The threat posed by Iraq is never irrelevant to this debate.
Reread the entire thread thus far, Vympel. The statements to which you are referring had one purpose, and one purpose alone: to prove the delusional nature of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Back to your old habits of bullshitting, huh?
This is the article’s quotation, not mine:
“Hussein, convinced that Republican Guard units posted south of Baghdad would repel American tanks, had decided not to mine highways or blow up bridges leading into the capital, commanders said. The infrastructure was left intact so that it could be used by Iraqi forces mounting counterattacks. But entire Republican Guard divisions were ravaged, first by coalition warplanes and then by tanks approaching the capital.”
As for the notion that field commanders would be unhesitatingly given the locations of weapons stockpiles, I find that as ludicrous as the claim that it was the field commanders who unanimously chose not to prepare the city of Baghdad.
Why? Because I drag al-Samoud missiles and ad-hominem arguments out of the closet when we’re actually talking about Saddam Hussein?
Not in relation to the above argument, we’re not.
nd note that he says no guerilla war was planned. That's funny, that's what the US has been asserting. Who's right?
There’s a difference between a guerilla war orchestrated by regular combat troops and irregular civilian forces.
Perhaps because they had failed to occupy and invade Iraq.
You’ve just spoken the same justifications for war as George W. Bush. Or was this some kind of sarcasm?
And your 'evidence' is based on what? Oh that's right, you don't have ANY.
At least I’m not taking the Iraqi leadership’s word for it, Vympel.
His motives are irrelevant. No matter what his aim was, he bullshitted to achieve it.
If in fact he chose to adopt Blair’s position, he made an error in judgement, not a malignant lie.
The answer is actually clearly yes. Explain what Iraq was going to do with unconventional weapons without the ability to back it up with a conventional military?
Gain the same kind of consideration as North Korea; it’d be very difficult to actually “move in on” the country assuming they possess credible deterrents. Then again, we don’t want Iraq having the arms in general – we know Hussein’s delusional already. Any kind of stockpile must be denied him. At this point in time, it’s prudent to err to the side of certainty.
Actually yes, I'd argue for containment. As usual, the rabid pro-war idiot presents a false dilemma of "forget about Iraq" as the counterpoint to "we must invade Iraq."
Containment was not a certain means of forcing disarmament. The sanctions suffered numerous breaches; Bush was correct in reminding the world that there could be no final reckoning without a more comprehensive presence on the ground – not to mention the absence of a régime such as Hussein’s, known for its deception); containment left our troops scattered across the Middle East for indefinite periods of time, obliging us to fly sortie after sortie and maintain large concentrations of men and material every time we sought to increase the pressure. Point blank, it was a poor option.
I have precedent. What do you have? "Oh, we can't be sure that it won't try something later!" That's a really powerful argument for war right there.
It’s a powerful argument when you recall that Iraq has attacked two of its neighbors outright over the past two decades – each in contravention of good sense.
And you present the alternate option of firing inaccurate missiles at open oil fields in the vague hope that *something* might happen.
A large enough barrage would raise the likelihood of success considerably. You might also ask whether or not it would have been impossible for agents of the Iraqi régime to start such fires on their own.
Oh, you mean those uber-scary spare parts!
Answer the question. There were periods when we had absolutely no knowledge that Hussein had successfully violated sanctions.
Irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with a feasability study. A university grad student could do one.
If it’s commissioned by the régime, it represents intent to one day reconstitute a capability already denied him: a threat according to those responsible for upholding the status quo.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Not at all. In this case, the precondition and the potential match up entirely. If Iraq goes down the path to reconstitution more fully, he places the United States in the unwelcome position of having to act on his timetable – it’s something you keep forgetting.
Explain how to make a nuclear weapon without weapons grade material, you dumbass.
Now you’re running off on tangents. Explain to me why weapons-grade material is the only thing he might import on the sly.
You haven't fucking SHOWN their capabilities to improve, you stupid moron, and whether their capabilities can improve short of the point of being able to build a nuclear weapon is IRRELEVANT. You CANNOT produce nuclear arms without MASSIVE investments in infrastructure which Iraq DID NOT HAVE and COULD NOT HIDE. Fucking dumbass.
If they rebuild their stockpiles of equipment, it’s improvement from their current condition, Vympel.
Wait just a moment. It’s acceptable for Iraq to rebuild its programs to the point of nuclear fission – just so long as they don’t cross that line on our watch? Fantastic. Now I see exactly where you’re coming from. And you expect the United States to find this reasoning solid as well, right?
Nobody’s speaking strictly about nuclear arms, Vympel. North Korea was able to reconstitute without our knowledge despite constant attention. You’re fully confident Hussein wouldn’t have had the same chance several years down the road once Blix let up and the international community began to focus its energies elsewhere?
And what's it going to do with these lathes, you ignoramus?
Machine other components part of the actual warhead or containment equipment, perhaps?
Assuming of course Iraq can stockpile them, which you have not, at any stage, shown.
Still under investigation – or are you saying it would be impossible for Iraq to keep certain quantities of equipment hidden in the first place?
And your position is supported by what? The fevered imaginings of your diseased mind? On one side there is the demonstrable uncontroversial facts, and on your side is rationalization after rationalization, without a shred of supporting evidence.
Your “evidence” is an investigation not yet complete. That wouldn’t hold up anywhere either, Vympel. Do not make the dangerous assumption that only a successful launch proves our accusations.
And I do not acknowledge it. At all.
So it would be, in your opinion,
impossible – absolutely
impossible – for Iraq to violate the UNSC sanctions unless the item in question were conventional in nature only?
Now who’s bending reality as it suits them?
And yet were on the ground and were ensuring the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure (undisputed fact) and preventing any further NBC activities.
Again, they managed to walk away with nothing more than the conclusion that
something happened. They weren’t sure to what extent however.
NO, they didn't have the precedent of intention for unprovoked attack. In case you didn't notice, Iraq was supposedly only going to use it's weapons if Baghdad was under siege.
Baghdad was going to be endangered anyway if they ever stood up and began shaking their fist. How many times must I remind you: we don’t want another North Korea?
I agree. If you check one of the sources Pollack quotes, the Israelis were actually concerned about biological weapon attack rather than chemical, apparently.
Another blow against the contingency plan.
And do you think every area marked on that map will spontaneously combust if hit by a warhead? Those green patches mark oil *fields*- simply dropping a bomb on them won't set them on fire.
Hitting the proper equipment with a single – or a handful – of warheads would start major fires. So would, come to think of it, actual men on the ground. It was within Saddam’s purview to order such assaults – and for far less risk than a strike on Israel.
And you’d suggest that firing off your entire arsenal in the hope that a a few missiles might find their mark dead centre is an appropriate use of resources? Oil wells are blown by saboteurs with explosive charges on site- either that, or precision guided air/ground launched munitions may be effective. Anything else is a waste.
Come to think of it, the ultimate question is whether the Israeli contingency plan was acceptable from a strategic point of view. The answer is no even if we exclude the SCUD potential; Iraq had special forces prepared to assault oil fields since the 1980s; setting them against the Saudis would have carried far less risk were Baghdad under attack than launching chemical warheads at Israel.
We’re talking a medium- to high-level barrage. It was the same thing prepared for Israel.
I doubt Israel would use nuclear weapons because of 300kg HE falling on Israeli cities. As it is, Israel had to be restrained by the US for retaliation. Hussein *did* come close to his goal.
“Close” doesn’t count save with horseshoes and hand grenades in this particular situation. The Israelis ultimately held back. A few dozen deaths probably wouldn’t have put them in mind to strike Baghdad, either – remember that they’d be wary of inflicting unintended casualties on forward-ranging Coalition units in the first place.
