The Saddam was bluffing theory

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-06 03:23am

Axis Kast wrote: Try appeal to the obvious.

That would be the obvious unknowable.

Considering we still don’t know how long the planes sat under the sand, it’s still too early to say whether or not Blix was negligent.

That would be your roundabout way of saying that you don't actually have anything to that effect, do you?

If they were looking at the relevant air base, they should have been able to detect the buried fighters.

They were found near the airbase, not at the airbase.

Incidentally, this brings me back to your own insistence that we’d somehow have found buried WMD thanks to our satellites alone – because Hans Blix sure as hell didn’t tramp all over the country.

And the facilities to build them, and the activity to hide them, and the people who took part in all this to say so ....

The fact that he’s got any at all is evidence of a failure to maintain adequate safeguards.

Ah, so I guess finding a single anthrax spore on a toilet seat somewhere would alsoe be evidence of failure to maintain adequate safeguards, because it'd be just as useful, i.e. not at all.

Only in your twisted little universe

Coming from the master of delusion, imaginary evidence, illogic, and paranoia, that's a laugh.

is it irrelevant whether Iraq can acquire illegal equipment in violation of United Nations Security Council sanctions.

Yup, those scary helicopter rockets, fear Iraq's Mi-24 swarms, evil America!

What part of: “The fact that Iraq was able to acquire any aluminum rods at all is a serious indictment against the success of sanctions,” do you misunderstand?

The part where you assume it's a valid statement perhaps?

The point is that Iraq has apparently been able to acquire numerous items since 1991 that they should not have – and which only inspections with the threat of military action compel them to give up – grudgingly. Not that Hans Blix launched a very thorough investigation in the first place.

Irrelevant. Iraq was incapable of reconstituting NBC capability with the inspections regime in place, your red herrings about small time rockets which noone advanced as a serious case for war (for obvious bloody reasons) notwithstanding.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-06 10:34pm

Complete red herring to the Blix issue, saying absolutely nothing as to whether the inspectors 'missed' anything.

You should have no problem in digging up a source saying that Blix could not find where some planes of the Iraqi air force were for verification of any delivery system issues.

The article quotes Australian forces as being particularly surprised at the nature of their find. Hence the suspicion that prior knowledge of the caché – or the whereabouts of aircraft therein – weren’t exactly known to any Western intelligence agency (or, by default, the United Nations).

I haven’t been able to find a single document related to Blix and the Iraqi Air Force, period.

Iraq was known to have Roland in it's arsenal since the 1980s.

Hence why the author admits that it’s “too early” to begin pointing fingers.

It appears they must've entered a 1960s timewarp for this 'advanced' claim to be true.

Most news agencies and laymen regard the MiG-25 as “advanced” because of its great speed.

By that reasoning, so do T-55s and BTR-60s.

Now that’s a red herring.

That would be the obvious unknowable.

… which, of course, still makes very logical sense.

That would be your roundabout way of saying that you don't actually have anything to that effect, do you?

That would be my way of saying that the investigation hasn’t yet been closed.

They were found near the airbase, not at the airbase.

It still doesn’t explain how fifty and thirty planes came to sit in caves or under the sand between the time Hans Blix left and the Coalition began an offensive campaign. Satellites aren’t infallible, I know, but such transfers wouldn’t exactly have been low-profile.

And the facilities to build them, and the activity to hide them, and the people who took part in all this to say so.

The facilities are relevant only to 1998. See my earlier argument for reconstitution. The activity to hide them might have been “lost in the shuffle.” Notice how we failed to detect the thirty hidden fighters via satellite. And the people who took part in these activities were probably régime loyalists. If they were WMD, it is certain they’d have been. Nobody told us about the Frogfoots, either.

Y up, those scary helicopter rockets, fear Iraq's Mi-24 swarms, evil America!

Red herring.

Irrelevant. Iraq was incapable of reconstituting NBC capability with the inspections regime in place, your red herrings about small time rockets which noone advanced as a serious case for war (for obvious bloody reasons) notwithstanding.

Iraq had clear and unrestricted access to dual-purpose equipment between 1998 and 2002. Waving your hands at so significant a lapse in security merely because Iraq hasn’t built an actual bomb isn’t exactly a good method of deterrence - or did you miss the part where the world agreed unanimously that Iraq shouldn't be permitted any weapons at all and the United Nations vowed to act on that decision?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 06:58am

Axis Kast wrote: The article quotes Australian forces as being particularly surprised at the nature of their find. Hence the suspicion that prior knowledge of the caché – or the whereabouts of aircraft therein – weren’t exactly known to any Western intelligence agency (or, by default, the United Nations).

Australian forces were surprised that they found aircraft at (gasp!) an airbase. I'm not too proud of our SAS right now, or more accurately, the dolt who wrote this article.

I haven’t been able to find a single document related to Blix and the Iraqi Air Force, period.

Then you have no argument.

Most news agencies and laymen regard the MiG-25 as “advanced” because of its great speed.

And they're wrong. It was a good aircraft for it's time, it is thoroughly obsolete now.

Now that’s a red herring.

No, it's not. It's a perfectly valid analogy of the 'formidable' claim. A force of MiG-25s, MiG-21s, and Mirage F1s is not formidable by any post-1980s standard.

… which, of course, still makes very logical sense.

Only you could think that appealing to nonexistent evidence of which you know nothign could make logical sense.

That would be my way of saying that the investigation hasn’t yet been closed.

I'm sorry, there's an investigation? Or is this another assumption?

It still doesn’t explain how fifty and thirty planes came to sit in caves or under the sand between the time Hans Blix left and the Coalition began an offensive campaign. Satellites aren’t infallible, I know, but such transfers wouldn’t exactly have been low-profile.

Never said they were infallible, only that satellites in combination with observers on the ground of any kind would detect activitiy of the magnitude claimed, that being the weapons Bush repeatedly claimed Iraq to have.

The facilities are relevant only to 1998. See my earlier argument for reconstitution. The activity to hide them might have been “lost in the shuffle.” Notice how we failed to detect the thirty hidden fighters via satellite. And the people who took part in these activities were probably régime loyalists. If they were WMD, it is certain they’d have been. Nobody told us about the Frogfoots, either.

Everyone who ever touched the WMD was a regime loyalist? Come now. As to the Frogfoots, I don't see any big reward for finding useless ruined CAS aircraft buried by idiots.

Red herring.

Learn what a red herring is before you toss around its name. Mi-24s are one of the few aircraft Iraq has that could launch those fearsome US national security threatening, unguided under 1km range rockets of yours (depending on whether they're helo or arty launch rockets, it makes zero difference).

Iraq had clear and unrestricted access to dual-purpose equipment between 1998 and 2002.

Leap in logic from possessing 'dual-use' equipment to using it to build weapons.

Waving your hands at so significant a lapse in security merely because Iraq hasn’t built an actual bomb isn’t exactly a good method of deterrence -

Assumption that Iraq could build an actual bomb under the situation it was in, completely divorced from reality.

or did you miss the part where the world agreed unanimously that Iraq shouldn't be permitted any weapons at all and the United Nations vowed to act on that decision?[/quote]

They did act on that decision. Unfortunately, the inspectors were not given any time to complete their job, so URGENT was the need to go to war, and now the US asks for more time after? Fuck them. They were 100% certain that Iraq had weapons, but had 0% certainty as to where they were or are. Most peculiar.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-07 05:58pm

Australian forces were surprised that they found aircraft at (gasp!) an airbase. I'm not too proud of our SAS right now, or more accurately, the dolt who wrote this article.

More accurately, the aircraft were found just outside the airbase. Activity should have been quite clear to satellite.

Then you have no argument.

Neither do you. There’s nothing to say that Blix made a count while he was in Iraq one way or the other – or that anybody else was keeping a strict tally, either.

And they're wrong. It was a good aircraft for it's time, it is thoroughly obsolete now.

Red herring. Editorial gaffes don’t seriously degrade the legitimacy of the article.

Only you could think that appealing to nonexistent evidence of which you know nothign could make logical sense.

You honestly believe that George W. Bush has shared all relevant intelligence data concerning Iraq with the American public?

I'm sorry, there's an investigation? Or is this another assumption?

It only makes sense that somebody would be tasked to investigate at what point the aircraft were put into the ground.

Never said they were infallible, only that satellites in combination with observers on the ground of any kind would detect activitiy of the magnitude claimed, that being the weapons Bush repeatedly claimed Iraq to have.

You mean to say “activity of the magnitude I expect”. Reconstitution of a weapons program that shouldn’t exist in the first place could, as I’ve said time and time again, cover relatively minimal ground. A discussion. An order. A financial transaction. A single purchase of smuggled equipment.

You also insisted that anything hidden underground would be readily visible to satellites elsewhere on this board.

Everyone who ever touched the WMD was a regime loyalist? Come now. As to the Frogfoots, I don't see any big reward for finding useless ruined CAS aircraft buried by idiots.

Anybody who ever moved WMD was a régime loyalist – or didn’t you know that Hussein raised specific units to do such work in the first place?

Leap in logic from possessing 'dual-use' equipment to using it to build weapons.

Once more, you’re ignoring the symptoms of a larger problem: that Iraq could slowly reconstitute its capability free from intervention by the very body tasked with denying it such freedoms.

They did act on that decision. Unfortunately, the inspectors were not given any time to complete their job, so URGENT was the need to go to war, and now the US asks for more time after? Fuck them. They were 100% certain that Iraq had weapons, but had 0% certainty as to where they were or are. Most peculiar.

Violation of the UNSC resolutions was clear from 1991 on. That the UNSC acted only now is evidence of a disturbing trend of lax enforcement and limited interest.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 11:40pm

Axis Kast wrote: More accurately, the aircraft were found just outside the airbase. Activity should have been quite clear to satellite.

Wrong:

Australian SAS unearth huge arsenal
By Max Blenkin in Doha

AUSTRALIAN special forces have uncovered a vast trove of weapons including much of the surviving Iraqi air force, munitions and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protective equipment on an Iraqi airbase west of Baghdad.

Among the finds are 51 MiG jet fighters, mostly older MiG 21s but including three advanced MiG 25 Foxbats, plus armoured vehicles, anti-aircraft guns and a French-made Roland anti-aircraft missile system.
It's not known how many of the aircraft remained in flying condition.

Also found were bunkers capable of withstanding nuclear, chemical and biological attack plus training materials on weapons of mass destruction.

Some 200 Australian troops, including members of the Special Air Service Regiment, Commandos, Incident Response Regiment and bomb disposal experts are continuing to search the base.

Commander of the Australian forces in the Middle East, Brigadier Maurie McNarn, said it was originally expected the job would take no more than two or three days.

"We are now six days in. It was far more extensive than we first thought. This is one of the major air bases," he said.

Coalition air forces attacked the facility early in the war, using special bombs to crater the runways so they could not be used. As it was, the Iraqi air force showed little inclination to fight.

Had they done so they could have caused major problems for the coalition in the early days of the conflict.

"We were always worried, even though their air force gave early indications that they didn't want to fight - they are not silly, they know what our capability is - that it was always there," Brigadier McNarn said.

"We were still surprised at the number of aircraft and the amount of munitions."

Australian forces occupied the base against minimal opposition. Some Iraqi gunners tried to turn an anti-aircraft gun on the Australian troops but a few shots over their heads sent them running.

Brigadier McNarn said there were no confirmed weapons of mass destruction but it was still early days in searching the vast network of underground bunkers and weapons stores.

"If we come across anything we think might be weapons of mass destruction, what we will do is mark the area, picket it then let the experts in," he said.

"At this stage what we have turned up are training facilities, personal protective equipment and people prepared to operate in a NBC environment.

"We didn't have any of that sort of equipment. Yet they had extensive preparations to operate in an environment where someone used it. That only leaves them."

Brigadier McNarn said coalition forces had found extraordinary amounts of munitions and weapons across Iraq, much apparently acquired in contravention of United Nations sanctions.

"We have heard about the smuggling and the fact that Iraq could not afford to buy equipment or medicines for their hospitals," he said.

"You can see where the money went when you open these bunkers. It will actually be a significant job to either secure or dispose of this sort of equipment."

Brigadier McNarn said some of the equipment might be destroyed, some retained for the new Iraqi military while a few select items might find their way to the Australian War Memorial.

It continues with the unfounded, never heard of again 'Iraq was violating sanctions with weapons purchases' (much like the Kornet-E ATGM yarn), but there it is.

Neither do you.

I'm not the one making the claim.

Red herring. Editorial gaffes don’t seriously degrade the legitimacy of the article.

Bullshit. It makes a host of outright wrong claims about the aircraft and then editorializes to use these obsolete pieces of shit which Iraq was already known to possess as proof that Iraq was 'rorting' the oil-for-food program- absurd on its face.

You honestly believe that George W. Bush has shared all relevant intelligence data concerning Iraq with the American public?

It's not a question of what I honestly believe. He saw fit to share his debunked intelligence data, but not his super secret, really good intelligence? Yeah, sure- the Great Leader knows best, screw actually expecting him to justify his claims.

It only makes sense that somebody would be tasked to investigate at what point the aircraft were put into the ground.

I seriously doubt you'll hear anything more on this topic.

You mean to say “activity of the magnitude I expect”.

Bush's continued accusations made it quite clear what he expected.

Reconstitution of a weapons program that shouldn’t exist in the first place could, as I’ve said time and time again, cover relatively minimal ground. A discussion. An order. A financial transaction. A single purchase of smuggled equipment.

NOT what was claimed unfortunately for you. As I've said time and again. Bush claimed the existence and continued construction by Iraq of WEAPONS- including activity at the facilities to build them. Which was debunked by inspectors on the ground in the leadup to war.

Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past."
When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim. "Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report (1/18/03).

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

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

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

You also insisted that anything hidden underground would be readily visible to satellites elsewhere on this board.

And I'm still right- satellites could pick up disturbances in the soil, the activity prior to burying them, etc. Colin Powell already demonstrated in his laughable February UN presentation what US satellites were doing- if they were moving around WMD evidence like he claimed with those truck pictures, you expect me to believe that they weren't following these things around looking for where they were going, for example?

Anybody who ever moved WMD was a régime loyalist – or didn’t you know that Hussein raised specific units to do such work in the first place?

Question begging.

Once more, you’re ignoring the symptoms of a larger problem: that Iraq could slowly reconstitute its capability free from intervention by the very body tasked with denying it such freedoms.

You haven't shown any evidence of Iraq reconstituting any capability, slow or fast. I'm tired of your unfounded claims.

Violation of the UNSC resolutions was clear from 1991 on. That the UNSC acted only now is evidence of a disturbing trend of lax enforcement and limited interest.

This here quote is an example of what a red herring is, for future reference, so you don't get it wrong like you usually do.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-08 06:25am

Wrong:

Even worse. Assuming the aircraft were being hidden only after Blix made his departure, they should have been immediately visible to satellite sweeps. Moving fifty warplanes to underground shelters at a large air base in the work-up to a war isn’t exactly a miniscule undertaking.

I'm not the one making the claim.

It is your position that Hans Blix and the United Nations kept perfect tabs on Iraqi aircraft before the war – and yet I see no evidence to suggest that kind of recording.

I seriously doubt you'll hear anything more on this topic.

They’re already pulling the planes out of the ground. No reason to assume the investigation will end without making a full account of when the aircraft were hidden and why they escaped no notice.

Bush's continued accusations made it quite clear what he expected.

You continue to read too much into “reconstituted programs” and “expanded capabilities.” As I’ve said time and again, we wouldn’t necessarily need sprawling weaponization facilities to have confirmed the continued evolution of the prohibited program. And all those weapons that were spoken about? Leftovers don’t necessarily require any infrastructure.

NOT what was claimed unfortunately for you. As I've said time and again. Bush claimed the existence and continued construction by Iraq of WEAPONS- including activity at the facilities to build them. Which was debunked by inspectors on the ground in the leadup to war.

Inspectors who spent a grand total of four months on the ground, most of it at pre-arranged locations already subject to scrutiny since 1991. The search for weapons isn’t yet complete, moreover.

And I'm still right- satellites could pick up disturbances in the soil, the activity prior to burying them, etc. Colin Powell already demonstrated in his laughable February UN presentation what US satellites were doing- if they were moving around WMD evidence like he claimed with those truck pictures, you expect me to believe that they weren't following these things around looking for where they were going, for example?

Satellites would pick up disturbances in the soil, and yet we were unable to find the Iraqi air force assets hidden under the desert floor without visual contact.

Question begging.

Absolutely not. I answered your question. Those responsible for moving and hiding the weapons of mass destruction would have been régime loyalists, as per the history of the Iraqi program.

You haven't shown any evidence of Iraq reconstituting any capability, slow or fast. I'm tired of your unfounded claims.

And yet I’ve proven that they could put their hands on dual-purpose equipment without consequence. That means they had the ability to reconstitute, Vympel. It’s a step on the road they shouldn’t have been permitted to take. We had prior knowledge, after all.

This here quote is an example of what a red herring is, for future reference, so you don't get it wrong like you usually do.

No, it’s your trying to escape the fact that Iraq was in a position to exploit the United Nations Security Council Resolutions – which it had been doing for quite some time, no less - without Coalition pressure.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-08 09:30am

Axis Kast wrote:
Even worse. Assuming the aircraft were being hidden only after Blix made his departure, they should have been immediately visible to satellite sweeps. Moving fifty warplanes to underground shelters at a large air base in the work-up to a war isn’t exactly a miniscule undertaking.

You just can't put tab A into slot A, can you? The presence of aircraft at an airbase is not controversial- and moving them to the shelters that were designed to protect them from strikes isn't exactly fucking rocket science. See: Pristina Airport, 1999.

It is your position that Hans Blix and the United Nations kept perfect tabs on Iraqi aircraft before the war – and yet I see no evidence to suggest that kind of recording.

Don't even think about it. UNMOVIC delivered regular reports on everything that was under his responsibility- they inspected the UAV claims, the rebuilt facilities claim, they followed up US intelligence leads, oversaw the destruction of the Al-Samouds, and did other work that wasn't the subject of so much media attention. I'm not going to indulge you in your attempt to make your claim of his 'missing' anything as the default position. You make the claim that Blix 'missed' them, you provide the proof, hell, even the goddamn claim by *someone*, that he did.

They’re already pulling the planes out of the ground. No reason to assume the investigation will end without making a full account of when the aircraft were hidden and why they escaped no notice.

We'll see.

You continue to read too much into “reconstituted programs” and “expanded capabilities.” As I’ve said time and again, we wouldn’t necessarily need sprawling weaponization facilities to have confirmed the continued evolution of the prohibited program. And all those weapons that were spoken about? Leftovers don’t necessarily require any infrastructure.

Explain his claims then. In particular, the repeated claims that they were rebuilding facilities.

Inspectors who spent a grand total of four months on the ground, most of it at pre-arranged locations already subject to scrutiny since 1991. The search for weapons isn’t yet complete, moreover.

Not even a half-decent attempt to bullshit your way out of a corner. I'm disappointed. Specific claims were made about specific sites, and they were debunked, as I cited. Your hand waving about how long the inspectors were there has nothing to do with the sites they did visit, and what they did say about those sites.

Satellites would pick up disturbances in the soil, and yet we were unable to find the Iraqi air force assets hidden under the desert floor without visual contact.

And round the circle we go. Because we ALL know that Iraqi aircraft hidden from bombing during the campaign and Iraq's long hidden WMD (or whatever suits your position at the time, re: your ludicrous attempt to get out of the 'recent authorization' claim by trying to redefine the word recent to encompass 10 years ago) are precisely the same!

Absolutely not. I answered your question. Those responsible for moving and hiding the weapons of mass destruction would have been régime loyalists, as per the history of the Iraqi program.

Absolutely so. By claiming that those responsible for moving and hiding the weapons were 'regime loyalists' as fact, you assume the weapons existence. Completely circular logic.

And yet I’ve proven that they could put their hands on dual-purpose equipment without consequence.

You did? Where? What prohibited equipment has Iraq gotten it's hands on that could be used for NBC weapons? Strange memory you have there. Oohh, wait! Let me guess, aluminum tubes unsuited for the purpose and known to be used for something else!!!!!

That means they had the ability to reconstitute, Vympel. It’s a step on the road they shouldn’t have been permitted to take. We had prior knowledge, after all.

You haven't proved that they reconstituted, or that they were capable of reconsituting. It's amazing the bullshit you can throw around without actually having anything to back it up.

No, it’s your trying to escape the fact that Iraq was in a position to exploit the United Nations Security Council Resolutions – which it had been doing for quite some time, no less - without Coalition pressure.

Trademark Kast "try and make the other side forget what he asked by changing the subject into my favorite piece of anti-UN rhetoric"

You said:

Violation of the UNSC resolutions was clear from 1991 on. That the UNSC acted only now is evidence of a disturbing trend of lax enforcement and limited interest.

or did you miss the part where the world agreed unanimously that Iraq shouldn't be permitted any weapons at all and the United Nations vowed to act on that decision

I said:

They did act on that decision. Unfortunately, the inspectors were not given any time to complete their job, so URGENT was the need to go to war, and now the US asks for more time after? Fuck them. They were 100% certain that Iraq had weapons, but had 0% certainty as to where they were or are. Most peculiar.

And you failed to respond to my question. Hence, red herring.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-09 12:34am

You just can't put tab A into slot A, can you? The presence of aircraft at an airbase is not controversial- and moving them to the shelters that were designed to protect them from strikes isn't exactly fucking rocket science. See: Pristina Airport, 1999.

The thirty or so aircraft discovered buried outside al-Taqqadum air base tend not to support your analysis.

Once more, you need to explain why the Australian SAS “stumbled” over aircraft they didn’t know to be in the vicinity if the Iraqis simply placed them into routine storage. If they were merely following procedure, why were we caught so unaware? Especially in the work-up to a war, I find the notion that Iraq could have hidden eighty-plus aircraft from detection rather unlikely.

Don't even think about it. UNMOVIC delivered regular reports on everything that was under his responsibility- they inspected the UAV claims, the rebuilt facilities claim, they followed up US intelligence leads, oversaw the destruction of the Al-Samouds, and did other work that wasn't the subject of so much media attention. I'm not going to indulge you in your attempt to make your claim of his 'missing' anything as the default position. You make the claim that Blix 'missed' them, you provide the proof, hell, even the goddamn claim by *someone*, that he did.

The proof is in the absence. As you’ve stated, reports exist for other forms of accounting. No mention of the Iraqi air force was made.

Explain his claims then. In particular, the repeated claims that they were rebuilding facilities.

Several facilities were reopened or refurbished for civilian work. Remember the concerns over dual-purpose equipment.

Not even a half-decent attempt to bullshit your way out of a corner. I'm disappointed. Specific claims were made about specific sites, and they were debunked, as I cited. Your hand waving about how long the inspectors were there has nothing to do with the sites they did visit, and what they did say about those sites.

Which specific sites did Bush state housed WMD?

And round the circle we go. Because we ALL know that Iraqi aircraft hidden from bombing during the campaign and Iraq's long hidden WMD (or whatever suits your position at the time, re: your ludicrous attempt to get out of the 'recent authorization' claim by trying to redefine the word recent to encompass 10 years ago) are precisely the same!

Red herring. Clearly, satellites aren’t as reliable as we all believed. If Iraq managed to hide thirty or eighty aircraft under our noses, there’s no reason they couldn’t have buried their WMD as well. Do recall that they seem to have destroyed them without our having knowledge until after the fact.

Absolutely so. By claiming that those responsible for moving and hiding the weapons were 'regime loyalists' as fact, you assume the weapons existence. Completely circular logic.

You asked why nobody had stepped forward. I replied that it was a proven fact: Saddam Hussein relied on régime loyalists in special military units to transport, oversee, and deploy WMD. There’s no reason to assume he would have let up on such behavior – especially at this point in time when discovery could mean invasion.

You did? Where? What prohibited equipment has Iraq gotten it's hands on that could be used for NBC weapons? Strange memory you have there. Oohh, wait! Let me guess, aluminum tubes unsuited for the purpose and known to be used for something else!!!!!

Those rods shouldn’t have been there in the first place. It’s proof that Hussein could have and did import dual-purpose and even prohibited equipment into the country – with clear knowledge of the violations by the United Nations Security Council.

You haven't proved that they reconstituted, or that they were capable of reconsituting. It's amazing the bullshit you can throw around without actually having anything to back it up.

See above. Reconstitution doesn’t necessarily mean full construction of a working bomb, but also a renewal of old programs or behaviors.

And you failed to respond to my question. Hence, red herring.

The inspectors failed to punish Iraq – or even assess the situation directly – until confronted by the United States of America and put between a rock and a hard place. That’s no excuse for four years of a lax approach.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-09 05:19am

Axis Kast wrote:
The thirty or so aircraft discovered buried outside al-Taqqadum air base tend not to support your analysis.

Analysis of what? Stop dancing. We were talking about the April incident.

Once more, you need to explain why the Australian SAS “stumbled” over aircraft they didn’t know to be in the vicinity if the Iraqis simply placed them into routine storage.

Strawman. Bomb shelters does not equal routine storage.

If they were merely following procedure, why were we caught so unaware? Especially in the work-up to a war, I find the notion that Iraq could have hidden eighty-plus aircraft from detection rather unlikely.

Yes, finding aircraft at an airbase is being caught unawares. ""We were still surprised at the number of aircraft and the amount of munitions."

They were surprised at the amounts, not that they were there at all.

The proof is in the absence. As you’ve stated, reports exist for other forms of accounting. No mention of the Iraqi air force was made.

Which noone brought up as an issue. US critics jumped all over the so-called 'burying' of the Iraqis laughable killer UAV in the report, but they didn't mention Blix 'missing' Iraqi aircraft? Sure. This is tail chasing, you don't even know when they were buried.

Several facilities were reopened or refurbished for civilian work. Remember the concerns over dual-purpose equipment.

"Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past."
When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim. "Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report (1/18/03)."

Which specific sites did Bush state housed WMD?

Al Tuwaitha, Al Rafah, Al Dawrah. And no, you won't be successful in restricting this to just whether Bush was lying (every single one of these things seems to become about whether Bush lied, irrespective of what the original topic was). He made claims that were wrong at the very least. I don't give a fuck if he lied, even though he has (e.g. his bizarre reference to an IAEA report that didn't exist, saying that it said Iraq was 'six months' away from a nuke).

Red herring.

You actually have to show why it's one, Kast.

Clearly, satellites aren’t as reliable as we all believed. If Iraq managed to hide thirty or eighty aircraft under our noses, there’s no reason they couldn’t have buried their WMD as well. Do recall that they seem to have destroyed them without our having knowledge until after the fact.

Iraq destroyed its weapons before inspections began, while the destruction of some facilities and some remaining weapons was left to inspectors, who finished their real work in around 95-96. As to whether anyone was aware Iraq had engaged in unilateral destruction at the time, I don't know.

You asked why nobody had stepped forward. I replied that it was a proven fact: Saddam Hussein relied on régime loyalists in special military units to transport, oversee, and deploy WMD.

There’s no reason to assume he would have let up on such behavior – especially at this point in time when discovery could mean invasion.

Which special military units? The Fedayeen Saddam, for example, didn't even exist when Iraq was known to have used WMD. The Republican Guard? The same ones who were routed and quite possibly paid off (as General Franks admitted occured) while putting up barely token resistance, leaving most of the Baghdad battle to foreign volunteers, who later complained about being abandoned?

Those rods shouldn’t have been there in the first place. It’s proof that Hussein could have and did import dual-purpose and even prohibited equipment into the country – with clear knowledge of the violations by the United Nations Security Council.

Not nearly so simply I'm afraid:

Of all the countries that have illicitly sought nuclear weapons, only Iraq has described in detail the methods it used in the 1980s to procure items for its nuclear weapons program. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council forced Iraq to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, and longer range ballistic missiles programs. To achieve its goal of an Iraq free of nuclear weapons, the Security Council created the IAEA Action Team. The Action Team spent several years investigating Iraq's nuclear accomplishments and failures prior to the Gulf War. It obtained procurement information from Iraq and systematically checked it against supplier, commerce, and intelligence records that member states agreed to provide under the UN Security Council resolutions. Because of the Action Team inspection efforts and parallel public and legal investigations into illicit procurement, a considerable amount of public information exists about Iraq's procurement activities in the 1980s.

Compare to the aluminum tubes:

The CIA said that the procurements were highly secret, despite Iraq being able to buy the tubes on the open market. In fact, Iraq could not buy the tubes on the open market. Iraq has been forbidden to possess high-strength aluminum regardless of its use unless such an order was approved by the United Nations and subject to monitoring, an impossibility after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998. But these orders were not that secret, according to a US expert. The Iraqi trading company charged with ordering the tubes often sent facsimiles from its Baghdad office to many foreign companies, including the exact dimensions and tolerances in its request. Facsimiles are easy for intelligence agencies to intercept. This method is very different from Iraq's well documented highly clandestine procurement techniques. Click here for more information about Iraqi procurement.

*the click here goes to the first quoted extract*

As you can see, Iraq did not act in a manner conducive to it's previous highly secret 1980s clandestine weapons procurement, and it's aluminum tubes purchases would not have been nearly so controversial had inspectors been present to monitor the purchase. Iraq had been purchasing such tubes since the 1980s. This was known to the IAEA Action Team. Was it a violation? Yes. Does it support your claims of reconsituting capability? Absolutely not.

You're also making a false analogy between aluminum tubes that don't meet the specifications required anyway and are acquired relatively easily and other material that could be used for NBC weapons production- material that is much harder to come buy and more expensive to purchase-things like gas centrifuges, raw material for biological and chemical weapons, the equipment to make it, etc.

See above. Reconstitution doesn’t necessarily mean full construction of a working bomb, but also a renewal of old programs or behaviors.

The aluminum tubes were a continuation of a long standing artillery rocket program (reverse engineered from Soviet helicopter rockets, glad that confusion is cleared up), and was hardly a renewal of weapons program behaviors, as you can see.

The inspectors failed to punish Iraq

Not their job. That's the UNSC job, and nowhere does it mandate anywhere the necessity of 'punishing' Iraq, either.

– or even assess the situation directly – until confronted by the United States of America and put between a rock and a hard place. That’s no excuse for four years of a lax approach.

So what was the UN to do in that four years? There were repeated demands for the readmittance of inspectors. They weren't exactly in a pretty position after the UNSCOM spy scandal, and as we have seen, the moment the inspectors were let in, the US simply whinged long and hard that the Iraqis were hiding everything anyway.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-09 10:01am

Analysis of what? Stop dancing. We were talking about the April incident.

Strawman. Bomb shelters does not equal routine storage.

Yes, finding aircraft at an airbase is being caught unawares. ""We were still surprised at the number of aircraft and the amount of munitions."

They were surprised at the amounts, not that they were there at all.

If the United Nations was fully aware of the number and location of Iraqi aircraft, as per UNSC resolutions;

If the United States of America was likely to have been monitoring action at Iraq’s major airbases during the work-up to war;

If the Australian SAS was the beneficiary of the most complete intelligence available, then why did the quantity of Iraqi arms surprise them?

Which noone brought up as an issue. US critics jumped all over the so-called 'burying' of the Iraqis laughable killer UAV in the report, but they didn't mention Blix 'missing' Iraqi aircraft? Sure. This is tail chasing, you don't even know when they were buried.

As I said, it is unlikely that the storage of thirty aircraft outside al-Taqqadum during the few weeks prior to the war would have gone unnoticed from the air.

"Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past."
When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim. "Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report (1/18/03)."

Bingo. You just hit the nail in the head – and closed your own coffin.

“Rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past” could very easily mean that work is underway on civilian or dual-purpose facilities. In fact, given the vague nature of the statements in relation to what was being developed, it probably does.

Al Tuwaitha, Al Rafah, Al Dawrah. And no, you won't be successful in restricting this to just whether Bush was lying (every single one of these things seems to become about whether Bush lied, irrespective of what the original topic was). He made claims that were wrong at the very least. I don't give a fuck if he lied, even though he has (e.g. his bizarre reference to an IAEA report that didn't exist, saying that it said Iraq was 'six months' away from a nuke).

Quotations, please.

And round the circle we go. Because we ALL know that Iraqi aircraft hidden from bombing during the campaign and Iraq's long hidden WMD (or whatever suits your position at the time, re: your ludicrous attempt to get out of the 'recent authorization' claim by trying to redefine the word recent to encompass 10 years ago) are precisely the same!

You’re mocking the notion that Iraq could have buried WMD without actually providing an argument, Vympel. Why, if Iraq buried modern warplanes, couldn’t it have buried WMD?

Iraq destroyed its weapons before inspections began, while the destruction of some facilities and some remaining weapons was left to inspectors, who finished their real work in around 95-96. As to whether anyone was aware Iraq had engaged in unilateral destruction at the time, I don't know.

Before inspections began in 1991 or 2002? Even Scott Ritter – who has now changed his tune – reported that Iraq’s stockpiles in 1998 still hadn’t been completely destroyed.

Assuming that Iraq broke from its pattern of past deception and prosecuted unilateral demolition of its own stockpiles of WMD is placing dangerously overmuch faith in the good intentions of Saddam Hussein. Iraq left no documents or physical evidence of the extent of their self-disarmament. We know they destroyed something – but not how much. If Baghdad was planning to make an accounting with the United Nations, they certainly offered “proof” as flimsy as a piece of Swiss cheese. And if you believe that Iraq hid the complete nature of its disarmament simply to placate the Arab world and save face, why wouldn’t it have chosen to hide some equipment instead?

Which special military units? The Fedayeen Saddam, for example, didn't even exist when Iraq was known to have used WMD. The Republican Guard? The same ones who were routed and quite possibly paid off (as General Franks admitted occured) while putting up barely token resistance, leaving most of the Baghdad battle to foreign volunteers, who later complained about being abandoned?

Once more, why would Saddam have broken from tradition by deploying unreliable or unknown troops to transport or hide his WMD? You’re dodging the question. Just because some units broke and ran doesn’t mean all would have done so. Many Iraqis – most, in fact – simply melted back into the woodwork when victory or a stalemate looked impossible.

As you can see, Iraq did not act in a manner conducive to it's previous highly secret 1980s clandestine weapons procurement, and it's aluminum tubes purchases would not have been nearly so controversial had inspectors been present to monitor the purchase. Iraq had been purchasing such tubes since the 1980s. This was known to the IAEA Action Team. Was it a violation? Yes. Does it support your claims of reconsituting capability? Absolutely not.

You're also making a false analogy between aluminum tubes that don't meet the specifications required anyway and are acquired relatively easily and other material that could be used for NBC weapons production- material that is much harder to come buy and more expensive to purchase-things like gas centrifuges, raw material for biological and chemical weapons, the equipment to make it, etc.

Emphasis mine.

Iraq was purchasing equipment known to be in violation of UNSC resolutions and a weapons embargo, but nothing was done to punish or prevent these acts between 1998 and 2002.

Even el-Baradei admitted that the tubes could have been used for other, illegal purposes – albeit at great expense. Iraq was clearly able to put its hands on prohibited equipment without fear of retribution for four years’ time. An unacceptable lapse in security and proof of limited reconstitution. Again, that term is not limited to describing only a complete weapon or sprawling infrastructure, but also the beginning of renewal of a program of deception, moving forward at a crawl. Given enough time, it’s only logical: Iraq would have taken more such liberties. Whether or not any of this was imported under usual codes of silence is irrelevant; they still put their hands on equipment they shouldn’t have had in the first place.

The aluminum tubes were a continuation of a long standing artillery rocket program (reverse engineered from Soviet helicopter rockets, glad that confusion is cleared up), and was hardly a renewal of weapons program behaviors, as you can see.

The tubes shouldn’t have been there, but they were. Without punishment. That’s obvious renewal of weapons program behaviors.

Not their job. That's the UNSC job, and nowhere does it mandate anywhere the necessity of 'punishing' Iraq, either.

You know what I meant. Iraq didn’t face any punishment or consequences. Period.

So what was the UN to do in that four years? There were repeated demands for the readmittance of inspectors. They weren't exactly in a pretty position after the UNSCOM spy scandal, and as we have seen, the moment the inspectors were let in, the US simply whinged long and hard that the Iraqis were hiding everything anyway.

The UNSC did nothing on their own – as they should have been doing – until the UN forced their hand. Embarrassment or not, Iraq was violating sanctions and UNSC resolutions designed to ensure common security. They failed in that aspect.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-09 10:36am

Axis Kast wrote:
If the United Nations was fully aware of the number and location of Iraqi aircraft, as per UNSC resolutions;

If the United States of America was likely to have been monitoring action at Iraq’s major airbases during the work-up to war;

If the Australian SAS was the beneficiary of the most complete intelligence available, then why did the quantity of Iraqi arms surprise them?

Because they didn't know how many had been destroyed by air strikes most likely. You should remember the Iraqis employed typical BDA-foiling tactics.

Bingo. You just hit the nail in the head – and closed your own coffin.

“Rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past” could very easily mean that work is underway on civilian or dual-purpose facilities. In fact, given the vague nature of the statements in relation to what was being developed, it probably does.

Sorry to ruin your dramatics, but you're ignoring what the entire quote said and cherry pick what you like. The CIA claimed reconstitution, citing the events at the facilities as evidence of that. The inspectors refuted that claim. Hence, no reconsitution.

Quotations, please.

September 7 2002, to reporters, with Tony Blair:

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] — that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 907-2.html

Is it acceptable behavior for the President of the US to make up reports? What does this tell you about the standard of intelligence there, if the President is inventing IAEA reports?

You’re mocking the notion that Iraq could have buried WMD without actually providing an argument, Vympel. Why, if Iraq buried modern warplanes, couldn’t it have buried WMD?

I didn't say it couldn't. That'd be silly. I said it was unlikely. All the reasons cited previously. And a new one- did you know that David Kay has asserted that he has evidence of Iraq ordering the use of chemical artillery munitions on enemy forces- strange (that's the 'nail in the coffin' for your attempt to redefine 'recently' by the way). If they were buried, how could they possibly have not had them ready for use by the time the war began, or, taking into account gross incompetence, a few weeks? If the Coalition discouraged commanders from using them, as speculated by some, then why aren't they willing to hand the weapons over? All very curious. Of course, we go back to the bluff theory.

Before inspections began in 1991 or 2002? Even Scott Ritter – who has now changed his tune – reported that Iraq’s stockpiles in 1998 still hadn’t been completely destroyed.

In 1991 (re: I don't know)

He never asserted that Iraq's stockpiles were completely destroyed, but he did form the opinion that Iraq was effectively disamred: re: 95%

Assuming that Iraq broke from its pattern of past deception and prosecuted unilateral demolition of its own stockpiles of WMD is placing dangerously overmuch faith in the good intentions of Saddam Hussein. Iraq left no documents or physical evidence of the extent of their self-disarmament. We know they destroyed something – but not how much. If Baghdad was planning to make an accounting with the United Nations, they certainly offered “proof” as flimsy as a piece of Swiss cheese. And if you believe that Iraq hid the complete nature of its disarmament simply to placate the Arab world and save face, why wouldn’t it have chosen to hide some equipment instead?

Iraq did hide equipment, we know that- the single gas centrifuge. This wasn't with a view to building anything under an inspections regime- that's practically impossible. Building weapons in the four year gap? No evidence of that, as confirmed by the inspectors when they returned- the best leads the intelligence services had, and their assertions, came up empty. The plan was, it seems, to wait till the world lost interest, dropped sanctions, get back in the good graces of a few patrons (perhaps even the United States, if Saddam or Qusay played their cards right), and try again.

Once more, why would Saddam have broken from tradition by deploying unreliable or unknown troops to transport or hide his WMD? You’re dodging the question. Just because some units broke and ran doesn’t mean all would have done so. Many Iraqis – most, in fact – simply melted back into the woodwork when victory or a stalemate looked impossible.

No, I'm not dodging the question, I'm asking you to identify what troops did it. Do you know, or not? It's very pertinent as to the loyalty question, considering what happened in the war.

Emphasis mine.

Iraq was purchasing equipment known to be in violation of UNSC resolutions and a weapons embargo, but nothing was done to punish or prevent these acts between 1998 and 2002.

And this has what to do with US national security? We know what the aluminum tubes were for, they were bought quite casually, and the IAEA saw them as inconsequential to any nuclear program, as did the Department of Energy.

Even el-Baradei admitted that the tubes could have been used for other, illegal purposes – albeit at great expense. Iraq was clearly able to put its hands on prohibited equipment without fear of retribution for four years’ time. An unacceptable lapse in security and proof of limited reconstitution.

Yup, forget what your own Dept of Energy, the IAEA thinks, the proven use of the aluminum tubes (or did you forget when I posted the report that said those rockets were being BUILT), and just rant about the concession the expert in question made for the sake of completeness. It's not proof of reconstitution. They couldn't be used for the purpose without encountering serious problems. They weren't being used for that purpose. There was consensus from the experts on what they were for. That you continue to just repeat yourself in the face of OVERWHELMING expert evidence is just sad.

Again, that term is not limited to describing only a complete weapon or sprawling infrastructure, but also the beginning of renewal of a program of deception, moving forward at a crawl. Given enough time, it’s only logical: Iraq would have taken more such liberties. Whether or not any of this was imported under usual codes of silence is irrelevant; they still put their hands on equipment they shouldn’t have had in the first place.

With the inspections in place, Iraq would not have been able to move forward in reconsituting jack shit.

The tubes shouldn’t have been there, but they were. Without punishment. That’s obvious renewal of weapons program behaviors

Not nuclear, biological, or chemical. Hence, not a threat to the national security of the US (not that I personally ever bought that bullshit, as you know).

You know what I meant. Iraq didn’t face any punishment or consequences. Period.

I don't know, crushing military and economic sanctions that enfeebled Iraq and made it the joke of the region sounds like punishment to me. I guess we should invade over 82mm artillery rockets that were a popular caliber back in ... WW2.

The UNSC did nothing on their own – as they should have been doing – until the UN forced their hand. Embarrassment or not, Iraq was violating sanctions and UNSC resolutions designed to ensure common security. They failed in that aspect.

You haven't shown collective security to be endangered by Iraq's small time artillery rocket program one bit. You've consistently failed to present a shred of evidence of any NBC activity or even major arms purchases and hung your hat on archaic Katyushas.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-09 11:17am

Because they didn't know how many had been destroyed by air strikes most likely. You should remember the Iraqis employed typical BDA-foiling tactics.

And don’t you think somebody would have counted the aircraft on the ground in the first place in order to be later able to determine likely casualties?

Even then, you’re not explaining how eighty aircraft escaped detection during movement (and, sometimes, burial).

Sorry to ruin your dramatics, but you're ignoring what the entire quote said and cherry pick what you like. The CIA claimed reconstitution, citing the events at the facilities as evidence of that. The inspectors refuted that claim. Hence, no reconsitution.

Violations of UNSC resolutions and general reconstitution are two different things, Vympel. As I’ve said, the quotation was probably referring to the civilian side of things.

Is it acceptable behavior for the President of the US to make up reports? What does this tell you about the standard of intelligence there, if the President is inventing IAEA reports?

I was referring to your claims that Bush stated that specific sites housed WMD. Not to mention that you posted a transcript of the speech rather than a confirmation that the IAEA report has gone unfound.

I didn't say it couldn't. That'd be silly. I said it was unlikely. All the reasons cited previously. And a new one- did you know that David Kay has asserted that he has evidence of Iraq ordering the use of chemical artillery munitions on enemy forces- strange (that's the 'nail in the coffin' for your attempt to redefine 'recently' by the way). If they were buried, how could they possibly have not had them ready for use by the time the war began, or, taking into account gross incompetence, a few weeks? If the Coalition discouraged commanders from using them, as speculated by some, then why aren't they willing to hand the weapons over? All very curious. Of course, we go back to the bluff theory.

“Reasons cited previously?” You’ve only put forth three:

(1) Satellites would probably detect ground anomalies and lead us right to them.

… ignoring, of course, the thirty or so aircraft dug up outside al-Taqqadum after visual rather than electronic detection …

(2) Hans Blix found nothing.

… ignoring, of course, the fact that he left after a four-month search focused on only the most obvious facilities …

(3) Somebody should have by now talked.

… ignoring the fact that few Iraqis “talk” about the guerilla fighters and things like al-Taqqadum, or that Hussein had a history of reliance upon specific cadrés of men to move, oversee, and deploy WMD at all times …

And where is the quotation related to David Kay? Has the administration put faith in it? What do intelligence agencies say of that fact?

And since when have orders to utilize chemical weapons necessarily meant that they weren’t still in storage or that it wasn’t assumed the war would end after more than a few weeks of token resistance?

He never asserted that Iraq's stockpiles were completely destroyed, but he did form the opinion that Iraq was effectively disamred: re: 95%

That leaves 5% unaccounted for and largely vindicates the platform on which Bush went to war: Iraq still possessed illegal weaponry. Then it gets down to the divisive question of: “Was he a threat?”, over which we’ve already agreed to disagree.

Iraq did hide equipment, we know that- the single gas centrifuge. This wasn't with a view to building anything under an inspections regime- that's practically impossible. Building weapons in the four year gap? No evidence of that, as confirmed by the inspectors when they returned- the best leads the intelligence services had, and their assertions, came up empty. The plan was, it seems, to wait till the world lost interest, dropped sanctions, get back in the good graces of a few patrons (perhaps even the United States, if Saddam or Qusay played their cards right), and try again.

You’re avoiding the question: why wouldn’t Saddam have hidden them? If you believe they were all destroyed – but the evidence unfortunately lost in the process -, why couldn’t you believe they were hidden just as easily?

No, I'm not dodging the question, I'm asking you to identify what troops did it. Do you know, or not? It's very pertinent as to the loyalty question, considering what happened in the war.

And I’m telling you there is a history of hand-picked men being charged with the tasks. What makes you think Saddam would end that policy now? Not every single unit turned tail, Vympel.

And this has what to do with US national security? We know what the aluminum tubes were for, they were bought quite casually, and the IAEA saw them as inconsequential to any nuclear program, as did the Department of Energy.

It was still evidence that Iraq could evade the sanctions process under certain circumstances. It was still illegal. It was still unacceptable. And worst of all, it provided a boost of confidence important out of proportion to the transaction itself.

Yup, forget what your own Dept of Energy, the IAEA thinks, the proven use of the aluminum tubes (or did you forget when I posted the report that said those rockets were being BUILT), and just rant about the concession the expert in question made for the sake of completeness. It's not proof of reconstitution. They couldn't be used for the purpose without encountering serious problems. They weren't being used for that purpose. There was consensus from the experts on what they were for. That you continue to just repeat yourself in the face of OVERWHELMING expert evidence is just sad.

The point is that they could have been used for illegal purposes. We still prosecute people who carry guns illegally – whether or not they’ve used them. The United Nations shouldn’t have let security slip simply for the sake of ease or convenience. Their task was clear. It was also left incomplete.

With the inspections in place, Iraq would not have been able to move forward in reconsituting jack shit.

… and yet they were able to put their hands on illegal equipment so long as it didn’t seem suspicious.

Please. They’d been subverting embargoes designed to ensure regional security – for which we were most responsible – for years at a time – all without consequences.

I don't know, crushing military and economic sanctions that enfeebled Iraq and made it the joke of the region sounds like punishment to me. I guess we should invade over 82mm artillery rockets that were a popular caliber back in ... WW2.

The United Nations was responsible to do something. It did no such thing. It should have jumped on the charges and demanded fresh inspections on its own. It should have threatened a tightening of sanctions even more severe than the “Smart” variant George Bush had first advocated. The point is, it remained absolutely silent even when illegal activity was underway - within its purview.

You haven't shown collective security to be endangered by Iraq's small time artillery rocket program one bit. You've consistently failed to present a shred of evidence of any NBC activity or even major arms purchases and hung your hat on archaic Katyushas.

It’s clear: Iraq was violating weapons embargoes with the full knowledge – and tacit acceptance of – the United Nations Security Council. It was being permitted to stockpile dual-purpose equipment without fear of consequences. It was being permitted to smuggle weapons or money into the country despite safeguards designed to keep it “down and out.” A physical weapon is inconsequential here. It’s the fact that Iraq was not subject to the level of scrutiny – or punishment – proscribed and promised. The United Nations was not keeping its end of the bargain, Vympel. It was not ensuring the national security of the United States or Iraq’s neighbors to satisfaction.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-09 01:16pm

Axis Kast wrote: And don’t you think somebody would have counted the aircraft on the ground in the first place in order to be later able to determine likely casualties?

Now you're just being ignorant. Do you even know what BDA is?

Even then, you’re not explaining how eighty aircraft escaped detection during movement (and, sometimes, burial).

The April aircraft didn't escape detection. The buried ones did so because they were buried during the war.

Violations of UNSC resolutions and general reconstitution are two different things, Vympel. As I’ve said, the quotation was probably referring to the civilian side of things.

Yes I'm sure you'd like to think that, luckily the CIA is not interested in the events of Iraq's civilian sector for them to be used as intelligence to give to weapons inspectors

I was referring to your claims that Bush stated that specific sites housed WMD.

His claims were based on the CIA reports, obviously.

Not to mention that you posted a transcript of the speech rather than a confirmation that the IAEA report has gone unfound.

"But as Joseph Curl reported three weeks later in the conservative Washington Times, there was no such report: “In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush’s Sept. 7 declaration: ‘There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance,’ IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.”

“Reasons cited previously?” You’ve only put forth three:

(1) Satellites would probably detect ground anomalies and lead us right to them.

… ignoring, of course, the thirty or so aircraft dug up outside al-Taqqadum after visual rather than electronic detection …

Because as we all know buried aircraft during the war=buried WMD before the war.

(2) Hans Blix found nothing.

… ignoring, of course, the fact that he left after a four-month search focused on only the most obvious facilities …

Which he was directed to in part by American and British intelligence agencies. Try again.

(3) Somebody should have by now talked.

… ignoring the fact that few Iraqis “talk” about the guerilla fighters and things like al-Taqqadum, or that Hussein had a history of reliance upon specific cadrés of men to move, oversee, and deploy WMD at all times …

Nowhere have you established or elaborated on any such 'history of reliance' on anything of the sort, and as usual have flat out failed to answer the simplest details about these claimed 'specific cadres'.

And where is the quotation related to David Kay? Has the administration put faith in it? What do intelligence agencies say of that fact?

"Kay's report acknowledged that his team of 1,400 investigators had not yet found any such weapons, raising the possibility that Hussein either hid them, destroyed them, or was simply bluffing in his orders to the Republican Guard.

Kay told Congress his team is searching new sites almost daily, interviewing scientists and captured leaders, and sifting through thousands of pages of documents, officials said.

A summary of his report, described by officials who have seen it, said Republican Guard commanders were ordered by Hussein's regime to launch chemical-filled shells at oncoming coalition troops, and that Kay believes he will soon know why the shells weren't launched.

''They have found evidence that an order was given,'' but no definitive explanation for why the weapons weren't used, said a senior intelligence official with access to Kay's report who asked not to be identified.

Before the war, US defense officials, citing what they described as intercepted Iraqi military communications, said that Iraqi forces were ordered to use chemical weapons. .

On March 28, one week into the war, US Central Command's deputy director for operations, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, said, ''We have seen indications through a variety of sources . . . [that] orders have been given that at a certain point chemical weapons may be used.''

Brooks cited the discovery of hundreds of chemical protection suits at locations south of Baghdad as an indication that Iraqis were prepared to engage in chemical warfare."

His findings of course have support of both the statements of Bush, Powell (the ones you tried to redefine into meaninglessness) , and the above military commanders, who all referred to these so called chemical weapon preparations.

And since when have orders to utilize chemical weapons necessarily meant that they weren’t still in storage or that it wasn’t assumed the war would end after more than a few weeks of token resistance?

Ah yes, because when you order the firing of chemical shells, what you wanna do for maximum inefficiency is go to where you've hidden them in your secret holes all over Iraq, pray to Allah that the shells aren't useless from sitting in a dirt hole for god knows how long, or, put the chemicals in the empty shells, then ship them off to ammo units, hoping that some will eventually make it there to get fired, and that when this is all over, the process didn't go anywhere and absolutely ZERO evidence has been found of any such preparations of any of these so called chemical shells. Makes PERFECT sense.

That leaves 5% unaccounted for and largely vindicates the platform on which Bush went to war: Iraq still possessed illegal weaponry. Then it gets down to the divisive question of: “Was he a threat?”, over which we’ve already agreed to disagree.

Actually Ritter asserted the remaining 5% was useless, being too old.

You’re avoiding the question: why wouldn’t Saddam have hidden them?

Because they might be found.

If you believe they were all destroyed – but the evidence unfortunately lost in the process -, why couldn’t you believe they were hidden just as easily?

Because Iraq gained absolutely nothing from keeping them at that stage in history. Think about it. Risk= high. Gain= zero. Try again later? Yes.

And I’m telling you there is a history of hand-picked men being charged with the tasks. What makes you think Saddam would end that policy now? Not every single unit turned tail, Vympel.

You obviously don't know. The lack of detail is surprising. You can't tell me what units, you can't tell me when, you can't tell me where. What can you tell me?

It was still evidence that Iraq could evade the sanctions process under certain circumstances.

Those circumstances having nothing to do with NBC.

It was still illegal. It was still unacceptable.

Dogma. You've consistently failed to present any evidence of Iraqi reconstitution of any sort, instead choosing to harp on 82mm rockets. Whatever.

And worst of all, it provided a boost of confidence important out of proportion to the transaction itself.

Baseless claim.

The point is that they could have been used for illegal purposes.

At great expense, with great difficulty, with great risk, and with meager hopes for success, all while they were known to be used for something else. Like the experts (both domestic and international) said. That's some huge risk of illegal purposes there.

We still prosecute people who carry guns illegally – whether or not they’ve used them. The United Nations shouldn’t have let security slip simply for the sake of ease or convenience. Their task was clear. It was also left incomplete.

So this is the custom Axis Kast argument for war. Funny, it seems totally divorced from the Bush one.

… and yet they were able to put their hands on illegal equipment so long as it didn’t seem suspicious. Please. They’d been subverting embargoes designed to ensure regional security – for which we were most responsible – for years at a time – all without consequences.

Yup, those Katyusha clones sure were endangering regional security, what oh what was the UN going to do in the face of the fearsome Iraqi artillery arm? Surrender, of course!

The United Nations was responsible to do something. It did no such thing.

Actually, it was. Maintaining sanctions.

It should have jumped on the charges and demanded fresh inspections on its own.

Funny, I remember the UN repeatedly saying inspections should resume. And it'd be nice if you stopped subscribing to the fallacy of a UN vs US situation. The UN is not a monolith.

It should have threatened a tightening of sanctions even more severe than the “Smart” variant George Bush had first advocated.

Actually the "smart" ones were less severe in some ways, more severe in others.

The point is, it remained absolutely silent even when illegal activity was underway - within its purview.

Funny, could you explain how it was within it's perview? Did they use telepathy to inspect Iraq?

Inspectors returned to Iraq and rapidly resumed their work and made good progress. They were cut short. The new tube orders were made in 2000. Before you go on, read my next post.

It’s clear: Iraq was violating weapons embargoes with the full knowledge – and tacit acceptance of – the United Nations Security Council.

Source please.

It was being permitted to stockpile dual-purpose equipment without fear of consequences.

Wrong. We'd know what the consequences would've been if Iraq hadn't been invaded, as it is, I doubt Iraq would've been ordering any more aluminum tubes after it was made public. See next post.

It was being permitted to smuggle weapons or money into the country despite safeguards designed to keep it “down and out.”

See next post.

A physical weapon is inconsequential here. It’s the fact that Iraq was not subject to the level of scrutiny – or punishment – proscribed and promised.

Funny, physical weapons sure as hell weren't inconsequential to the administration before the war, and Bush is going to sink or swim based on whether weapons are found, the Democrats will make sure of that.

The level of scrutiny was the direct result of the USA's mistake in forcing the issue in 1998. As to punishment 'proscribed and promised', no representations were made at any time about any 'promises' to anyone about what would happen to Iraq if it did a certain thing. The UNSC had full authority to decide what to do to Iraq, and that included maintaining sanctions, lifting sanctions, or authorizing 'any means necessary' action, and everything in between.

The United Nations was not keeping its end of the bargain, Vympel. It was not ensuring the national security of the United States or Iraq’s neighbors to satisfaction.

Nice use of the passive voice. Who's satisfaction? You're bullshitting and we all know it. You know the US sure as hell didn't give a toss about Iraqi artillery rockets, they had gotten it in their heads that Iraq would support terrorists and give them NBC weapons. They then went about trying to support this. And they can rely on people like you to make all sorts of ridiculous after the fact rationalisations that they have never made, nor will they.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-09 01:37pm

Shit, just realised something.

Kast- do you have any evidence that Iraq *succeded* in obtaining the aluminum tubes it was asking for? By that I mean, it was known that Iraq put out orders and specifications for them, and it had a pre-91 stockpile which it had been using for it's rocket program (whose deterioration necessitated a new supply) but- where has it ever been said that Iraq actually got the tubes? As far as I can see, references are made to efforts to obtain them, not actually getting them.

And I normally pay so much damn attention.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 01:39pm

I still wonder why the right-wingers can't see how ridiculous it looks to any third-party observer to harp on ALUMINUM TUBES as a justification for war.

"They have aluminum tubes! ATTACK NOW!!!!!"

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-09 04:23pm

Now you're just being ignorant. Do you even know what BDA is?

Basic camouflage and deception. Your argument doesn’t hold up, Vympel. Somebody would have counted the planes before the strikes, and then counted again after new pictures were taken. We would have seen them moving damaged aircraft into place - assuming they hadn’t already done it.

The April aircraft didn't escape detection. The buried ones did so because they were buried during the war.

Fifty aircraft moved into shelters without our knowledge? As for the buried aircraft, I still fail to see how you believe our satellites could have missed the Iraqi air force’s placing thirty aircraft underground at a major military base during time of war when assets were focused on its destruction or neutralization.

Yes I'm sure you'd like to think that, luckily the CIA is not interested in the events of Iraq's civilian sector for them to be used as intelligence to give to weapons inspectors.

Now it’s a case of personal spin. The quotation was quite vague, Vympel. It referred only to new activity at sites previously suspected of housing WMD. It made no specific accusations.

His claims were based on the CIA reports, obviously.

Which CIA reports? You’ll need to quote sources here.

"But as Joseph Curl reported three weeks later in the conservative Washington Times, there was no such report: “In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush’s Sept. 7 declaration: ‘There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance,’ IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.”

Wait just a moment. You said that there was no report anywhere that supported statements made by President Bush, not that a single IAEA statement didn’t match up.

Because as we all know buried aircraft during the war=buried WMD before the war.

It certainly opens the door wider to the possibility.

Which he was directed to in part by American and British intelligence agencies. Try again.

You’re ignoring the point of the argument: Hans Blix made a thorough search only of specific and obvious facilities, not the whole territory of the nation of Iraq.

Nowhere have you established or elaborated on any such 'history of reliance' on anything of the sort, and as usual have flat out failed to answer the simplest details about these claimed 'specific cadres'.

I’ve quoted it before from Kenneth Pollack. It is very clear: Saddam Hussein charged specific units of the Special Republican Guard, occupied by hand-picked men, to deal with WMD. You’re attempting to tell me that he abandoned this theory. Why?

His findings of course have support of both the statements of Bush, Powell (the ones you tried to redefine into meaninglessness) , and the above military commanders, who all referred to these so called chemical weapon preparations.

So let me get this straight. Your new argument is: “If Kay says Saddam ordered the launch of chemical weapons, it is unlikely any WMD at all were buried because otherwise the order wouldn’t make logical sense?” Have you thought about the possibility that many Iraqis thought the war would be a much longer, bloodier affair?

Ah yes, because when you order the firing of chemical shells, what you wanna do for maximum inefficiency is go to where you've hidden them in your secret holes all over Iraq, pray to Allah that the shells aren't useless from sitting in a dirt hole for god knows how long, or, put the chemicals in the empty shells, then ship them off to ammo units, hoping that some will eventually make it there to get fired, and that when this is all over, the process didn't go anywhere and absolutely ZERO evidence has been found of any such preparations of any of these so called chemical shells. Makes PERFECT sense.

So now you’re telling me you believe Kay to be a liar and his claim false?

Nobody ever accused Saddam Hussein of being practical, Vympel. The scenario you’ve set forth seems awfully likely.

Actually Ritter asserted the remaining 5% was useless, being too old.

The same Ritter who changed his tune after testifying before Congress? And even if only the 5% remains, Bush would still be right about Iraq’s illegal possession.

Because they might be found.

If Saddam was so worried that anybody might come looking for them, why didn’t he provide conclusive proof in the first place? You insist he was attempting to “come clean” in the least-embarrassing manner. Unfortunately, it’s also the least-credible and the least-plausible.

Because Iraq gained absolutely nothing from keeping them at that stage in history. Think about it. Risk= high. Gain= zero. Try again later? Yes.

Again, why weren’t proper records kept of the destruction? Saving face before the Arab world doesn’t cut it if he’s going to declare solvency anyway.

You obviously don't know. The lack of detail is surprising. You can't tell me what units, you can't tell me when, you can't tell me where. What can you tell me?

The units were there in 1991 during the Gulf War, Vympel. It’s fact.

Those circumstances having nothing to do with NBC.

Incorrect. Even if for the sake of completeness, el-Baradei confirmed it.

At great expense, with great difficulty, with great risk, and with meager hopes for success, all while they were known to be used for something else. Like the experts (both domestic and international) said. That's some huge risk of illegal purposes there.

It was still illegal equipment afforded special disinterest because of supposedly “kosher” applications. That’s clear dereliction of duty by the United Nations monitoring personnel – and the collective body itself.

Baseless claim.

Incorrect. Success could only encourage Iraq that the means by which they imported certain dual-use items was effective.

Yup, those Katyusha clones sure were endangering regional security, what oh what was the UN going to do in the face of the fearsome Iraqi artillery arm? Surrender, of course!

Red herring. The point is that illegal equipment was – according to you, even! – knowingly “let slide”.

Actually, it was. Maintaining sanctions.

Without any change from the oft-abused, oft-ignored status quo.

Funny, I remember the UN repeatedly saying inspections should resume. And it'd be nice if you stopped subscribing to the fallacy of a UN vs US situation. The UN is not a monolith.

That’s the problem. There was no action taken by the United Nations. It was ineffective at ensuring that Iraq was unable to represent a threat and liability.

Actually the "smart" ones were less severe in some ways, more severe in others.

But still we couldn’t drum up support from Saddam’s neighbors. Again the United Nations construct failed to provide adequate coverage of all the bases.

Inspectors returned to Iraq and rapidly resumed their work and made good progress. They were cut short. The new tube orders were made in 2000. Before you go on, read my next post.

“Good progress” only in specific locations, under specific conditions.

Source please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm

Wrong. We'd know what the consequences would've been if Iraq hadn't been invaded, as it is, I doubt Iraq would've been ordering any more aluminum tubes after it was made public. See next post.

What consequences were proscribed in the first place, Vympel? An undetermined stay for Hans Blix and two hundred of his closest friends for inspection of a handful of sites every so often, all of them already known to both the Coalition and Iraq?

Funny, physical weapons sure as hell weren't inconsequential to the administration before the war, and Bush is going to sink or swim based on whether weapons are found, the Democrats will make sure of that.

That Iraq was able to import dual-purpose or defense equipment is the issue, not whether it produced an actual weapon with said components.

The level of scrutiny was the direct result of the USA's mistake in forcing the issue in 1998. As to punishment 'proscribed and promised', no representations were made at any time about any 'promises' to anyone about what would happen to Iraq if it did a certain thing. The UNSC had full authority to decide what to do to Iraq, and that included maintaining sanctions, lifting sanctions, or authorizing 'any means necessary' action, and everything in between.

And yet they did no such thing, forcing the United States to act unilaterally to get anything done.

Nice use of the passive voice. Who's satisfaction? You're bullshitting and we all know it. You know the US sure as hell didn't give a toss about Iraqi artillery rockets, they had gotten it in their heads that Iraq would support terrorists and give them NBC weapons. They then went about trying to support this. And they can rely on people like you to make all sorts of ridiculous after the fact rationalisations that they have never made, nor will they.

The United States certainly does care about dual-purpose equipment and items that could have helped form the basis for reconstitution down the line. Hence our focus on the aluminum tubes, et al.

Kast- do you have any evidence that Iraq *succeded* in obtaining the aluminum tubes it was asking for? By that I mean, it was known that Iraq put out orders and specifications for them, and it had a pre-91 stockpile which it had been using for it's rocket program (whose deterioration necessitated a new supply) but- where has it ever been said that Iraq actually got the tubes? As far as I can see, references are made to efforts to obtain them, not actually getting them.

Hm. I thought I read that they’d successfully purchased a batch from India. But you are correct. No shipments are known to have been smuggled into the country. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that Iraq was importing prohibited items from a gamut of countries between 1991 and the present day.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-08-09 07:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:I still wonder why the right-wingers can't see how ridiculous it looks to any third-party observer to harp on ALUMINUM TUBES as a justification for war.

"They have aluminum tubes! ATTACK NOW!!!!!"

Oh goodness....*glances at the neighbours greenhouse* Damn....I'd better do something to the windows...I dont want them breaking when Bush blows up the house next door....

Seriously, where the fuck do you get your ideas Kast?

If I recall correctly, and its rather late and I've had a good amount of Cairn O'Mohr so I may not be quite right.....but hell, technically most towns and cities in the western world have many things that could be used to construct weapons of mass destruction.....

I mean, they have raw meat I'll bet....I mean, heck they could be culturing bacterial weapons on it.....heck, precision grinding equipment for optical work? Oops....aluminium tubes?

By god aswell....they had the cheek to try and preserve some of thier assets in a war by hiding them while the shit was being bombed out of them? I mean, that is the retroactive justification for the bombing in the first place? You are such a stupid fuck it beggars belief, how on earth do you remember to breath in and out?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-09 08:17pm

You are such a stupid fuck it beggars belief, how on earth do you remember to breath in and out?

I don't! They have machines for that now. Or weren't you aware?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-10 01:08am

Axis Kast wrote:
Basic camouflage and deception.

BOMB DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, Kast.

Your argument doesn’t hold up, Vympel. Somebody would have counted the planes before the strikes, and then counted again after new pictures were taken. We would have seen them moving damaged aircraft into place - assuming they hadn’t already done it.

Like they did in Kosovo 1999? The use of decoys, previously destroyed planes etc. can and does stuff up BDA. In a wartime situation where you come up on a previously bombed airfield, it's quite reasonable that they'd have differing expectations as to what exactly they'd find, including surprise at the amount of damage that was or was not done.

Fifty aircraft moved into shelters without our knowledge?

They knew they'd find aircraft. They didn't know how many would be left. The man says so.

As for the buried aircraft, I still fail to see how you believe our satellites could have missed the Iraqi air force’s placing thirty aircraft underground at a major military base during time of war when assets were focused on its destruction or neutralization.

The same way NATO stuffed up in counting the amount of planes they destroyed back in 1999, allowing an 'impossible' number of Serbian air force planes to lift off from Pristina and make for Serbia at the end of the conflict- decoys.

Now it’s a case of personal spin. The quotation was quite vague, Vympel. It referred only to new activity at sites previously suspected of housing WMD. It made no specific accusations.

I see you're into 'Bush lied' defensive mode rather than the broader 'they were wrong' standard.

Which CIA reports? You’ll need to quote sources here.

The ones I've already mentioned for chrissakes. Unless you think there's zero connections between the CIA citing reconstitution at a specific site (nuclear facility) and Bush then saying basically the same thing without using a name (I doubt he could pronounce it)

Wait just a moment. You said that there was no report anywhere that supported statements made by President Bush, not that a single IAEA statement didn’t match up.

It's the same bloody thing. The IAEA said NO SUCH THING. There's no report that says that.

You’re ignoring the point of the argument: Hans Blix made a thorough search only of specific and obvious facilities, not the whole territory of the nation of Iraq.

Replace 'specific and obvious' with 'high priority sites used as evidence before the war' and you'd be right.

I’ve quoted it before from Kenneth Pollack.

Oh well that improves my confidence greatly, considering the previous bullshit he's been caught in (re: his Iraq was selling baby formula falsehood).

It is very clear: Saddam Hussein charged specific units of the Special Republican Guard, occupied by hand-picked men, to deal with WMD. You’re attempting to tell me that he abandoned this theory. Why?

The Special Republican Guard eh? So I take it Kenny-boy has supplied a pre-1991 reference source for this claim, preferably from use of widespread Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the war against Iran?

So let me get this straight. Your new argument is: “If Kay says Saddam ordered the launch of chemical weapons, it is unlikely any WMD at all were buried because otherwise the order wouldn’t make logical sense?” Have you thought about the possibility that many Iraqis thought the war would be a much longer, bloodier affair?

And this means that the orders won't be obeyed when they're given? No.

So now you’re telling me you believe Kay to be a liar and his claim false?

No, I'm taking what Kay said at face value. If the order was given, the possibilities have already been laid out.

Nobody ever accused Saddam Hussein of being practical, Vympel. The scenario you’ve set forth seems awfully likely.

Saddam Hussein is impractical? From whence does this one come from? It is not likely that when such an order was given that abolutely NO ammunition would make it's way anywhere near artillery units, and furthermore even more unlikely that no evidence of the preparation/transport of these shells was ever found.

The same Ritter who changed his tune after testifying before Congress? And even if only the 5% remains, Bush would still be right about Iraq’s illegal possession.

If you want to deal with the 5% claim, deal with it, rather than vicariously going through Scott Ritter to get with it- Scott Ritter did change his opinions, but it wasn't the huge about face they made it out to be:

"Pitt: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

Ritter: It’s not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There’s no doubt that Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the UN, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy - unilaterally, without UN supervision - a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

P: Why did Iraq destroy the weapons instead of turning them over?

R: In many cases, the Iraqis were trying to conceal the weapons’ existence. And the unilateral destruction could have been a ruse to maintain a cache of weapons of mass destruction by claiming they had been destroyed.

It is important to not give Iraq the benefit of the doubt. Iraq has lied to the international community. It has lied to inspectors. There are many people who believe Iraq still seeks to retain the capability to produce these weapons.

That said, we have no evidence that Iraq retains either the capability or material. In fact, a considerable amount of evidence suggests Iraq doesn’t retain the necessary material.

I believe the primary problem at this point is one of accounting. Iraq has destroyed 90 to 95% of its weapons of mass destruction. Okay. We have to remember that this missing 5 to 10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn’t even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which, in its totality, doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited. Likewise, just because we can’t account for it, doesn’t mean Iraq retains it. There is no evidence that Iraq retains this material. That is the quandary we are in. We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on its weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de facto retention of a prohibited capability worthy of war.

How do we deal with this uncertainty? There are those who say that because there are no weapons inspectors in Iraq today, because Iraq has shown a proclivity to acquire these weapons in the past and use these weapons against their neighbours and their own people, and because Iraq has lied to weapons inspectors in the past, we have to assume the worst. Under this rubric, a pre-emptive strike is justified.

If this were argued in a court of law, the weight of evidence would go the other way. Iraq has, in fact, demonstrated over and over a willingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Mitigating circumstances surround the demise of inspections and the inconclusive or incomplete nature of the mission, by which I mean Iraq’s failure to be certified as fully disarmed. Those seeking to implement these resolutions - for example, the United States - actually violated the terms of the resolutions by using their unique access to operate inside Iraq in a manner incompatible with Security Council resolutions, for example, by spying on Iraq."

Those are his views.

on chemical weapons:

Iraq manufactured three nerve agents: sarin, tabun, and VX. Some people who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with sarin and tabun nerve agents that could be used against Americans. The facts, however, don’t support this. Sarin and tabun have a shelf-life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo.

Chemical weapons were produced in the Muthanna state establishment: a massive chemical weapons factory. It was bombed during the Gulf war, and then weapons inspectors came and completed the task of eliminating the facility. That means Iraq lost its sarin and tabun manufacturing base.

We destroyed thousands of tons of chemical agent. It is not as though we said, ‘Oh we destroyed a factory, now we are going to wait for everything else to expire.’ We had an incineration plant operating full-time for years, burning tons of the stuff every day. We went out and blew up bombs, missiles and warheads filled with this agent. We emptied Scud missile warheads filled with this agent. We hunted down this stuff and destroyed it.

P: Couldn’t the Iraqis have hidden some?

R: That’s a very real possibility. The problem is that whatever they diverted would have had to have been produced in the Muthanna state establishment, which means that once we blew it up, the Iraqis no longer had the ability to produce new agent, and in five years the sarin and tabun would have degraded and become useless sludge. All this talk about Iraq having chemical weapons is no longer valid. Most of it is based on speculation that Iraq could have hidden some of these weapons from UN inspectors. I believe we did a good job of inspecting Iraq. Had they tried to hide it, we would have found it. But let’s just say they did successfully hide some. So what? It’s gone by now anyway. It’s not even worth talking about."

"Could those facilities have been rebuilt?

R: No weapons inspection team has set foot in Iraq since 1998. I think Iraq was technically capable of restarting its weapons manufacturing capabilities within six months of our departure. That leaves three-and-a-half years for Iraq to have manufactured and weaponised all the horrors the Bush administration claims as motivations for the attack. The important phrase here, however, is ‘technically capable’. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But just as with the nuclear weapons programme, they would have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and have seen none of this. If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof, plain and simple."

If Saddam was so worried that anybody might come looking for them, why didn’t he provide conclusive proof in the first place? You insist he was attempting to “come clean” in the least-embarrassing manner. Unfortunately, it’s also the least-credible and the least-plausible.

Perhaps, as Ritter suggests, he didn't want to admit anymore that he had to. I never said Saddam wanted to 'come clean'- he's no angel.

Again, why weren’t proper records kept of the destruction? Saving face before the Arab world doesn’t cut it if he’s going to declare solvency anyway.

Declare solvency? No. Eliminate the evidence of as much Iraqi chemical/biological programs as possible, yes.

The units were there in 1991 during the Gulf War, Vympel. It’s fact.

I've yet to see a single source.

Incorrect. Even if for the sake of completeness, el-Baradei confirmed it.

I'm not going to bother repeating the overwhelming negative expert testiomy.

It was still illegal equipment afforded special disinterest because of supposedly “kosher” applications. That’s clear dereliction of duty by the United Nations monitoring personnel – and the collective body itself.

Exept that they didn't make it into Iraq.

Incorrect. Success could only encourage Iraq that the means by which they imported certain dual-use items was effective.

Where's the success?

Red herring.

Hardly. Just pointing out the non-existent 'threat' to US national security.

The point is that illegal equipment was – according to you, even! – knowingly “let slide”.

No, it wasn't, because it didn't get in.

Without any change from the oft-abused, oft-ignored status quo.

Funny, where does it say the tubes actually made it in?

That’s the problem. There was no action taken by the United Nations. It was ineffective at ensuring that Iraq was unable to represent a threat and liability.

Looks like they were plenty effective from where I'm sitting.

But still we couldn’t drum up support from Saddam’s neighbors. Again the United Nations construct failed to provide adequate coverage of all the bases.

Nice contradicting yourself. Iraq's neighbours didn't see Saddam as a threat at all, yet you say the UN didn't keep it's 'bargain' (another bullshit claim) with them to satisfaction. They looked plenty satisfied.

“Good progress” only in specific locations, under specific conditions.

Replace specific with high priority and used as evidence in the leadup to war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm

"Documents from the UN inspections team (Unscom) show the Russian firm Livinvest, prepared to export equipment and parts for M-17 helicopters to Iraq, Taz reports.

However, the documents do not make it clear whether the equipment was in fact delivered."

Reference to UNSCOM. Pre smart sanctions. Parts not even known to be delivered.

"Two other Russian companies, Mars Rotor and Niikhism sold parts for long-distance missiles to Iraq.

These were transported to Baghdad by a Palestinian middleman in July 1995, the paper reports."

1995. Pre smart sanctions.

"The Chinese firm Huawei Technologies Co broke the embargo in 2000 and 2001 by supplying hi-tech fibreglass parts for air defence installations, according to Taz."

2000-2001. Pre smart sanctions.

Not to mention the aid that US companies were giving Iraq- I guess the Bush administration was in 'dereliction of it's duty' in that regard as well, hmmm? Maybe they should've looked at reining in their own private companies, but then again, that's why the arms declaration was edited.

What consequences were proscribed in the first place, Vympel? An undetermined stay for Hans Blix and two hundred of his closest friends for inspection of a handful of sites every so often, all of them already known to both the Coalition and Iraq?

200 of his closest friends? You do know that UNMOVIC was steadily growing, don't you?

That Iraq was able to import dual-purpose or defense equipment is the issue, not whether it produced an actual weapon with said components.

Funny, I haven't seen anyone in the administration make that case. Their case was NBC weapons. Not trickles of spare parts for conventional weapons from private companies, the claims were nuclear, biological, chemical, and for good reason. Small time liberties taken by a handful of companies would never fly- not in from the UN, not in public opinion, and certainly not any legitimate study of the national security of the US. You can keep handwaving, you can't change that fact.

And yet they did no such thing, forcing the United States to act unilaterally to get anything done.

'Anything' being ensuring it's security against the fearsome Iraqi NBC threat which you've demonstrated oh so well.

The United States certainly does care about dual-purpose equipment and items that could have helped form the basis for reconstitution down the line. Hence our focus on the aluminum tubes, et al.

The focus on the alumimum tubes was vast exaggeration of their usefulness for gas centrifuges, not their use for artillery rockets.

Hm. I thought I read that they’d successfully purchased a batch from India. But you are correct. No shipments are known to have been smuggled into the country. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that Iraq was importing prohibited items from a gamut of countries between 1991 and the present day.

No, not in between 1991 and the present day, only up to 2001 at the very latest. Smart sanctions were introduced in 2002. You'd have to go from there to see if they were working or not, and then you'd still have the problem of them having nothing to do with NBC weapons and the equipment to build them, which are an entirely different kettle of fish from mundane conventional weapon spare parts.

And then you have Ritter's testimony as to what would be involved in rebuilding for example chemical weapons capability. They'd have 3 years to start from scratch (unless you believe the Iraqis have a complete set of new factory equipment worth billions under the sand somewhere ...) and their efforts would be detected. A lot of people say a lot of different things, but I've never seen them deal with Ritter's opinion regarding this head on,preferring ad hominems about him being a 'Saddam apologist' or some such.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-10 10:34am

The Planes of April

Even assuming the Iraqis foiled our BDA quite successfully, it still doesn’t explain how we missed the transfer of fifty aircraft to hardened shelters. If the Iraqis managed to hide them before the bombings (as is the point of such bunkers), it should have come up on satellite in the first place.

The CIA and Hans Blix

I want specific quotations from George W. Bush that specific locations held specific stockpiles, as you originally suggested.

As for the IAEA dispute, there’s a major difference between the lack of corroboration by one single report and a confirmed lie centered around a document that does not exist in the first place.

You cannot escape the facts of the situation, Vympel: Hans Blix never had the capability to cover as much ground as thoroughly as an occupying army.

Saddam’s ‘Chemical Men’

Let me get this straight. You dispute that Saddam Hussein used only handpicked loyalists to oversee, transport, and maintain his WMD?

In reference to the implication that Saddam ordered the use of chemical shells on Coalition forces, you must take into account the following:

(A) The war was probably expected to extend a much longer period, which would have allowed for discreet transport of hidden equipment.
(B) The authorization to deploy chemical weapons need not necessarily be consistent with their availability to all formations in the field. You don’t have a timeframe.
(C) Certain special units (the ones that “melted away”) might have had small quantities of the shells on hand but been later relieved of these pieces of evidence during the retreat.

Scott Ritter

This is all conjecture. In fact, it supports my argument well.

• Ritter admits that, “the unilateral destruction could have been a ruse to maintain a cache of weapons of mass destruction by claiming they had been destroyed.”

• Ritter refers only to confirmed destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, not necessarily stockpiles: “This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.”

• “It is important to not give Iraq the benefit of the doubt. Iraq has lied to the international community. It has lied to inspectors. There are many people who believe Iraq still seeks to retain the capability to produce these weapons.”

Scott Ritter also appears confident that all remnants of Hussein’s chemical program were eliminated or expired on their own. This is not consistent with Kay’s announcements.

Exept that they didn't make it into Iraq.[/quote]

Point. I am abandoning the aluminum tube argument. That does not however mean that the United Nations wasn’t responsible for overseeing numerous violations of import/export laws.

Nice contradicting yourself. Iraq's neighbours didn't see Saddam as a threat at all, yet you say the UN didn't keep it's 'bargain' (another bullshit claim) with them to satisfaction. They looked plenty satisfied.

The United States was not – especially considering we would have had to be the guarantor of security in the area.

Funny, I haven't seen anyone in the administration make that case. Their case was NBC weapons. Not trickles of spare parts for conventional weapons from private companies, the claims were nuclear, biological, chemical, and for good reason. Small time liberties taken by a handful of companies would never fly- not in from the UN, not in public opinion, and certainly not any legitimate study of the national security of the US. You can keep handwaving, you can't change that fact.

Nobody in the administration has to make that case. It’s still fact. The United Nations failed to prevent Iraq from importing weaponry and industrial components prohibited by the Security Council. Smart Sanctions are irrelevant. This was still a failure on their part to ensure complete disarmament and isolation.

200 of his closest friends? You do know that UNMOVIC was steadily growing, don't you?

To the size of the forces involved in the search now? With their range and spread? No.

No, not in between 1991 and the present day, only up to 2001 at the very latest. Smart sanctions were introduced in 2002. You'd have to go from there to see if they were working or not, and then you'd still have the problem of them having nothing to do with NBC weapons and the equipment to build them, which are an entirely different kettle of fish from mundane conventional weapon spare parts.

It was still negligence. Hell, we even have proof that Saddam’s closest neighbors abandoned the idea of “smart” sanctions.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-10 11:55am

Axis Kast wrote:The Planes of April

Even assuming the Iraqis foiled our BDA quite successfully, it still doesn’t explain how we missed the transfer of fifty aircraft to hardened shelters. If the Iraqis managed to hide them before the bombings (as is the point of such bunkers), it should have come up on satellite in the first place.

Foiling BDA is directly related to that- the runways littered with derelict planes from previous wars (as reported), and the use of decoys, would obviously fuzzy estimates of how many planes were actually left there, and where the planes were.

The CIA and Hans Blix

I want specific quotations from George W. Bush that specific locations held specific stockpiles, as you originally suggested.

I don't have them. As I said, you're in 'Bush lied' mode (which this thread is not about) rather than 'they were wrong' mode.

As for the IAEA dispute, there’s a major difference between the lack of corroboration by one single report and a confirmed lie centered around a document that does not exist in the first place.

Hairsplitting. He uttered a falsehood- the IAEA never said any such thing. Just admit it, you'll look a lot better.

You cannot escape the facts of the situation, Vympel: Hans Blix never had the capability to cover as much ground as thoroughly as an occupying army.

And yet UNSCOM had more success in destroying and uncovering Iraq's WMD capability than the occupying army to which you refer.

Saddam’s ‘Chemical Men’

Let me get this straight. You dispute that Saddam Hussein used only handpicked loyalists to oversee, transport, and maintain his WMD?

I want to see your evidence.

In reference to the implication that Saddam ordered the use of chemical shells on Coalition forces, you must take into account the following:

(A) The war was probably expected to extend a much longer period, which would have allowed for discreet transport of hidden equipment.
(B) The authorization to deploy chemical weapons need not necessarily be consistent with their availability to all formations in the field. You don’t have a timeframe.
(C) Certain special units (the ones that “melted away”) might have had small quantities of the shells on hand but been later relieved of these pieces of evidence during the retreat.

I fail to see why competence should be attributed to hand picked loyalists during a retreat, allowing them to perfectly hide this stuff, but not in the phase where the weapons were supposedly being distributed.

Scott Ritter

This is all conjecture. In fact, it supports my argument well.

• Ritter admits that, “the unilateral destruction could have been a ruse to maintain a cache of weapons of mass destruction by claiming they had been destroyed.”

• Ritter refers only to confirmed destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, not necessarily stockpiles: “This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.”

And then goes on to say why any remaining stockpiles (if any) were not of consequence. They could not rebuid without reconstituting their infrastrucutre.

• “It is important to not give Iraq the benefit of the doubt. Iraq has lied to the international community. It has lied to inspectors. There are many people who believe Iraq still seeks to retain the capability to produce these weapons.”

Indeed, which is why he bitterly complained about the lack of presence of inspectors, but did not advocate war based on purely their absence.

Scott Ritter also appears confident that all remnants of Hussein’s chemical program were eliminated or expired on their own. This is not consistent with Kay’s announcements.

Kay hasn't found any weapons, nor any manufacturing capability of any kind.

Exept that they didn't make it into Iraq.

Point. I am abandoning the aluminum tube argument. That does not however mean that the United Nations wasn’t responsible for overseeing numerous violations of import/export laws.[/quote]

Ok then.

The United States was not – especially considering we would have had to be the guarantor of security in the area.

That doesn't make any sense- if the other countries in the region felt secure, who is the United States the guarantor of, and why?

Nobody in the administration has to make that case.

Why is that?

It’s still fact. The United Nations failed to prevent Iraq from importing weaponry and industrial components prohibited by the Security Council. Smart Sanctions are irrelevant. This was still a failure on their part to ensure complete disarmament and isolation.

Smart sanctions are not irrelevant- they were specifically designed to restrict Iraq's access to smuggled goods while streamling the process through which 'safe' goods to make it in. You're arguing for completely perfect compliance as a justification for war- it's not. If this was about the national security of the United States, one would have to go further than
spare parts and into the realm of NBC weapons, as well as arguing that they were likely to be used against the US. Which they did.

To the size of the forces involved in the search now? With their range and spread? No.

True.

It was still negligence. Hell, we even have proof that Saddam’s closest neighbors abandoned the idea of “smart” sanctions.

Some smuggling was tolerated by the UN (and by necessity, the US- which is part of the UN) specifically because if such smuggling was completely cut off, they would raise more of a racket in the UN about lifting sanctions, which was always against US interests (and good sense). That is why the US never raised the issue of Iraqi small time liberties, and probably why the arms declaration was heavily edited to exclude evidence of private companies making a bit on the side.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-10 02:03pm

Foiling BDA is directly related to that- the runways littered with derelict planes from previous wars (as reported), and the use of decoys, would obviously fuzzy estimates of how many planes were actually left there, and where the planes were.

You’re ignoring movement. These planes had to be transported to their shelters. We should have caught them during that phase. Fifty planes are hard to miss.

I don't have them. As I said, you're in 'Bush lied' mode (which this thread is not about) rather than 'they were wrong' mode.

You cannot then use the argument that Bush made specific allegations about specific sites.

Hairsplitting. He uttered a falsehood- the IAEA never said any such thing. Just admit it, you'll look a lot better.

All right, so we chalk this up to a mistake by some element in the CIA. This changes what, exactly … ?

And yet UNSCOM had more success in destroying and uncovering Iraq's WMD capability than the occupying army to which you refer.

Perhaps because they were the first ones on the ground?

I want to see your evidence.

“The role of the military in Iraq's chemical weapons program has remained a secret. Iraq never disclosed any information to UNSCOM concerning deployment, military requirements, firing or bombing tables, field manuals on the use of chemical weapons, or the chain of command for chemical weapons. According to Iraq, there were never any field manuals specifically for chemical weapons, nor were any specific military units trained to use them. Iraq said responsibility for the planning of combat use for chemical weapons was handled at the Muthanna State Establishment by a special tactical group, but has refused to provide any further information.”

Since I don’t have Pollack’s book in front of me (I took it out from the library when we had the earlier debate), this quotation is from www.iraqwatch.org. This should however be common sense.

I fail to see why competence should be attributed to hand picked loyalists during a retreat, allowing them to perfectly hide this stuff, but not in the phase where the weapons were supposedly being distributed.

You’re assuming that anything was moved or distributed at all.

And don’t presume to tell me that hand-picked elements couldn’t have escaped with limited quantities of weapons in tow. We let huge components of the Iraqi military “off the hook,” so to speak.

And then goes on to say why any remaining stockpiles (if any) were not of consequence. They could not rebuid without reconstituting their infrastrucutre.

This I doubt highly – especially if the accusations Kay recently levied are in fact the truth.

Indeed, which is why he bitterly complained about the lack of presence of inspectors, but did not advocate war based on purely their absence.

The lack of presence of inspections is a fault that can be attributed to the United Nations as a whole. There was no real drive to confront the issues.

That doesn't make any sense- if the other countries in the region felt secure, who is the United States the guarantor of, and why?

Israel. Understand that any kind of destabilization in the Middle East would inevitably affect the national security interests of the United States of America.

Why is that?

Because we’re talking about my opinions here.

Smart sanctions are not irrelevant- they were specifically designed to restrict Iraq's access to smuggled goods while streamling the process through which 'safe' goods to make it in. You're arguing for completely perfect compliance as a justification for war- it's not. If this was about the national security of the United States, one would have to go further than spare parts and into the realm of NBC weapons, as well as arguing that they were likely to be used against the US. Which they did.

I don’t follow. The argument here is that the United Nations knowingly permitted Iraq to stockpile prohibited equipment under the assumption that it was of no consequence. Negligence.

Some smuggling was tolerated by the UN (and by necessity, the US- which is part of the UN) specifically because if such smuggling was completely cut off, they would raise more of a racket in the UN about lifting sanctions, which was always against US interests (and good sense). That is why the US never raised the issue of Iraqi small time liberties, and probably why the arms declaration was heavily edited to exclude evidence of private companies making a bit on the side.

I seriously doubt that the United States would hand-wave delivery to Iraq of fiber-optic cables to be used in air defense systems.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-10 02:22pm

Axis Kast wrote:
You’re ignoring movement. These planes had to be transported to their shelters. We should have caught them during that phase. Fifty planes are hard to miss.

Movement over quite literally hundreds of metres from open ground/ hangar to a shelter is pretty easy to accomplish quickly.

You cannot then use the argument that Bush made specific allegations about specific sites.

I leave that up to other US sources. Whether Bush himself said it or not is immaterial.

All right, so we chalk this up to a mistake by some element in the CIA. This changes what, exactly … ?

I'm wondering how obvious forgeries and false statements about what was contained in a report get into the Presidential play book.

Perhaps because they were the first ones on the ground?

Doesn't matter. Inspections have proven quite capable of finding things the Iraqis didn't want found before is the point.

Iraq said responsibility for the planning of combat use for chemical weapons was handled at the Muthanna State Establishment by a special tactical group, but has refused to provide any further information.”

And this changes what? Who are these people?

You’re assuming that anything was moved or distributed at all.

If Kay is correct, it is obvious.

And don’t presume to tell me that hand-picked elements couldn’t have escaped with limited quantities of weapons in tow. We let huge components of the Iraqi military “off the hook,” so to speak.

Escaped to where? You honestly think it's the least bit plausible that in it's advance the US Army/Marines didn't encounter a single one of these supposed groups?

This I doubt highly – especially if the accusations Kay recently levied are in fact the truth.

Kay has presented nothing to indicate that Iraq has reconsituted any manufacturing ability.

The lack of presence of inspections is a fault that can be attributed to the United Nations as a whole. There was no real drive to confront the issues.

Actually I attribute it to the US antics in 1998.

Israel. Understand that any kind of destabilization in the Middle East would inevitably affect the national security interests of the United States of America.

Ye olde Israel as the 51st state of the Union I see.

So this war was fought for the security of Israel, which was supposedly under threat from Iraq (not that anyone ever made this argument), despite the vast disparity in power between the two- whatever really this is not a tangent that's worth pursuing.

Because we’re talking about my opinions here.

Your opinions and the case for war that was made are two entirely seperate things- that noone in the administration saw fit to make the case you're making speaks directly to how cogent it is in terms of national security of the US. It's just not strong. It would've lasted two seconds under domestic/international scrutiny.

I don’t follow. The argument here is that the United Nations knowingly permitted Iraq to stockpile prohibited equipment under the assumption that it was of no consequence. Negligence.

Of a scale totally irrelevant to the national security of the United States, which was also negligent in preventing it's own companies from doing business with Iraq. Should the US declare war on itself?

I seriously doubt that the United States would hand-wave delivery to Iraq of fiber-optic cables to be used in air defense systems.

China was already for lifting of sanctions. Other countries in the region, e.g. Turkey, were not, but complained of reduced trade with Iraq as a result- turning a blind eye to the smuggling that went on with countries such as that was the unstated policy, it seems (according to CASI anyway), which jibes quite well with the US never bringing such small time things up, and censoring the arms declaration.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-10 02:45pm

Movement over quite literally hundreds of metres from open ground/ hangar to a shelter is pretty easy to accomplish quickly.

With fifty combat aircraft at a location sure to be the subject of satellite overflights?

I leave that up to other US sources. Whether Bush himself said it or not is immaterial.

Let’s see the sources.

I'm wondering how obvious forgeries and false statements about what was contained in a report get into the Presidential play book.

Perhaps within the context of a report handed him by somebody with the wrong information?

Doesn't matter. Inspections have proven quite capable of finding things the Iraqis didn't want found before is the point.

Of course it matters. They were the first ones to check the locations proscribed.

And this changes what? Who are these people?

It’s proof that special “WMD units” did in fact exist.

If Kay is correct, it is obvious.

No, it is not.

Escaped to where? You honestly think it's the least bit plausible that in it's advance the US Army/Marines didn't encounter a single one of these supposed groups?

Melted back into the so-called woodwork along with all the rest of the elements of the Iraqi Army that shied away from engagement.

Kay has presented nothing to indicate that Iraq has reconsituted any manufacturing ability.

See, stockpiles.

Actually I attribute it to the US antics in 1998.

It was the UN’s job to press for renewal.

So this war was fought for the security of Israel, which was supposedly under threat from Iraq (not that anyone ever made this argument), despite the vast disparity in power between the two- whatever really this is not a tangent that's worth pursuing.

Don’t tell me you’re one of those people who actually wants Israel to contemplate defending itself against Iraq.

Your opinions and the case for war that was made are two entirely seperate things- that noone in the administration saw fit to make the case you're making speaks directly to how cogent it is in terms of national security of the US. It's just not strong. It would've lasted two seconds under domestic/international scrutiny.

It absolutely would have. We saw it time and again everywhere from CNN to FOX news. It’s in accord with the, “The buck for national security stops with Bush.”

Of a scale totally irrelevant to the national security of the United States, which was also negligent in preventing it's own companies from doing business with Iraq. Should the US declare war on itself?

But not irrelevant to the national security of the region – or indeed its future.

China was already for lifting of sanctions. Other countries in the region, e.g. Turkey, were not, but complained of reduced trade with Iraq as a result- turning a blind eye to the smuggling that went on with countries such as that was the unstated policy, it seems (according to CASI anyway), which jibes quite well with the US never bringing such small time things up, and censoring the arms declaration.

Why do I care what China wanted? That kind of thing should have been prohibited. Military and civilian items are two different things, for the most part.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-11 04:14am

Axis Kast wrote: With fifty combat aircraft at a location sure to be the subject of satellite overflights?

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

Let’s see the sources.

I've already told you!

Perhaps within the context of a report handed him by somebody with the wrong information?

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

Of course it matters. They were the first ones to check the locations proscribed.

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

It’s proof that special “WMD units” did in fact exist.

I'd prefer a reference but it doesn't really matter at this point.

No, it is not.

How?

Melted back into the so-called woodwork along with all the rest of the elements of the Iraqi Army that shied away from engagement.

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

See, stockpiles.

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

It was the UN’s job to press for renewal.

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

Don’t tell me you’re one of those people who actually wants Israel to contemplate defending itself against Iraq.

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

It absolutely would have. We saw it time and again everywhere from CNN to FOX news. It’s in accord with the, “The buck for national security stops with Bush.”

I don't recall any administration official saying that Americans have to die for the security of Israel.

But not irrelevant to the national security of the region – or indeed its future.

I fail to see how Israel was under threat from Iraq buying handfuls of spare parts for it's utterly derelict, broken armed forces, or how that affects the future of the region.

Why do I care what China wanted? That kind of thing should have been prohibited. Military and civilian items are two different things, for the most part.

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