what?

In case you didn't notice, the Arabs DO INDEED think America is a bully precisely BECAUSE they now occupy Iraq- and they will keep on attacking you until you leave.

In case you didn't notice, there was hatred, and the percetion that we were a bully among Arabs BEFORE we occupied Iraq. How can it be because of our occupation of Iraq when it predated our occupation of Iraq?

There is such feeling among Arabs in large part because their own kleptocrat regimes have been successful in turning Arab resentment away from themselves and toward the US. As I said, let women be empowered, let people be educated, and those lands be democratized, and the situation will change. It will not be changed if we pussyfoot around with these little tinpot dictators.

It will take considerable time before these feelings can be changed, but until it is. Oderint dum metuant. "Let them hate so long as they fear."

You know that whenever Iraqis find out a US convoy is attacked, they cheer?

Yes, I'm sure all the Iraqis all over the country have completely forgotten how bad they had it under Saddam, and every last one of them is eager to see US soldiers lying dead in the dirt.

That attacks have occured now in both the North, centre, and South? The Palestinians are Arabs. Are they impressed by Israeli resolve to keep on grinding them under foot? What did you think would happen? You've provided the greatest opportunity for the growth of terrorism than Osama could ever have DREAMED of.

And yet we have not yet had any repeats of 9/11 have we?

Who said I advocated any of that? Noone. I just don't think war is the answer, in any of those cases- they should be restrained internationally and incur punishment for not respecting human rights, etc. But attacking them when they haven't been proven to have attacked you? No.

And just how do you purpose to do any of that? More to the point, has such a program led to the ending of terrorism anywhere? I repeat, the Nazis hadn't been proved to attack the British or the Americans up to a certain point either, yet it is accepted as common wisdom these days that it would have been far better to have put an end to the Hitlerian threat much earlier.

But people just like you would have been screaming: "He hasn't done anything to us! We have no right to do this!"

"had been cooperating up to 1998"? I draw your attention, once again, to line 70 of that previously cited UN document.

The exact history of the matter is as follows:...

snip

Yet I feel constrained to point out again that the document in question does not state that they simply failed to account for certain things satisfactorily, it makes it quite clear that they were engaing in deliberate deception.

Nevermind the fact that some of our intel could come from sources placed in other Arab governments, or other places where they might be in danger if revealed. The war's over, I guess that means everything has to be declassified immediately.

When the publically provided information is shit you're damn right it should.

I see, and if that exposes certain valuable sources, and they get killed, and if that blinds us for the next several years from an intelligence point of view, so what eh?

And while you're relying on Resolution 1441, you know it doesn't authorize military action?

So? We took on Iraq on our own hook (along with several other nations which joined us in the effort). We attempted to get UN support across the board, but did not succeed. But that doesn't mean we were about to let the UN approval, or lack thereof, prevent us from taking an action we felt to be in our own national interest. I, for one, think that means we have our prioroties in the right order.

Yeah just a brilliant analogy, tell me, was the war against Germany about WMD? Is the credibility of the US fixated on it's discovery? Do you have any evidence of the nature and extent of the effort to find WMD? No? Then both you and as usual Kast are wasting my time.

What, exactly, does any of that have to do with the main issue, which is the difficulty of combing an entire country, and a large one at that, for particular items that can be concealed in a few well chosen locations? Axis Kast drew the parallel to illustrate that even when you have large numbers of people looking for certain eagerly sought materials in a defeated, war torn country, over which you have at best partial control, and when the enemy apparently makes efforts to hide these things, it takes a good deal of time to find them. It may, in fact, take years. That was true in Germany in 1945; it is no less true in Iraq in 2003 merely because we used these items as a case for going to war. The objections you just raised are entirely irrelevant to that point.

There is a certain amount of machiavellianism in international relations. There always has been. There always will be. Your country will prosper far more if you face up to this simple fact of life. It may not be especially ethical, but that's the way it is. The world is what it is, not what you wish it to be. Engaging in wishful thinking is dangerous.

Appeal to tradition. The way things are is the way things are. It doesn't justify them.

And this changes the reality of the situation how, exactly?

Yes. Would you advocate killing a criminal if one innocent person would have to die with him? I wouldn't.

And if that criminal were a completely unrepentant murderer, and you were absolutely convinced that not killing him now would result in dozens or even scores or deaths farther down the line, what then? The choice is not so black and white as you make it out. The real world seldom is.

Your experience as a cop doesn't apply. The laws of international relations are different from the laws governing individuals, necessarily, because they recognize the fact that nations are not individuals.

They are still run by individuals, and sometimes the only way to bring these individuals to heel is to wage war on those countries and take them out by force. It's messy, and lots of innocent people get killed, but ultimately, it may often be for the greater good.

They are governments, with collective responsibilities. However, they are still laws. Iraq did not attack the United States, it's allies, or any other countries in the region, and so it's population did not deserve to be invaded because it's dictator is a Very Bad Man. The laws governing the standards of behavior it was expected to follow are quite specific. None of them assigned the US a right to wage war.

Nations have always, and will always wage wars to promote and protect their own national interests. The US is no different. Some of these wars will be well justified, as WWII or the Civil War, some will not, such as the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War. I think that given the long-term threat to Saddam, and the need to demonstrate a level of resolve that has been sadly lacking in recent decades, this one may just prevent futire wars if we play our cards right, and overall, was justified.

[Edi]

Not according to the UN. It's in the Security Council resolution. Which means everyone approved. Including the US.

The justification for the no-fly zones was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way. Again, this action stemmed from Iraqi crimes -- specifically a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north, both groups having peen previously targeted for atrocities by Saddam's regime. Once again, I maintain that the commission of crimes results in the forteiture of certain rights by the offending party. Are you really keen to take the opposite position -- that Iraqi soveriegnty must be respected at all costs, even if that gives them the ability to continue committing atrocities against all certain peoples? Interesting set of prioroties you have there.

False dilemma. You were trying to say earlier that the fact that Iraq firing on US planes that violate Iraqi sovereignty is somehow a casus belli, that it gave legal justification for war. It did not, and in fact US violation of Iraqi sovereignty by such bombing flights was a legitimate casus belli for them. That has no bearing on whether or not it was ethically correct to protect the Shi'ites and Kurds from massacres. Those two things are entirely separate questions, and if you want to address that issue on its own, we'll oblige. Yes, violating Iraqi sovereignty that way was legally wrong where international law is concerned, but it was ethically right. That something is legal doesn't necessarily make it ethically right and vice versa.

I was waiting for this one.

- The Allies had an alliance with Poland. Germany invaded a sovereign state, you 'smeghead'.

And Iraq invaded a sovereign state you idiot! Why are the Poles more deserving of help than the Kuwaitis? Or is it the issue of the alliance. Would you have said "hey, we don't have an alliance with the Kuwaitis. Fuck 'em then. They're on their own"?

Way to miss the point. Yes, Iraq invaded a sovereign state, and got kicked for it. Nobody is arguing that it was wrong to aid Kuwait. But the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is legally in the exactly same basket as the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

And for that matter, what compelling interest did Britain have to enter into such an alliance against a nation that never intended to attack Britain. It was hardly necessary for Britain's self defense. If you are in favor of using force only in matters where self defense is imperative (your word), how do you justify entering into alliances with weaker nations that may draw you into fights that are not necessary for you to defend yourself?

Are you going to nitpick around single words despite the context being eminently clear because you've had your argument and false analogies shot down? It isn't wrong to help someone defend themselves from unjustified aggression, and that's the case with Britain and Poland in 1939.

And while you're relying on Resolution 1441, you know it doesn't authorize military action?

So? We took on Iraq on our own hook (along with several other nations which joined us in the effort). We attempted to get UN support across the board, but did not succeed. But that doesn't mean we were about to let the UN approval, or lack thereof, prevent us from taking an action we felt to be in our own national interest. I, for one, think that means we have our prioroties in the right order.

Then you should just come out and say it right from the start instead of wasting everybody's time trying to trump up non-existent justifications for your country's actions.

Nations have always, and will always wage wars to promote and protect their own national interests. The US is no different. Some of these wars will be well justified, as WWII or the Civil War, some will not, such as the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War. I think that given the long-term threat to Saddam, and the need to demonstrate a level of resolve that has been sadly lacking in recent decades, this one may just prevent futire wars if we play our cards right, and overall, was justified.

Whether or not it was justified overall on that basis remains to be seen yet, but otherwise your statement is true.

Edi

[Vympel]

The whole idea of taking the matter to the UN was something I was not too keen on from the beginning. I think that where matters of our national security are concerned, giving the UN the potential abiltity to thwart us in our aims was a mistake. The only good that may come of it is that it shook the faith of the American people in that instution. As I said earlier, any organization that can give a country like Libya chairmanship of a human rights commission can only be taken so seriously.

Alright then, since you reject UN authority, why bother arguing the legal point? It's a waste of time.

Yet the fact that even this organization found considerable evidence of Iraqi non-cooperation is telling.

It was, at times, not satisfied with Iraqi cooperation, yet the preponderance of evidence is that UNSCOM succeeded in disarming Iraq, on top of Iraq's unilateral disarament.

The justification for the no-fly zones was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

That's a justification. It's not the justification (the one was the non Chapter VII resolution 688).

Again, this action stemmed from Iraqi crimes -- specifically a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north, both groups having peen previously targeted for atrocities by Saddam's regime.

I agree in principle with the no-fly zones, but the facts show that the US never took them seriously as a way to protect the population, and before they were established the US didn't care much at all (when the Shi'ites were told to rise up and were brutally smacked down). For example, the Kurds, while supposedly protected from Iraq, were still at the mercy of Turkish incursions.

Irrespective of my opinion, they cannot be used as a legal justification whatsoever.

Once again, I maintain that the commission of crimes results in the forteiture of certain rights by the offending party. Are you really keen to take the opposite position -- that Iraqi soveriegnty must be respected at all costs, even if that gives them the ability to continue committing atrocities against all certain peoples? Interesting set of prioroties you have there.

What did I say when we started? The war was blatantly illegal. The justifications held no legal weight. I respect the law- I'm training in it. And I don't like to see it abused in such a fashion. See what I said at the very end of my last reply.

Yes, and I am aware that in 2000 UNMOVIC was still being barred from Iraq (more non-cooperation!).

Because of the spying.

As I have maintained all along, you only put up with shit for so long before you say "enough is enough". If Saddam was trying to deceive the UN and was not cooperating fully immediately after one of the most stinging defeats in the annals of military history, it was not likely that time had causes him to moderate his position any.

Who said he should just be allowed to think it over? The reintroduction of inspectors in Iraq was done in the necessary way until the inspectors were sidelined, ignored, and the war was on anyway, no matter what the state of the evidence was.

And I remind you yet again that Bush never presented the Iraqi threat as immediate, but maintained that that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous warlord with a history of deception and crimes against humanity, and it would be far easier to deal with him now, while he was still weak, than to wait for him to grow strong again and more secure in his position. I think we had more than enough provocation to take that view.

He implicitly made that argument with numerous false and misleading statements: his cataloging of the weapons Iraq supposedly had, his citing the British intelligence with the 45 minute claim, his claim that Iraq had a 'growing fleet' of UAVs which would be used against the United States, etc. No imminent threat, after saying all that? Come on.

Not quite. The WMDs were used as a casus belli, but the real issue, and Geo. W. Bush made this clear from the beginning

Hogwash. The rhetoric before the war was a cacophony of IRAQ WILL BE DISARMED. He never made such a thing clear. Until after the war, when they can't find the weapons, all of a sudden there are all sorts of new reasons.

was the long term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and the need to deal with him decisively now, since he would have to be removed eventually and that it would be better, more prudent, and in the end, less costly, to do it while he was sstill relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable.

Funny, I didn't get the impresssion that Iraq was weak, isolated, or vulnerable from the administration's pronouncements. They continually claimed ties with terrorists and possession of WMD.

Yes, they all hate us. I'm sure those Iraqis cheeiring Saddam's downfall and waving American flags at the conclusion of the war were secretly hoarding weapons with which to attack us.

LOL! Would that be that famous statue screen with nothing but closeups?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baghdad.html



Pure stage-managing. Follow the link to Information Clearing House for pictures of the statue square both prior and after it was pulled down. No huge crowd.

Most of the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure was, in fact, done by Saddam's forces, not ours.

Oh, so it was Saddam's forces who knocked out Baghdad's power stations then?. The war caused the damage. The US started the war. The Iraqis don't care who did it, they just care that it's been done. Anyone who doesn't know of the destruction that results from war is being negligent.

And let's not forget, Iraq has intentionally placed military targets in civilian areas in an attempt to maximize civilian casualties.

Which is exactly what everyone knew was going to occur- though I don't see why you interpretation is the only one: forces often seek shelters in cities/towns to avoid vastly superior firepower. Did you expect the Iraqis to sit in the desert and be blasted to oblivion?

You apparently chosen to hearkern exclusively to the negative reports of the reconstruction of Iraq, and ignore positive ones such as this:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... ts/774.htm

News about Iraqis welcoming American forces or cooperating with American forces are not is not as exciting as the other kind, so it has been given short shrift in the media. You are making one hell of a generalization in contending that all the Iraqis are preactically thirsting for yankee blood.

I see the protests on the streets (by Shi'ites as well as Sunnis), the attacks on US forces and the response to them, and I decide. It's not all doom and gloom, but it's not good either.

Are they? We didn't occupy any of those countries following a war the way we did Italy, Germany, Japan. Our situation in Iraq is a closer parallel with our post-WWII occupations than with our relations with the countries you name.

Can you point to one post WW2 example where the US has encouraged democracy and the will of the people in relation to running their own affairs, rather than propping up a strongman who will do their bidding and protect their interests? That is what I'm afraid of. We've already seen indications that Iraqi self-rule will be held off for a long time, if it ever happens.

I will concede that Saddam was a monster at least partly of American making, given that we supported him for a long time. But since we helped make that mess, you'd think people would be at least relieved we finally we cleaned it up. Apparently, America can do no right.

Relieved at an invasion and occupation? Some clean up!

They might have, but Vo Nguyen Giap has set it down on record in his memoirs, that he and Ho Chi Minh took heart from the anti-American and anti-war movement in the West, particularly in America itself. He saw America losing the will to fight... which gets right back to that whole matter of resolve. Let the world perceive that you lack it, and potential enemies will be more willing to attack you, not less.

Who said they'd be less willing to attack? Not me. I don't think that resolve is relevant at all. As far as Vietnam is concerned, a 'stab in the back myth' roughly the same as the one Hitler exploited after the defeat in WW1 has propagated itself ever since that fiasco- it's the population's fault, the media's fault, the anti-american's fault, anything but pure guerilla war defeat. The Vietnamese fought a battle of attrition against American forces and won- taking heart from the anti-war movement is not the same as getting victory from it- like the Germans after WW1, a point of view has arisen where it's just oh, if we had just fought a little longer, a little harder, been a little more tough, etc etc, we would've won- and in your case, that the Vietnamese may have stopped opposing you. America inflicted a litany of horrors on Vietnam, and had no business there in the first place. They were in perpetual war for their own country since the 50s- they wouldn't have stopped fighting even if support for the war had been unanimous.

Let thecost get high enough and they might. Many a rebellion in history had been crushed by force.

I'd think that having the money to rebuild Chechnya and work with them rather than against them would be more productive- it has been, at least, for now, though the insurgency goes on. The point is, the Russians have been ruthless in their campaign since 1999, and the attacks go on. Chechnya is in ruins- how much more tough can it get?

I think our victory is a justification of enforcing the no-fly zones. The fact that we apparently lacked the will to take the hard line on it was out mistake. Once you have dictated certain terms, as we did when we told the Iraqis they couldn't fly the planes in certain zones, letting them get away with attacking our aircraft was a bad mistake. Letting them get away with that once again damaged our reputation, and convinced them we lacked resolve.

What would you do? Invade over the issue?

And Iraq invaded a sovereign state you idiot! Why are the Poles more deserving of help than the Kuwaitis? Or is it the issue of the alliance. Would you have said "hey, we don't have an alliance with the Kuwaitis. Fuck 'em then. They're on their own"?

Are you stupid? THEY WERE KICKED OUT OF KUWAIT! HELLO, MCFLY!!!! THIS IS 2003, NOT 1990! THE CAMPAIGN TO EJECT THEM OUT WAS JUSTIFIED!

And for that matter, what compelling interest did Britain have to enter into such an alliance against a nation that never intended to attack Britain. It was hardly necessary for Britain's self defense. If you are in favor of using force only in matters where self defense is imperative (your word), how do you justify entering into alliances with weaker nations that may draw you into fights that are not necessary for you to defend yourself?

Because the 'German problem' had been rightly identified ever since Germany unified. Germany has always been too strong for any single European country to stop but too weak to overcome them all. Hence the alliance system. Germany invaded a sovereign state. It got war. And rightly so.

Since those measures were apparently not enough to force Iraqi cooperation, even if they are not appeasing, they are certainly not helping to come up with a permanent solution to the problem.

Iraq remained cowed and unambitious ever since the end of the Gulf War. Desert Storm and the subsequent resolution regime served it's purpose PERFECTLY. Iraq didn't rattle any sabres- and was never as strong as it was in 1991 ever again.

Baseless assumptions? I go by explicit statements made by these people themselves. I listen to what they say about the United Staes, and what sort of force they perceive it to be. I listen to what a man like Osama bin Laden says before and after he carries out the bloodiest attack on US soil since the Civil War. I simply listen to what Saddam Hussein said about being able to invade Kuwait without worrying about US intervention, right before he goes and does just that. I simply listen to what they are saying, and take them seriously, and yet I'm making baseless assumptions. My god! Are you disconnected from reality or what?

Explain why Al-Qaeda continues to attack you after the demonstration in Afghanistan, then? You do know they still attack, right?

In case you didn't notice, there was hatred, and the percetion that we were a bully among Arabs BEFORE we occupied Iraq. How can it be because of our occupation of Iraq when it predated our occupation of Iraq?

I didn't say it was, I said you just affirmed what they all thought.

There is such feeling among Arabs in large part because their own kleptocrat regimes have been successful in turning Arab resentment away from themselves and toward the US. As I said, let women be empowered, let people be educated, and those lands be democratized, and the situation will change. It will not be changed if we pussyfoot around with these little tinpot dictators.

Ah, so bringing in democracy at the point of a gun is the only solution. What do you suggest, make colonies out of all the unsavory regimes in the Middle East? Have them turn into post-colonial shit holes like Africa, have them resent you more?

It will take considerable time before these feelings can be changed, but until it is. Oderint dum metuant. "Let them hate so long as they fear."

I see we have a disciple of Duchess on our hands.

Yes, I'm sure all the Iraqis all over the country have completely forgotten how bad they had it under Saddam, and every last one of them is eager to see US soldiers lying dead in the dirt.

Strawman.

And yet we have not yet had any repeats of 9/11 have we?

Nice dodge of the point. Explain the Palestinians. When will their attitudes change? Hasn't Israel been feared enough? Is that what's needed, a little more fear? A little more fucking over of the Palestinian Authority? A few more Hellfires? Just a little more? Smells like Vietnam- gotta destroy the village to save it and all that.

Regarding 9/11- you haven't had a repeat *yet*. Al-Qaeda still exists and still attacks. That is fact. You think Osama and his followers were so awed by your assisting their terrorist recruting drive in Iraq they've stopped? Please.

And just how do you purpose to do any of that? More to the point, has such a program led to the ending of terrorism anywhere?

Stop baiting and switching. You go from Iraq which is a country to terrorists which are a non-state organization with no home base.

Also, where has terrorism ended anywhere ... period?

I repeat, the Nazis hadn't been proved to attack the British or the Americans up to a certain point either, yet it is accepted as common wisdom these days that it would have been far better to have put an end to the Hitlerian threat much earlier. But people just like you would have been screaming: "He hasn't done anything to us! We have no right to do this!"

Merely marching into the Rhineland to meet the contingent being sent would've been enough- the facts of that situation are quite clear- as well as the territorial demands against Czechoslovakia. You know having some balls in the face of AGRESSION? Like what happened to Iraq in 1991? Keep using the false dilemma and outright false analogies- it's either absolute war, or nothing, right?

Yet I feel constrained to point out again that the document in question does not state that they simply failed to account for certain things satisfactorily, it makes it quite clear that they were engaing in deliberate deception

That's what the facts state too. You ignored what I said, however. Go back and read it again.

I see, and if that exposes certain valuable sources, and they get killed, and if that blinds us for the next several years from an intelligence point of view, so what eh?

Ah yes, certain valuable intelligence sources relating to Iraq will be killed even though the war has been won- or better yet, you propose the outrageous idea that other countries had information on Iraq but if you offer up evidence of WMD from *them* they'll be killed by ... who now? Stop flailing in the dark, it's really sad- by the way, can you point out where the US has claimed such a reason in the aftermath of the war and the embarassing lack of weapons?

So? We took on Iraq on our own hook (along with several other nations which joined us in the effort). We attempted to get UN support across the board, but did not succeed. But that doesn't mean we were about to let the UN approval, or lack thereof, prevent us from taking an action we felt to be in our own national interest. I, for one, think that means we have our prioroties in the right order.

It makes it illegal, not necessarily wrong.

What, exactly, does any of that have to do with the main issue, which is the difficulty of combing an entire country, and a large one at that, for particular items that can be concealed in a few well chosen locations?

Not the main issue whatsoever. I repeat: provide evidence of this claim, and the criteria I laid out. The nature of the 'particular items', the country in question, the people doing the searching, the credibility invested in the search, and whether it was the casus belli are all valid questions.

Axis Kast drew the parallel to illustrate that even when you have large numbers of people

I don't see any evidence of an inspection effort in post war Germany looking for WMD.

looking for certain eagerly sought materials in a defeated, war torn country, over which you have at best partial control, and when the enemy apparently makes efforts to hide these things, it takes a good deal of time to find them. It may, in fact, take years. That was true in Germany in 1945; it is no less true in Iraq in 2003 merely because we used these items as a case for going to war. The objections you just raised are entirely irrelevant to that point.

Saying their irrelevant doesn't make it so. You've provided zero reasoning for why the analogy is remotely useful.

And furthermore- Iraq has been inspected for 7 1/2 years. Not 6 months.

And this changes the reality of the situation how, exactly?

We are talking about JUSTIFICATION, you know, not "how things are". You made an appeal to tradition/

And if that criminal were a completely unrepentant murderer, and you were absolutely convinced that not killing him now would result in dozens or even scores or deaths farther down the line, what then? The choice is not so black and white as you make it out. The real world seldom is.

No, it's not so black and white. Which is why I'm against it.

They are still run by individuals, and sometimes the only way to bring these individuals to heel is to wage war on those countries and take them out by force. It's messy, and lots of innocent people get killed, but ultimately, it may often be for the greater good.

I will not make that decision. Especially when I know the real motivation is obviously nothing to do with the greater good, which is being used as a cynical cover for self interest. Tainted purpose= tainted execution.

Nations have always, and will always wage wars to promote and protect their own national interests. The US is no different.Some of these wars will be well justified, as WWII or the Civil War, some will not, such as the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War. I think that given the long-term threat to Saddam, and the need to demonstrate a level of resolve that has been sadly lacking in recent decades, this one may just prevent futire wars if we play our cards right, and overall, was justified.

We'll see then.

[Perinquus]

False dilemma. You were trying to say earlier that the fact that Iraq firing on US planes that violate Iraqi sovereignty is somehow a casus belli, that it gave legal justification for war. It did not, and in fact US violation of Iraqi sovereignty by such bombing flights was a legitimate casus belli for them. That has no bearing on whether or not it was ethically correct to protect the Shi'ites and Kurds from massacres. Those two things are entirely separate questions, and if you want to address that issue on its own, we'll oblige. Yes, violating Iraqi sovereignty that way was legally wrong where international law is concerned, but it was ethically right. That something is legal doesn't necessarily make it ethically right and vice versa.

Conceding for the moment that the grounds for the no-fly zone may be legally shaky, if it is ethically necessary (as even you concede), then a nation cannot endlessly brook defiance of this effort. Thus you have a casus belli of sorts.

Way to miss the point. Yes, Iraq invaded a sovereign state, and got kicked for it. Nobody is arguing that it was wrong to aid Kuwait. But the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is legally in the exactly same basket as the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

I am not ready to concede that point, given that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a naked land and resource grab, with Iraq intending to annex Kuwait. Only in the most fevered dreams of the hate-America crowd are we being portrayed as about to annex our new province of Iraq.

Are you going to nitpick around single words despite the context being eminently clear because you've had your argument and false analogies shot down? It isn't wrong to help someone defend themselves from unjustified aggression, and that's the case with Britain and Poland in 1939.

He's the one who defined self defense as the sine qua non of the justification to use military force. I'm merely pointing out that that particular justification was not there for Britain in 1939. They used another reason as the justification for going to war - one that required them to fight for something other than self defense, and which required them to take a longer view of the threat posed by Hitler.

[Edi]

Way to miss the point. Yes, Iraq invaded a sovereign state, and got kicked for it. Nobody is arguing that it was wrong to aid Kuwait. But the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is legally in the exactly same basket as the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

I am not ready to concede that point, given that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a naked land and resource grab, with Iraq intending to annex Kuwait. Only in the most fevered dreams of the hate-America crowd are we being portrayed as about to annex our new province of Iraq.

I'm not suggesting that America is intending to permanently annex Iraq or anything that stupid, but the legal basis for the war is exactly the same as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, i.e. non-existent. This is much the same as somebody stealing bread because he needs to eat but doesn't want to pay for it and another person stealing the bread because he too needs to eat but can't afford it. Both are theft where the law is concerned, though nobody is going to suggest that the motive was the same.

Are you going to nitpick around single words despite the context being eminently clear because you've had your argument and false analogies shot down? It isn't wrong to help someone defend themselves from unjustified aggression, and that's the case with Britain and Poland in 1939.

He's the one who defined self defense as the sine qua non of the justification to use military force. I'm merely pointing out that that particular justification was not there for Britain in 1939. They used another reason as the justification for going to war - one that required them to fight for something other than self defense, and which required them to take a longer view of the threat posed by Hitler.

I suppose so. Might be that Vympel has typically stated (e.g. in other threads) that defensive wars are justified, not limiting it to just self-defense. The context of what he's said has made it pretty clear to me what he thinks, even if he made a minor mistake.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

I see we have a disciple of Duchess on our hands.

Clinton didn’t apply to the principles of harsh retaliation and look where it brought us. Without a credible response to actions such as those taken against the U.S.S. Cole or on September 11, 2001, the United States does indeed send a dangerous message of complacency. Any dicking around the issue on Washington’s part is a liability to national security. Take, for example, the case of Afghanistan. No nation should assume themselves invulnerable to the consequences of sponsoring terrorism – and yet some did, born largely of carrot-and-stick politics courtesy of the Clinton White House.

I don't see any evidence of an inspection effort in post war Germany looking for WMD.

The United States sent military forces across occupied Germany in order to seek out hidden stockpiles of uranium and other superweapons not yet confiscated by Soviet authorities. It was indeed a hunt for nuclear material.

[Axis Kast]

Saying their irrelevant doesn't make it so. You've provided zero reasoning for why the analogy is remotely useful.

And furthermore- Iraq has been inspected for 7 1/2 years. Not 6 months.

There was a gap in inspections between 1998 and 2002, Vympel. The argument put forth by Perinquus is valid: in a country so large as Iraq, four months' searching by a force that isn't even in full control of the security situation in the capital city is insufficient by anything but the lowest of standards. You've denied other comparisons since day one, but you forget that countries such as South Africa were still under scrutiny themselves. The parallels might not be 100%, but they're certainly very relevant.

You've also skipped my request for a source for that "spy" claim of yours.

[Vympel]

There was a gap in inspections between 1998 and 2002, Vympel.

I know that. That's why I didn't say 12 years. Do you have any evidence of illict Iraqi activity in that four year gap? No. This is the part where you demand I prove there wasn't illicit activity, if I've gotten used to your inimitable style

The argument put forth by Perinquus is valid: in a country so large as Iraq, four months' searching

7 1/2 years searching.

You've also skipped my request for a source for that "spy" claim of yours.

Which request? What spy claim?

I'll just guess:

http://www.fair.org/extra/9903/unscom.html

[Vympel]

Reserves of equipment, oil, and other supplies considered vital to a “final stand” in Berlin or other points of high value throughout Germany.

Source. Answer my question.

And don’t give me that, “But we have satellites now!” bullshit. Those “eyes in the sky” aren’t very useful when we start talking about installations either enclosed or underground.

Actually, satellites are quite capable of detecting underground facilities through various means and their resolution only improves with time. Especially US satellites. Thanks for that idea.

The fact that the credibility of the Oval Office is riding on the discovery of WMD does not change the reality of the search. Allied forces combed Germany after the war, seeking uranium and other items (such as “superweapons”) wherever it might be found. Their investigation was at first equally as frantic.

Source please.

Our “liberation” of Iraq doesn’t equate to omnipotence. American forces occupy mere fractions of the country.

Yet they've searched all the top WMD sites they wanted to search, and are now saying they won't be able to find anything unless Iraqis come to them (ref: Rumsfeld in a backpedalling session).

The quality of the UN inspections remains dubious considering that they searched only a limited number of sites.

They searched all the sites they suspected, as well as ones provided to them by US intelligence, which they called 'rubbish'.

From FAS.org:

“Beginning in 1975 two test shafts over 250 meters deep for conducting nuclear tests were drilled at the Vastrap military base in the Kalahari Desert. A Soviet surveillance satellite detected these test preparationss in August 1977, and the Soviets notified the US of their discovery. South Africa was forced to cancel the tests in the face of diplomatic pressure from America, the Soviet Union, and France.”

And ... Where's your evidence that African National Congress 'agents' were looking around for the Soviets on this matter? Where's the evidence the Soviets were looking for these nuclear test facilities? Like fuck, why do I even bother to address your BS if it's not even legitimate?

During this time there was an ongoing struggle in the country of Angola between Soviet proxies and the South African government. Allies of Moscow – from the Angolans themselves to organizations such as the ANC – were constantly at work across South Africa, feeding information to their handlers. It is also quite likely that the Soviets themselves devoted human intelligence resources to the region. This in addition to the fact that Soviet satellites or observers would have been covering military movements by the SADF on a regular basis in order to assist Cuban troops in the field.

Funny, this isn't in " marks. Is this classic Axis Kast(TM) speculation passed off as fact without a shred of evidence, or can this bunch of questionable suppositions even be referenced to a source?!

No, I want a reference to the “spies.”

More on the Blix issue once I dig up some relevant sources.

Provided above.

[Axis Kast]

I know that. That's why I didn't say 12 years. Do you have any evidence of illict Iraqi activity in that four year gap? No. This is the part where you demand I prove there wasn't illicit activity, if I've gotten used to your inimitable style.

That gap is rather pertinent, don’t you think? It’s difficult to justify the argument that Iraq had been the subject of inspection with a fine-tooth comb when Bush made the case for war after a four year lull in which no inspections were carried out on a régime whose history bled with non-compliance and obviation.

7 1/2 years searching.

Not consecutive and therefore subject to alteration. See above.

Source. Answer my question.

I need to speak to a third party about this.

Actually, satellites are quite capable of detecting underground facilities through various means and their resolution only improves with time. Especially US satellites. Thanks for that idea.

It’s not an exact science; the satellites aren’t always correct. Fooling the electronic sensors isn’t exactly the most difficult thing in the world, Vympel. You must admit: deviation and outright trickery are quite possible.

Source please.

The History Channel ran a short documentary on the subject of the search in Germany for stockpiles of Hitler’s uranium. Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of the race between the Allies and the Soviets to seize both scientists and jet engine prototypes.

Yet they've searched all the top WMD sites they wanted to search, and are now saying they won't be able to find anything unless Iraqis come to them (ref: Rumsfeld in a backpedalling session).

Many of those sites were obvious points of interest. It doesn’t mean that the search has been exhausted or that Saddam Hussein must have hidden them only in those locations.

There were over 1,000 sites slated for inspection. What source do you have saying they’ve all been checked already?

And ... Where's your evidence that African National Congress 'agents' were looking around for the Soviets on this matter? Where's the evidence the Soviets were looking for these nuclear test facilities? Like fuck, why do I even bother to address your BS if it's not even legitimate?

The African National Congress deployed spies in South Africa on a regular basis. To assume they didn’t feed data to their allies in Angola or Moscow on the topic of South African military movements is naive.

It’s not that the Soviets were seeking those facilities expressly – it’s that at a time when their satellites were tracking the SADF (to provide intel for Cuban forces in Angola), they managed to somehow miss the expansion of major nuclear test facilities.

Funny, this isn't in " marks. Is this classic Axis Kast(TM) speculation passed off as fact without a shred of evidence, or can this bunch of questionable suppositions even be referenced to a source?!

It’s common sense. Would you like to deny that you believe Soviet forces took satellite pictures of South African military installations? After all, satellites discovered the boreholes in 1977. Intelligence was obviously being collected.

[Vympel]

That gap is rather pertinent, don’t you think? It’s difficult to justify the argument that Iraq had been the subject of inspection with a fine-tooth comb when Bush made the case for war after a four year lull in which no inspections were carried out on a régime whose history bled with non-compliance and obviation.

Irrelevant. Can you show any evidence of illicit activity in that four year period, yes or no?

Not consecutive and therefore subject to alteration. See above.

You have to prove that. I can't believe I have to point out this obvious fact AFTER the war.

I need to speak to a third party about this.

Fine.

It’s not an exact science; the satellites aren’t always correct. Fooling the electronic sensors isn’t exactly the most difficult thing in the world, Vympel. You must admit: deviation and outright trickery are quite possible.

Possible, but not likely, especially in the case of US satellites going over Iraq with a fine tooth comb, combined with the inspectors on the ground for the better part of a decade- those inspections being the only ones who ever turned up and destroyed anything.

The History Channel ran a short documentary on the subject of the search in Germany for stockpiles of Hitler’s uranium. Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of the race between the Allies and the Soviets to seize both scientists and jet engine prototypes.

That was more during the final days of the war than five years after, obviously (borders not set, troops probably being ordered to take as much ground as possible in order to throw a wide net over as much German technology as possible etc).

Many of those sites were obvious points of interest. It doesn’t mean that the search has been exhausted or that Saddam Hussein must have hidden them only in those locations.

There were over 1,000 sites slated for inspection. What source do you have saying they’ve all been checked already?

CLoser to 900 sites. Of those, 1/3 were seen as having a real chance of having anything, these were all checked first. By April, these had been checked by the first teams, and then these teams went home, as you'll remember. Then some Iraq survey group consisting of over 1,000 people was sent in. Now the administration ums and ahs and hand waves and says they won't find anything unless Iraqis come forward with information? What does that tell you?

The African National Congress deployed spies in South Africa on a regular basis. To assume they didn’t feed data to their allies in Angola or Moscow on the topic of South African military movements is naive.

And these spies in an apartheid state would just be so well positioned to discover the existence of a South African nuclear program, right? How many spies? Over how long a period? How can you with a straight face even attempt to make such a ridiculous analogy between inspectors who can wherever they wish on whim and spies who may or may not have even been fucking looking for such a thing?

It’s not that the Soviets were seeking those facilities expressly

Boom, crash. Your analogy just fell around your head.

– it’s that at a time when their satellites were tracking the SADF (to provide intel for Cuban forces in Angola), they managed to somehow miss the expansion of major nuclear test facilities.

Duh. What do nuclear test facilities have to do with the disposition of SADF forces for the benefit of forces in Angola? The location of military installations are known, Kast. You don't need satellites to find them. It's obvious that them even seeing these boreholes was most likely pure coincidence. They weren't even looking specifically for anything of the sort.

It’s common sense.

No, you're desperately looking for an excuse to still argue "we might find some weapons" five or ten years from now by finding anything you can and going completely to town on it.

Would you like to deny that you believe Soviet forces took satellite pictures of South African military installations? After all, satellites discovered the boreholes in 1977. Intelligence was obviously being collected.

Of course intelligence was being collected, that's not the point. Your analogy stinks. You've taken a concerted decade long inspection effort by the entire United Nations with inspectors on the ground, satellite and spy plane overflights etc. etc. and tried to pretend it can possibly be compared to a few satellite overpasses that weren't even specifically looking for such things, and maybe some spies from the African National Congress. Jeezus.

[Axis Kast]

Irrelevant. Can you show any evidence of illicit activity in that four year period, yes or no?

You’re asking for proof from an investigation not yet near completion.

You have to prove that. I can't believe I have to point out this obvious fact AFTER the war.

You deny the possibility that Iraq might have deviated from United Nations restrictions? Come now. We’re talking about a four year period in which they went virtually unobserved. Saddam’s history to 1998 certainly justifies suspicions. You’re hearkening back to inspections that occurred before a massive breach in continuity.

Possible, but not likely, especially in the case of US satellites going over Iraq with a fine tooth comb, combined with the inspectors on the ground for the better part of a decade- those inspections being the only ones who ever turned up and destroyed anything.

I’d say more than just “likely.” Again, there are ways to fool electronics and escape telltale signs usually red-flagged by the analysts behind the computer monitors.

That was more during the final days of the war than five years after, obviously (borders not set, troops probably being ordered to take as much ground as possible in order to throw a wide net over as much German technology as possible etc).

My discussion of the search for uranium and other equipment was in response to your questions regarding the comprehensive nature of the Allied search. That doesn’t however mean that occupying forces weren’t still finding hidden equipment five years after the fact.

CLoser to 900 sites. Of those, 1/3 were seen as having a real chance of having anything, these were all checked first. By April, these had been checked by the first teams, and then these teams went home, as you'll remember. Then some Iraq survey group consisting of over 1,000 people was sent in. Now the administration ums and ahs and hand waves and says they won't find anything unless Iraqis come forward with information? What does that tell you?

Source that each of these 900 sites have been fully searched?

What does what tell me? It isn’t my fault that you read into many statements of the administration. There was never anybody who came forth and actually said: “We’ll find mountains of the stuff.”

And these spies in an apartheid state would just be so well positioned to discover the existence of a South African nuclear program, right?

They’d certainly be in a position to note unusual movement by military forces in certain regions.

How many spies? Over how long a period? How can you with a straight face even attempt to make such a ridiculous analogy between inspectors who can wherever they wish on whim and spies who may or may not have even been fucking looking for such a thing?

Because the kind of effort that it takes to dig 250-meter boreholes for nuclear tests should send up at least a few red flags among observers.

Boom, crash. Your analogy just fell around your head.

Not in the least.

Duh. What do nuclear test facilities have to do with the disposition of SADF forces for the benefit of forces in Angola?

Troops and equipment tend to be deployed from military bases. Said bases would be under periodic observation by Soviet intelligence assets. If they can analyze the movement of cargo and troops, why is it that two test-shafts were somehow overlooked or misrepresented?

The location of military installations are known, Kast. You don't need satellites to find them. It's obvious that them even seeing these boreholes was most likely pure coincidence. They weren't even looking specifically for anything of the sort.

They weren’t looking specifically for anything of the sort, but that hardly absolves them of misinterpreting the data – or even missing the things entirely.

No, you're desperately looking for an excuse to still argue "we might find some weapons" five or ten years from now by finding anything you can and going completely to town on it.

No. I’m arguing that a comprehensive search requires more than four months (two of which were spent fighting and the other two policing).

Of course intelligence was being collected, that's not the point. Your analogy stinks. You've taken a concerted decade long inspection effort by the entire United Nations with inspectors on the ground, satellite and spy plane overflights etc. etc. and tried to pretend it can possibly be compared to a few satellite overpasses that weren't even specifically looking for such things, and maybe some spies from the African National Congress. Jeezus.

No. I take an inspections process marred consistently by deviation until 1998 and then four years of neglect. I take a period of high tension between the Soviet Union and South Africa, pointing out the failure by Moscow to detect a pair of nuclear boreholes at a base that should have been under scrutiny anyway. I take reasonable suspicion and combine that with common sense. Satellites can fail to locate hidden weapons or facilities – especially if analysis is faulty or the sites well hidden.

[Vympel]

You’re asking for proof from an investigation not yet near completion.

And it'll never be near completion. 20 years from now, you'll still be insisting they might find something.

You deny the possibility that Iraq might have deviated from United Nations restrictions? Come now. We’re talking about a four year period in which they went virtually unobserved. Saddam’s history to 1998 certainly justifies suspicions. You’re hearkening back to inspections that occurred before a massive breach in continuity.

No. I don't deal in possibilities. I deal in evidence. You don't have any.

I’d say more than just “likely.” Again, there are ways to fool electronics and escape telltale signs usually red-flagged by the analysts behind the computer monitors.

Such as?

My discussion of the search for uranium and other equipment was in response to your questions regarding the comprehensive nature of the Allied search. That doesn’t however mean that occupying forces weren’t still finding hidden equipment five years after the fact.

You still haven't provided any information on the comprehensiveness of the Allied search, or that five years later it was even a search at all. Germany built many bunkers during the war- these were often unearthed during post-war reconstruction, completely by accident.

Source that each of these 900 sites have been fully searched?

What does what tell me? It isn’t my fault that you read into many statements of the administration. There was never anybody who came forth and actually said: “We’ll find mountains of the stuff.”

Oh really?

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003



Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003




But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003



We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

[Oh reallyyyyyyyy?]


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."


Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

They’d certainly be in a position to note unusual movement by military forces in certain regions.

Explain how ANC spies could get into a SADF military base to look at a pair of boreholes. I wonder if UN inspectors would've had an easier time?

Because the kind of effort that it takes to dig 250-meter boreholes for nuclear tests should send up at least a few red flags among observers.

Assuming that there were even observers, of course

Not in the least.

Ok Comical Ali.

Troops and equipment tend to be deployed from military bases. Said bases would be under periodic observation by Soviet intelligence assets. If they can analyze the movement of cargo and troops, why is it that two test-shafts were somehow overlooked or misrepresented?

They weren’t looking specifically for anything of the sort, but that hardly absolves them of misinterpreting the data – or even missing the things entirely.

How often did soviet satellites pass over? How intensive was the satellite surveillance? Daily, weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, yearly? Did it occur to you that they only started to look suspicious in 1977, and in 1975 could've appeared to be something else? Especially given that Soviet satellite resolution in the 70s is hardly something to be impressed about.

No. I’m arguing that a comprehensive search requires more than four months (two of which were spent fighting and the other two policing).

7 1/2 years.

No. I take an inspections process marred consistently by deviation until 1998 and then four years of neglect.

Over which period you have no evidence of any reconstruction of NBC capability whatsoever. Or are you going to argue that noone was watching?

I take a period of high tension between the Soviet Union and South Africa, pointing out the failure by Moscow to detect a pair of nuclear boreholes at a base that should have been under scrutiny anyway. I take reasonable suspicion and combine that with common sense. Satellites can fail to locate hidden weapons or facilities – especially if analysis is faulty or the sites well hidden.

Your common sense is hardly common or sense. You've taken a host of questionable suppositions without knowing the facts and even if everything you said was 100% true it STILL doesn't make it remotely useful.

[Vympel]

http://www.isanet.org/archive/disarm.html

After Soweto, the international isolation of South Africa became more intense, and the UN Security Council invoked a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. The IAEA revoked South Africa’s permanent seat on the agency’s Board of Governors, due to the apartheid regime’s secret nuclear policies and spurning of the NPT. The Carter Administration, which came into office in 1977, blocked U.S. sale of two more nuclear power plants and terminated shipments of enriched uranium. In 1977, the AEC built South Africa’s first nuclear device, and the Y-Plant reached full operation. As AEC construction increased at the Kalahari test site, a Soviet satellite discovered it.

and

http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1994/ ... right.html

AEC officials say that a "cold test" (a test without uranium 235) was planned for August 1977. An Armscor official who was not involved at the time said that the test would have been a fully instrumented underground test, with a dummy core. Its major purpose was to test the logistical plans for an actual detonation.

How that test was canceled has been well publicized. That summer, Soviet intelligence detected test preparations and, in early August, alerted the United States. U.S. intelligence quickly confirmed the existence of the test site.

It's amazing the more detailed information you'll find when you run a google search.

[Axis Kast]

And it'll never be near completion. 20 years from now, you'll still be insisting they might find something.

If you’d actually have bothered to read posts made previous to this argument, you’d have picked up on the fact that I put forth the time frame of one year after hostilities. On that basis, a mere two months have passed – and not under ideal conditions, either.

No. I don't deal in possibilities. I deal in evidence. You don't have any.

It’s why the search continues, Vympel.

You don’t deal in possibilities? It’s what analysis is founded upon. Unlike you, I don’t exactly get a burst of confidence every time somebody mentions that inspections in Iraq suffered a four-year lull prior to December 2002.

Such as?

Burying items within a complex. Burying items within a sewer system. Burying items under the desert in certain remote areas.

You still haven't provided any information on the comprehensiveness of the Allied search, or that five years later it was even a search at all. Germany built many bunkers during the war- these were often unearthed during post-war reconstruction, completely by accident.

The Allied search for uranium took American troops across Germany. I’m certain you are well-aware of that fact.

It doesn’t strike you as even remotely possible that somebody might stumble over a hidden caché of Saddam’s weapons sometime down the road, Vympel?

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

Define “expansion.” It could mean that certain electronic data was intercepted detailing discussions between Saddam and aides over a nuclear program. Hell, this could even – if taken very broadly – refer to civilian construction on plants formerly used for WMD.

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

See above.

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Could have been an intercept from between Saddam and his advisers. Nothing specific.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

Materials that could have been used for civil industry.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

You’re reading too much into that. It’s a statement of probable intent.

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

Date? Time? He might have been referring to 1991. He might have been referring to specific murders.

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Again, see above. This kind of statement mustn’t necessarily be based on special knowledge of massive underground stockpiles.

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

He’s saying he wouldn’t make that kind of bet. He isn’t even putting forth anything more than opinion here.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

A tank covers this ground, technically. And again, we could have been referring to specific discussion that indicated stockpiles of weapons were present.

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Nothing specific – even as to quantity.

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Again, no quantitative measure.

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Personal opinion.

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Nothing specific.

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

That covers the whole of Iraq.

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Opinion by somebody not even necessarily speaking for the White House.

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Opinion.

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

Nothing specific.

The list goes on – although it’s become increasingly clear that yours is simply one approach by which to look at what was said. It certainly isn’t my fault that you went for the explanation you most loved instead of remembering that this is in fact politics.

Explain how ANC spies could get into a SADF military base to look at a pair of boreholes. I wonder if UN inspectors would've had an easier time?

False dilemma. ANC observers have merely to note extensive military traffic on a given road for report back to their handlers.

Assuming that there were even observers, of course.

Satellites swept the area in 1977. Why wouldn’t they have done so earlier? The situation certainly hadn’t changed all that much.

How often did soviet satellites pass over? How intensive was the satellite surveillance? Daily, weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, yearly? Did it occur to you that they only started to look suspicious in 1977, and in 1975 could've appeared to be something else? Especially given that Soviet satellite resolution in the 70s is hardly something to be impressed about.

During the middle of a time during which Soviet intelligence was vital to Cuban and Angolan forces in the region? Probably something more than yearly – which means that the progress between 1975 and 1977 should have been quite clear. This is exactly the kind of situation we might run into in Iraq.

7 1/2 years.

Before a four-month ceasation.

Over which period you have no evidence of any reconstruction of NBC capability whatsoever. Or are you going to argue that noone was watching?

That’s right. Nobody was watching. Giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt doesn’t strike me as very intelligent, either.

Your common sense is hardly common or sense. You've taken a host of questionable suppositions without knowing the facts and even if everything you said was 100% true it STILL doesn't make it remotely useful.

Bullshit. The scenario I’ve put forth makes logical sense. It isn’t my fault you feel the need to run from it.

After Soweto, the international isolation of South Africa became more intense, and the UN Security Council invoked a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. The IAEA revoked South Africa’s permanent seat on the agency’s Board of Governors, due to the apartheid regime’s secret nuclear policies and spurning of the NPT. The Carter Administration, which came into office in 1977, blocked U.S. sale of two more nuclear power plants and terminated shipments of enriched uranium. In 1977, the AEC built South Africa’s first nuclear device, and the Y-Plant reached full operation. As AEC construction increased at the Kalahari test site, a Soviet satellite discovered it.

Construction had been underway between 1975 and 1977.

AEC officials say that a "cold test" (a test without uranium 235) was planned for August 1977. An Armscor official who was not involved at the time said that the test would have been a fully instrumented underground test, with a dummy core. Its major purpose was to test the logistical plans for an actual detonation.

How that test was canceled has been well publicized. That summer, Soviet intelligence detected test preparations and, in early August, alerted the United States. U.S. intelligence quickly confirmed the existence of the test site.

That the United States was aware of the program does not justify the Soviet Union’s failure to keep fully abrest.

[Vympel]

If you’d actually have bothered to read posts made previous to this argument, you’d have picked up on the fact that I put forth the time frame of one year after hostilities. On that basis, a mere two months have passed – and not under ideal conditions, either.

7 1/2 years. You can keep bullshitting all you want, but the fact remains that the only time any meaningful disarmament was performed was in the period prior to 1998. You have not a shred of evidence of any NBC activitiy in the four year period.

It’s why the search continues, Vympel.

You don’t deal in possibilities? It’s what analysis is founded upon. Unlike you, I don’t exactly get a burst of confidence every time somebody mentions that inspections in Iraq suffered a four-year lull prior to December 2002.

I don't care about your bursts of confidence. The evidence is against you, and has been for some time. You can keep chanting all you want, but you'll just look more and more ridiculous as time goes on.

Burying items within a complex. Burying items within a sewer system. Burying items under the desert in certain remote areas.

Oh yeah that's brilliant Kast, you can just bury delicate weapons in a hole in the dirt or in a moist sewer system or anything else of that nature eh? What, you think there's barrels of agent just sitting in a hole in the dirt somewhere, waiting to be uncovered? You really are delusional.

The Allied search for uranium took American troops across Germany. I’m certain you are well-aware of that fact.

And it took them into Soviet held Germany as well, did it?

The list goes on – although it’s become increasingly clear that yours is simply one approach by which to look at what was said. It certainly isn’t my fault that you went for the explanation you most loved instead of remembering that this is in fact politics.

Of course it's politics, which for you is somehow a justification to go into Clinton mode as if anyone buys it, I loved these ones in particular.

Date? Time? He might have been referring to 1991. He might have been referring to specific murders.

Date and time was February 8 2003, like I wrote originally. And I wasn't aware that when someone says recently in 2003 they might mean 1991, or that field commanders are involved in the use of chemical weapons for 'specific murders'. Who the hell are you trying to fool? Even Clinton wouldn't try something this lame.

Materials that could have been used for civil industry.

This helps your argument how?

Again, see above. This kind of statement mustn’t necessarily be based on special knowledge of massive underground stockpiles.

No, but it's a colossal lie if you think about the PNAC's objectives- irrelevant to the point, but I wasn't in the mode to cut and paste from one of my previous posts bit by bit.

Nothing specific – even as to quantity.

Did you actually listen/read the State of the Union speech? Hello? Was that Bush's personal opinion?

- 25,000 litres of anthrax
- 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin
- 500 tons of sarin, VX and mustard agent
- 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

I could go over and exhaustively point out the vast amounts of lies and half truths in that address, if you like.

Personal opinion.

Of a Defense Policy Board member, which advises the Pentagon.

False dilemma. ANC observers have merely to note extensive military traffic on a given road for report back to their handlers.

Yes, because these observers who may or may not exist are in the business of hanging around roads in the middle of the desert around SADF military bases watching for convoys that move day in and day out anyway

Ex

False dilemma. ANC observers have merely to note extensive military traffic on a given road for report back to their handlers.

How is that a false dilemma you gronk? Answer the question, would UN inspectors be better equipped to see what's going on in there, YES or NO?

Satellites swept the area in 1977. Why wouldn’t they have done so earlier? The situation certainly hadn’t changed all that much.

Show that satellites swept the area in 1975.

During the middle of a time during which Soviet intelligence was vital to Cuban and Angolan forces in the region? Probably something more than yearly – which means that the progress between 1975 and 1977 should have been quite clear. This is exactly the kind of situation we might run into in Iraq.

The quotes I provided made it clear the Soviets noticed when construction activity stepped up in 1977. What, did you hope I'd forget? And thanks for ignoring what I said about resolution and that the boreholes could look uninteresting previous to mid-77.

Before a four-month ceasation.

Where you can't prove that anything took place whatsoever. Keep ignoring the fact that the only time Iraq was disarmed was in that 7 year period.

That’s right. Nobody was watching. Giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt doesn’t strike me as very intelligent, either.

LOL! You idiot! Noone was watching! So there was no satellite surveillance, no spies, NOTHING, from America or Great Britain in four years?

Bullshit. The scenario I’ve put forth makes logical sense. It isn’t my fault you feel the need to run from it.

The quote tags "Axis Kast" and the phrase "logical sense" rarely, if ever, go together, especially in this case, where you've presented an utterly dissimilar scenario and are actually trying to argue they're the same with a straight face.

Construction had been underway between 1975 and 1977.

Fucking duh. The Soviets noticed it when construction was nearing completion- could it be that *gasp* it had actually started to look suspicious? Or do you have evidence that it was 250m deep the moment they broke the ground

That the United States was aware of the program does not justify the Soviet Union’s failure to keep fully abrest.

Just put in for the sake of completeness.

[Axis Kast]

7 1/2 years. You can keep bullshitting all you want, but the fact remains that the only time any meaningful disarmament was performed was in the period prior to 1998. You have not a shred of evidence of any NBC activitiy in the four year period.

The point is that one should err to the side of skepticism when dealing with a régime known for non-compliance. After four years unobserved by men on the ground – which, by the way, ties the situation even more closely to the South African example -, it’s only logical to deny Iraq the benefit of the doubt.

Oh yeah that's brilliant Kast, you can just bury delicate weapons in a hole in the dirt or in a moist sewer system or anything else of that nature eh? What, you think there's barrels of agent just sitting in a hole in the dirt somewhere, waiting to be uncovered? You really are delusional.

Logic tells us that most of Hussein’s weaponry would probably have been broken down into component form for long-term storage some time ago. Not to mention that certain chemicals have a much longer shelf life than your generalizations would have us believe.

And it took them into Soviet held Germany as well, did it?

The Soviets mounted their own search – probably as vigorously as the Western Allies.

Of course it's politics, which for you is somehow a justification to go into Clinton mode as if anyone buys it, I loved these ones in particular.

You can’t escape it, Vympel. None of these statements specifically refers to statements by an official inside the Bush administration outlining public policy that we’d find mountains of a specific item in any one place. You have a handful of opinions and some veiled allusions.

Date and time was February 8 2003, like I wrote originally. And I wasn't aware that when someone says recently in 2003 they might mean 1991, or that field commanders are involved in the use of chemical weapons for 'specific murders'. Who the hell are you trying to fool? Even Clinton wouldn't try something this lame.

The term “field commander” might have been used loosely to refer to a specific officer in the paramilitary forces suppressing greater-than-usual unrest. Just because the statement was made in February 2003 doesn’t mean it can’t refer as far back as 1991.

This helps your argument how?

They wouldn’t be classified as WMD if that were the case. Remember all that talk of “dual-purpose” items?

No, but it's a colossal lie if you think about the PNAC's objectives- irrelevant to the point, but I wasn't in the mode to cut and paste from one of my previous posts bit by bit.

“If?”

Did you actually listen/read the State of the Union speech? Hello? Was that Bush's personal opinion?

- 25,000 litres of anthrax
- 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin
- 500 tons of sarin, VX and mustard agent
- 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

I could go over and exhaustively point out the vast amounts of lies and half truths in that address, if you like.

Items we or others handed him prior to 1990. A vast majority of these stockpiles were never properly accounted for.

Of a Defense Policy Board member, which advises the Pentagon.

But was not enumerating public policy. Nice try.

Yes, because these observers who may or may not exist are in the business of hanging around roads in the middle of the desert around SADF military bases watching for convoys that move day in and day out anyway.

Construction of a pair of boreholes requires a great deal of machinery. Large-scale activity at the base between 1975 and 1977 should not have gone unnoticed by observers who would have been tracking military movements anyway as a matter of course.

How is that a false dilemma you gronk? Answer the question, would UN inspectors be better equipped to see what's going on in there, YES or NO?

Of course. Then again, the United Nations wasn’t present for four years’ time. Hans Blix didn’t exactly make an exhaustive search in his two months, either. He visited facilities we earmarked as most suspicious, but never did UNSCOM search even a fraction of the whole of Iraq.

Show that satellites swept the area in 1975.

It’s a logical conclusion. Why would they have been assigned to do so in 1977? As part of the war effort in Angola? But fighting had been underway long before.

The quotes I provided made it clear the Soviets noticed when construction activity stepped up in 1977. What, did you hope I'd forget? And thanks for ignoring what I said about resolution and that the boreholes could look uninteresting previous to mid-77.

Construction was ongoing since 1975. Its infancy doesn’t excuse the oversight. Iraq’s programs couldn’t be anywhere near as advanced anyway.

The resolution changes nothing. The Soviets would have gone to the United States regardless.

“Uninteresting?” Perhaps something on the ground in Iraq was given the same hand wave.

Where you can't prove that anything took place whatsoever. Keep ignoring the fact that the only time Iraq was disarmed was in that 7 year period.

Again, you’re giving the benefit of the doubt in a situation with clear precedent for abuse.

LOL! You idiot! Noone was watching! So there was no satellite surveillance, no spies, NOTHING, from America or Great Britain in four years?

Nothing particularly comprehensive, no.

The quote tags "Axis Kast" and the phrase "logical sense" rarely, if ever, go together, especially in this case, where you've presented an utterly dissimilar scenario and are actually trying to argue they're the same with a straight face.

You’ve been flailing for some time now, Vympel. My favorite was when you attempted to equate the stated opinion of a Pentagon adviser in a situation where policy was not being made with the promise of President George W. Bush.

Fucking duh. The Soviets noticed it when construction was nearing completion- could it be that *gasp* it had actually started to look suspicious? Or do you have evidence that it was 250m deep the moment they broke the ground.

It should have looked suspicious since day one. Any Iraqi program would be in comparable stages of infancy.

Just put in for the sake of completeness.

Incorrect. You implied that the American discovery meant something in relation to the Soviets. That is not the case.

[Vympel]

The point is that one should err to the side of skepticism when dealing with a régime known for non-compliance. After four years unobserved by men on the ground – which, by the way, ties the situation even more closely to the South African example -, it’s only logical to deny Iraq the benefit of the doubt.

We are not discussing the benefit of the doubt. Where. Is. The. EVIDENCE?

Logic

Don't use that word in your sentences. It's unbecoming.

tells us that most of Hussein’s weaponry would probably have been broken down into component form for long-term storage some time ago. Not to mention that certain chemicals have a much longer shelf life than your generalizations would have us believe.

Funny, not what the administration said. Before and during the war they clearly intimated an expectation that they'd be attacked with chemical weapons.

The Soviets mounted their own search – probably as vigorously as the Western Allies.

I'm still waiting for you to get back from your third parties, you know.

You can’t escape it, Vympel. None of these statements specifically refers to statements by an official inside the Bush administration outlining public policy that we’d find mountains of a specific item in any one place. You have a handful of opinions and some veiled allusions.

State of the Union. Concession Accepted.

The term “field commander” might have been used loosely to refer to a specific officer in the paramilitary forces suppressing greater-than-usual unrest. Just because the statement was made in February 2003 doesn’t mean it can’t refer as far back as 1991.

That's it, you're a complete fucking moron. When someone says RECENTLY, they sure as FUCK don't mean TWELVE FUCKING YEARS AGO. And by the way, while you're off on this Clintonesque jaunt, explain how, given the common sense, non *complete idiot* definition of recently- could this authorization mesh with your bullshit excuse that components were broken down for long term storage? You know you've just tied yourself up into a knot, so you've redefined the word "recently" rather than considering your position more carefully.

Let me use a sledge hammer to break through the wall of ignorance:

Newly; lately; freshly; not long since; as, advices recently received

adv 1: in the recent past; "he was in Paris recently"; "lately the rules have been enforced"; "as late as yesterday she was fine"; "feeling better of late"; "the spelling was first affected, but latterly the meaning also" [syn: late, lately, of late, latterly] 2: very recently; "they are newly married"; "newly raised objections"; "a newly arranged hairdo"; "grass new washed by the rain"; "a freshly cleaned floor"; "we are fresh out of tomatoes"

They wouldn’t be classified as WMD if that were the case. Remember all that talk of “dual-purpose” items?

Actually, they would be, and were. Bush's claims in SOTU were based on highly speculative estimates based on certain materials Iraq was assumed to have.

“If?”

Eh?

Items we or others handed him prior to 1990. A vast majority of these stockpiles were never properly accounted for.

Wrong again. They were in fact mostly speculation. For example, the 25,000l of antrhax claim- if Iraq had used its fermentors at maximal capacity from the start of the industrial production of anthrax in September 1990 until the outbreak of war, it could have produced this amount of anthrax. The production log for 1990 at Iraq's bio-weapons factory, al-Hakam, indicates that Iraq did not operate its fermentors at maximal capacity. UNSCOM was not wholly confident of the accuracy of the production log, though it never explained why. However, there is no indication -- either in UNSCOM reports or in UNMOVIC statements -- that they actually believe Iraq produced this volume of anthrax. There is, again, a very large difference between what Iraq had the potential to produce in 1990, and what it is likely that it did actually produce.

Furthermore, anthrax spores produced in 1990 were in liquid slurry form. They would have deteriorated markedly by the mid-1990s. The assessment by Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is as follows: 'Anthrax spores are extremely hardy and can achieve 65 percent to 80 percent lethality against untreated patients for years. Fortunately, Iraq does not seem to have produced dry, storable agents and only seems to hve deployed wet Anthrax agents, which have a relatively limited life.

But was not enumerating public policy. Nice try.

Nah, he just advises the Pentagon

Construction of a pair of boreholes requires a great deal of machinery. Large-scale activity at the base between 1975 and 1977 should not have gone unnoticed by observers who would have been tracking military movements anyway as a matter of course.

Are you going to stop contradicting yourself, or what? First, you argue as if there are observers, then you switch around and argue that there were, depending on what suits you at the time.

Of course.

Your analogy is therefore useless.

Then again, the United Nations wasn’t present for four years’ time. Hans Blix didn’t exactly make an exhaustive search in his two months, either. He visited facilities we earmarked as most suspicious, but never did UNSCOM search even a fraction of the whole of Iraq.

It's UNMOVIC, not UNSCOM. Regardless, we are now back to your dishonest handwaving of the entire pre-1998 period of inspections based on bullshit reasoning (re: your 'noone was watching claim') withotu evidence.

It’s a logical conclusion.

No, it's assumption.

Why would they have been assigned to do so in 1977? As part of the war effort in Angola? But fighting had been underway long before.

Proof of your drawing a nexus between events in an Angola and Soviet reconnaissance efforts in South Africa? Do you have any hard data?

Construction was ongoing since 1975. Its infancy doesn’t excuse the oversight.

At what point does a hole in the dirt become a borehole? Instantly? Jeezus ...

Iraq’s programs couldn’t be anywhere near as advanced anyway.

Bzzt. Iraq didn't have an active nuclear program- not after 1991, not after 1998. The IAEA has stated this quite clearly.

The resolution changes nothing. The Soviets would have gone to the United States regardless.

Resolution capability of the SATELLITE. Sheesh.

“Uninteresting?” Perhaps something on the ground in Iraq was given the same hand wave.

And perhaps Earth will be wiped out by a 4,000km wide asteroid.

Again, you’re giving the benefit of the doubt in a situation with clear precedent for abuse.

Nothing to do with benefit of the doubt. As I said, I, the United Nations, and the public in general, deals with evidence. Bush presented evidence to the world- in line with this quite reasonable expectation. It was shit.

Nothing particularly comprehensive, no.

This is almost as good as your recently=1991 claim.

You’ve been flailing for some time now, Vympel.

Yes, and Americans are committing suicide in their tanks at Baghdad's walls, Kast. It's all LIES, isn't it, Ali?

My favorite was when you attempted to equate the stated opinion of a Pentagon adviser in a situation where policy was not being made with the promise of President George W. Bush.

Funny, you still haven't dealt with the State of the Union speech, or why a Pentagon adviser is useless to what was expected to be found. There's even a quote from a military commander to the effect of what they expected to find. Let me guess: that's just his personal opinion too, right?

It should have looked suspicious since day one.

Baseless assertion. At what point does a borehole look like a borehole? Wtf do you know about satellite photo interpretation?

Any Iraqi program would be in comparable stages of infancy.

There was no active Iraqi nuclear program. Yet more reason why your analogy sucks ass.

Incorrect. You implied that the American discovery meant something in relation to the Soviets. That is not the case.

It seems as though you can't interpret very well

"That summer, Soviet intelligence detected test preparations"

That was the emphasis, Kast- shoudl've bolded it, seems as you'll go after anything as your position comes down around your head.

[Axis Kast]

We are not discussing the benefit of the doubt. Where. Is. The. EVIDENCE?

We are discussing the benefit of the doubt.

It’s been four months since we launched Operation: Iraqi Freedom, Vympel - the first time in over four years that a full and comprehensive investigation can be conducted outside the shadow of the Hussein régime.

Funny, not what the administration said. Before and during the war they clearly intimated an expectation that they'd be attacked with chemical weapons.

Quotations, please? And I want something more than, “We’ll be prepared for the eventuality.”

I'm still waiting for you to get back from your third parties, you know.

For information of what? That both the United States and Soviet Union tore up occupied Germany for any sign of uranium, rockets, or jet engines?

State of the Union. Concession Accepted.

The specific quotation, please. President Bush noted a specific quantity of chemicals possessed by Iraq at a point prior to 1990. Spread out as they would probably be, they hardly constitute a mountain.

That's it, you're a complete fucking moron. When someone says RECENTLY, they sure as FUCK don't mean TWELVE FUCKING YEARS AGO. And by the way, while you're off on this Clintonesque jaunt, explain how, given the common sense, non *complete idiot* definition of recently- could this authorization mesh with your bullshit excuse that components were broken down for long term storage? You know you've just tied yourself up into a knot, so you've redefined the word "recently" rather than considering your position more carefully.

He’s using “recently” in a geopolitical term. It could easily refer to years.

Actually, they would be, and were. Bush's claims in SOTU were based on highly speculative estimates based on certain materials Iraq was assumed to have.

Then he didn’t lie.

Wrong again. They were in fact mostly speculation. For example, the 25,000l of antrhax claim- if Iraq had used its fermentors at maximal capacity from the start of the industrial production of anthrax in September 1990 until the outbreak of war, it could have produced this amount of anthrax. The production log for 1990 at Iraq's bio-weapons factory, al-Hakam, indicates that Iraq did not operate its fermentors at maximal capacity. UNSCOM was not wholly confident of the accuracy of the production log, though it never explained why. However, there is no indication -- either in UNSCOM reports or in UNMOVIC statements -- that they actually believe Iraq produced this volume of anthrax. There is, again, a very large difference between what Iraq had the potential to produce in 1990, and what it is likely that it did actually produce.

You’re still not answering questions as to what actually happened to chemicals handed to Iraq prior to 1990.

Furthermore, anthrax spores produced in 1990 were in liquid slurry form. They would have deteriorated markedly by the mid-1990s. The assessment by Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is as follows: 'Anthrax spores are extremely hardy and can achieve 65 percent to 80 percent lethality against untreated patients for years. Fortunately, Iraq does not seem to have produced dry, storable agents and only seems to hve deployed wet Anthrax agents, which have a relatively limited life.

Whether or not the anthrax has deteriorated, the point is that Iraq kept the equipment in violation of the United Nations Security Council. The very institution that guaranteed Iraq’s disarmament was unable to satisfactorily deliver. You’re also ignoring the question of whether Saddam possesses and/or kept other chemicals more hardy than anthrax.

Nah, he just advises the Pentagon.

His statement was clearly one of opinion, not policy.

Are you going to stop contradicting yourself, or what? First, you argue as if there are observers, then you switch around and argue that there were, depending on what suits you at the time.

People watch the roads in South Africa, Vympel. It isn’t inconceivable that somebody tasked with keeping watch over movements in and out of (or even in the general vicinity of) a major military base would have picked up on the heightening activity.

Your analogy is therefore useless.

In your own little world, perhaps (where, of course, a lull of four years in inspections targeting a régime known for devious behavior is inconsequential).

It's UNMOVIC, not UNSCOM. Regardless, we are now back to your dishonest handwaving of the entire pre-1998 period of inspections based on bullshit reasoning (re: your 'noone was watching claim') withotu evidence.

We are still seeking that evidence.

No, it's assumption.

As is your faith in Iraq’s being “clean.” Debate on these topics is all about it.

Proof of your drawing a nexus between events in an Angola and Soviet reconnaissance efforts in South Africa? Do you have any hard data?

If you’re going to question whether the Soviet Union had an interest in South African military movements, why don’t you refer back to the fact that satellites did fly over for certain in 1977? I can’t believe you’d go so far as to say you’re not fairly positive that the Soviet Union wouldn’t be monitoring a nation with whom its proxies were at war for nearly a decade.

At what point does a hole in the dirt become a borehole? Instantly? Jeezus ...

Try sometime over two years…

Bzzt. Iraq didn't have an active nuclear program- not after 1991, not after 1998. The IAEA has stated this quite clearly.

“Active” is subjective. Technically, the United States could make an argument of an “active” nuclear program on the basis of discussion between Iraqi officials.

Resolution capability of the SATELLITE. Sheesh.

I seriously doubt there were major changes in resolution between 1975 and 1977 that suddenly enabled a view that changed the situation entirely.

And perhaps Earth will be wiped out by a 4,000km wide asteroid.

Concession accepted.

Nothing to do with benefit of the doubt. As I said, I, the United Nations, and the public in general, deals with evidence. Bush presented evidence to the world- in line with this quite reasonable expectation. It was shit.

In your opinion. The search is not nearly over.

Funny, you still haven't dealt with the State of the Union speech, or why a Pentagon adviser is useless to what was expected to be found. There's even a quote from a military commander to the effect of what they expected to find. Let me guess: that's just his personal opinion too, right?

You’re really hitting the bottom here, Vympel. Taking the opinions of two persons who don’t on their own state policy for the United States of America and claiming it’s proof of lies by the White House itself.

I have dealt with the State of the Union speech. It isn’t necessarily referring to “mountains” of equipment as envisioned by critics.

Baseless assertion. At what point does a borehole look like a borehole? Wtf do you know about satellite photo interpretation?

Why don’t you answer those questions? You’re the one who’s arguing for a two-year mark – and yet the South Africans were just about to initiate testing, which indicates that they had already neared completion.

There was no active Iraqi nuclear program. Yet more reason why your analogy sucks ass.

That’s a matter of conjecture. Define “active.”

It seems as though you can't interpret very well

"That summer, Soviet intelligence detected test preparations"

That was the emphasis, Kast- shoudl've bolded it, seems as you'll go after anything as your position comes down around your head.

Of 1977, Vympel. 1977. Two years after work began. On the eve of actual testing.

[Vympel]

We are discussing the benefit of the doubt.

It’s been four months since we launched Operation: Iraqi Freedom, Vympel - the first time in over four years that a full and comprehensive investigation can be conducted outside the shadow of the Hussein régime.

How nice for you. In other news, all reference to WMD has been dropped from Dubya speeches.

Quotations, please? And I want something more than, “We’ll be prepared for the eventuality.”

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

That's a fucking Lieutenant General. Do you get it now? Or was he just giving his personal opinion too?

For information of what? That both the United States and Soviet Union tore up occupied Germany for any sign of uranium, rockets, or jet engines?

The five year intensive search claim, actually.

The specific quotation, please. President Bush noted a specific quantity of chemicals possessed by Iraq at a point prior to 1990. Spread out as they would probably be, they hardly constitute a mountain.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production ... The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

I'll take that litany of bullshit apart bit by bit, if you want.

He’s using “recently” in a geopolitical term. It could easily refer to years.

WHAT THE FUCK?

That's it, I've had it with this waste of time- I leave this statement to stand as evidence of your desperation.

Then he didn’t lie.

And by the way, you've continually tried to make this out to be about whether anyone was lying. Nice try- unfortunately, not what was being discussed. Of course, Bush did lie, repeatedly, but as you've so obviously shown, you're willing to go to fucking ridiculous lengths of redefining the English language and making up new senses for people to talk in to defend him from any such obvious uncontroversial fact.

You’re still not answering questions as to what actually happened to chemicals handed to Iraq prior to 1990.

Unilaterally destroyed, most likely. Not that it's up to me to provide proof of what happened to them. That's the US job.

Whether or not the anthrax has deteriorated, the point is that Iraq kept the equipment in violation of the United Nations Security Council.

I'm sorry, it did? Where?

The very institution that guaranteed Iraq’s disarmament was unable to satisfactorily deliver.

Funny, that's still up for debate, and it doesn't look to favorable for you at all.

You’re also ignoring the question of whether Saddam possesses and/or kept other chemicals more hardy than anthrax.

The burden of proof is on you, not I.

His statement was clearly one of opinion, not policy.

Of course, his opinion just advises the policy.

People watch the roads in South Africa, Vympel

They must be real bored.

n your own little world, perhaps (where, of course, a lull of four years in inspections targeting a régime known for devious behavior is inconsequential).

Strawman. You just haven't provided any evidence of any illicit activity whatsoever.

We are still seeking that evidence.

And you will be till the end of time. Or at least as long as the media remembers.

As is your faith in Iraq’s being “clean.” Debate on these topics is all about it.

Actually, it's the default position. You can't find proof for something to exist, the logical conclusion is that it does not. Of course, logic was a lost cause for you long ago.

If you’re going to question whether the Soviet Union had an interest in South African military movements, why don’t you refer back to the fact that satellites did fly over for certain in 1977? I can’t believe you’d go so far as to say you’re not fairly positive that the Soviet Union wouldn’t be monitoring a nation with whom its proxies were at war for nearly a decade.

Well I'm sorry, but at some point, there were no satellite overlfights. It's up to you to show me when they started, where they went, for what purpose, and for how often they did. You have failed in every respect.

Try sometime over two years…

Exactly. Idiot.

Active” is subjective. Technically, the United States could make an argument of an “active” nuclear program on the basis of discussion between Iraqi officials.

Yeah, and recently is also a subjective term, why, just recently my grandfather turned 21.

seriously doubt there were major changes in resolution between 1975 and 1977 that suddenly enabled a view that changed the situation entirely.

Resolution capability between 1977 and 2003, dumbass.

Concession accepted.

I see your grip on reality continues to slip away.

In your opinion. The search is not nearly over.

And you pray it never will be.

You’re really hitting the bottom here, Vympel. Taking the opinions of two persons who don’t on their own state policy for the United States of America and claiming it’s proof of lies by the White House itself.

Funny, where did I say this was about lies?

I have dealt with the State of the Union speech. It isn’t necessarily referring to “mountains” of equipment as envisioned by critics.

Funny, last time I checked that certainly qualifies as mountains. Where is it all, Kast?

Why don’t you answer those questions?

Because you're the one attempting to argue they're similar. They aren't.

That’s a matter of conjecture. Define “active.”

Look in the dictionary, you idiot.

Of 1977, Vympel. 1977. Two years after work began. On the eve of actual testing.

So what? You've already conceded that inspectors would be better equipped to find such a thing, you've got no evidence of african national congress spies sitting in the middle of the desert watching roads leading to miltiary bases, no reasoning as to why a satellite should discover such a thing immediately considering you've conceded they WEREN'T EVEN FUCKING LOOKING, and you STILL try and use it as an analogy with an almost decade long intesive inspections process? You've lost. Give up.

[Iceberg]

Whenever I hear GW Bush speaking of matters of state in his "speech voice" (admittedly, he has a good and well-trained voice for speeches, well-cadenced and using every rhetorical trick in the book), I think of him praising Julia Child in those exact same tones, and remember the age-old but still true words of Dorothy Parker:

"There is less to this than meets the eye."