Um no, that's your problem, Comical Axi, not mine. And according to the actual situation, Hussein showed rationality in not undertaking action which would result in the immediate destruction of his regime for twelve years and knowing when to get out of Dodge. And for somebody arguing that we can't trust Saddam's word at face-value, I find it most amusing that you trust Saddam's word at face-value to support your argument that he was delusional.
How many times must this be made patently clear to you? Acts of elf-preservation do not a rational individual make. Somebody can display good – or rather, obvious – judgement in one specific situation, but fail to do so – to the point of delusions – in the next.
Accepting Saddam’s word at face value? No, merely drawing conclusions from an article published in the Los Angeles Times.
You SURE you want to keep hanging your hat upon the alledged credibility of Tony Blair?
He ignored the advice of one aide. It’s a warning sign, but by no means the final nail in anyone’s coffin. You’re also speaking to his claim that Iraq could deploy weapons in forty-five minutes (but, of what?) rather than the actual issue at hand, which is the SOTU address.
See above news item. You make yourself more ridiculous with each post.
The above news item has nothing to do with the context of the original statement.
Ask Mr. Blair about that one when he loses the no-confidence vote in parliament —which now is not a question of "if" but "when".
Speculation.
Was that before or after Blair lied to the Commons and the people about the vast Iraqi WMD arsenal ready to launch on 45-minute notice?
Blair’s 45-minute claim (a subjective affair from the start) is again not the focus. His credibility has absolutely nothing to do with the context of the anthrax statement. Point to me the quotation in which he points to their actual existence rather than wherein you infer his demand that they be accounted for equals affirmation of their existence in his book.
Was this before Blair decided to deliberately lie?
Irrelevant. This is, I believe, a textbook example of Red Herring behavior. Tony Blair’s analysis as regards the threat posed Iraq is not contingent on the value of his 45-minute claim alone.
Which did not present anything like an "imminent threat" justifying war.
That depends; as you have been reminded time in and time out, the lack of evidence regarding those stockpiles – whether or not they were actually sitting in a vault somewhere – represented a very great dilemma for investigators. That Iraq refused to come out and offer physical evidence was an extremely suspicious move. Bush and Blair – along with Straw, clearly – are staking their claim to the danger posed by Iraq on the fact that certain items remains missing without explanation. It makes a full accounting of Iraq’s weapons programs impossible unless one takes in good faith the claims made by Saddam Hussein, Tariq Azziz, and others.
No, it's bullshit obsfucation that you dance completely around the fact of the progressive destruction of proscribed materiel and gathering of fact both by human intel and aerial/satellite surveillance, as well as the testimony of defectors. Nobody is arguing for the veracity of Saddam Hussein.
Iraqi defectors did not bring physical proof. Kemal’s word was vindicated only from the point of view that inspectors discovered
some kind of disarmament – but not to any specific extent. Progressive destruction and observation by Blix and Ritter never uncovered the fate of those 10,000 liters of missing anthrax - and more. You have no solid evidence of their fate.
Nice strawman, there.
So, Kemal is, in your opinion, a credible analyst of events even after his having left Iraq?
No, I did not say anything about the anthrax stocks. That was a quote regarding the fact of the anthrax stocks' status as contradicting the now-increasingly dubious word of Blair and Straw.
There was a quotation regarding the anthrax
factory, not the anthrax
stockpiles – and an addition that began with the word, “Really.” You either made a clear mistake in culling your example or are an outright liar.
The laws of physics are different in Iraq as opposed to the west?! You're insane if you think that the actions and duration of known chemical agents cannot be calculated according to known physical parametres. They're industry-standard materials Their formulae and composition are well-known.
Provide for me a list of exactly what chemicals escaped our detection.
An issue rendered moot the day the materials exceed their use-by date and become inert.
And yet still proof of long-standing obfuscation and successful contravention by Saddam Hussein’s régime.
Fifty one old Mig 21s, three Foxbats, and ammunition in the one protected bunker in the entire country, left there for an indeterminate period of time, and this adds up to vast hidden WMD arsenals how, exactly?
This has absolutely nothing to do with WMD. It’s got more to do with the value of Hussein’s own orders.
Another of your pathetic strawmen, Kast? That is not what I argued and you damn well know it. Or do I have to connect all the fucking dots for you? The point was that with the intensified preinvasion scouting, movement of anything would have been observed.
Speculation based on faith – regarding technology already proven fallible.
Handwaiving does not advance your case. Nor does pretending that the surveillance failures of 1991 applied in 2003. Furthermore, we encountered very little artillery in the late war and what pieces were deployed fell into our hands. No Iraqi units were equipped with chemical weapons in this fight.
What about surveillance failures of 2003 that apply in 2003?
Again, Hussein’s lack of tube artillery might explain why Iraq didn’t launch. It doesn’t vindicate the argument that he was not in possession of WMD at all.
It HAPPENED!!! Or did you miss that in all the war news?!
So
every single vehicle and
every last piece of equipment were left on the battlefield by
every single unit?
Except that they didn't. i'm sorry if the reality of the situation is inconvenient for you.
Because preconditions of a specific contingency plan were unmet. It doesn’t absolute Hussein of having made the plan in the first place.
Not quite, Comical Axi. The UN documents presented stated that the precusor was a offensive nuke attack on Baghdad This does not address Hussein's evident restraint in not provoking an American nuclear retaliation.
No, the precursors was
a march on Baghdad. You should have read the entire debate before jumping in near the end.
We cannot address Hussein’s restraint in not provoking an American nuclear retaliation (which I challenge would have struck only military targets, not a major city – likely acceptable to Hussein) because the actual preconditions of the original plan were never met in the first place.
No, to ignore what really unfolded in Gulf War I is the height of willful ignorance. There was never any substantive indication that Hussein's plans made it off paper. Stick to actualities, please.
Because the contingencies never played out. The fact that this was drawn up is damning in the first place however.
Never made it off paper? Your point? War Plans Crimson and Orange never “made it off paper.” Are you now going to tell me that they weren’t contingencies developed by the United States prior to the Second World War?
And this helps your argument how, exactly?
It proves the utter worthlessness of his original plan, which can thus be explained as a thing or personal glory rather than apt strategy.
No, we know plans were drafted. Period.
And Hussein thus bears responsibility for.
Which tells us how capable Iraq was to carry out an aggression —which is not at all. Thus one of the primary criteria for the war fails.
Not unconventionally. See, Afghanistan.
Ah, because spare parts = WMD capability. You really can't see how foolish you make yourself, can you?
Because the smuggling of certain specific items leaves open the possibility that others were smuggled as well. It is a potential we must never discount.
Because it doesn't jibe with your bullshit redefinitions? Sorry, but that's not how the game works.
Because it’s nebulous. Hell, the Chinese assisted Iraq as late as 2000. Now kindly answer the question.
Which remains meaningless in terms of capability to do anything.
But very important in determining the danger posed in the first place. Just because he does not have a realistic chance for success doesn’t mean he wouldn’t take a gamble.
Irrelevant.
Absolutely irrelevant. Your belief that Iraq posed no threat to any one is erroded by the fact that Hussein was not fully rational. He was not making the same basic analysis about cost and benefit that are generally the hallmark of most leaders.
The issue is capability to present a credible threat. When exactly does that sink in?
The lack of real-time communication impedes his ability to act. It does not however indicate complete inability to do anything whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the "gift-wrapped opinion" (Attacking The Messenger) is based upon the evidence of Iraq's incapacity to threaten the region or seize control of geopolitical objectives. It is you who is being presumptive, constantly invoking phantom WMD arsenals, what-if scenarios as fact, and simply ignoring the realities on the ground.
In this case, the “messenger” is worthy of the assault. His opinion is not fact.
Iraq was incapable of fulfilling the objective of holding Kuwait in 1991 – something that should have been evident when he first intended to go up against the 82nd Airborne. That didn’t stop him.
This is whole situation stems from a series of very important, “What if?” scenarios. It’s how we determine policy.
My, what breathtaking oversimplification on your part —particularly considering that the only bona-fides of Saddam's alledged delusional state is Saddam's word, which you insist elsewhere can't be taken at face-value.
… or that of his war plans, that of his commanders – in rank and file -, and that of the Los Angeles Times article.
No equation between the two situations, particularly since the Taliban/al-Qaeda alliance was known and active, and the terms of the resulting war different.
Absolutely relevant from the point of view that Afghanistan’s conventional threat was less than Iraq’s. The search for WMD is still underway in Iraq, mind you.
Which Iraq was incapable of.
Conventionally? Temporarily. Unconventionally? The jury is still out.
No, that's beside the point in terms of capability.
Again, if he is not rational, the lack of capability won’t restrain him as it otherwise might.
Missiles which failed, from launchers which were subsequently struck.
Not a single SCUD was ever captured – or destroyed - during the war. Fact.
No, the opinions of UNMOVIC's critics are irrelevant —the extant progress of UNMOVIC in its mission, judged by objective criteria, is all that counts. I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
Opinion.
Wrong. The dilapidated state of the Iraqi war machine already gives us the picture of Iraq's ability to threaten anybody prior to Gulf War II. Exaggerated prewar statements which increasingly go unsupported by hard evidence does not change this, no matter how much you wish it could. Especially as its looking more and more that those prewar statements were lies.
The dilapidated state of the conventional Iraqi war machine is a world apart from their unconventional arsenal, which is still the subject of investigation.
Ridiculous. Iraq's ability to carry out any attacks is DIRECTLY relevant to the justification for war, which was always based on the threat America was supposedly under.
I fail to see how it is at all acceptable that Iraq possess unconventional weapons but escape consequences simply because it lacked the launchers to deploy them at this particular point in time. So long as Iraq has stockpiles – assuming it does, of course -, it is in contravention of the United Nations and a potential danger to neighboring countries.
So you can justify a war in the present (while lying to the public of course to say otherwise) based on what might happen in the future? Would you like some lebensraum to go with that?
We’ve done that successively throughout history, Vympel. See, Vietnam. If the future threat is sufficiently justified, it is quite acceptable.
North Korea was caught red-handed. As I said.
With a many year gap in between, of course.
North Korea was caught. North Korea owned up to it. And the IAEA never even had a full mandate. North Korea had the facilities, the working reactor, the raw materials to enrich, etc. Totally unlike Iraq.
AND YET IT ESCAPED DETECTION BETWEEN 1994 AND 2002.
Blix never acknowledged the existence of 10,000 litres of anthrax. Where did you get that from?
Blix acknowledged that they were unaccounted for, hence the words “stockpiles in question.” They were undeniably part of Iraq’s stockpiles at one point in time.
And yet inspectors remained on the ground for a further seven or so years (depending on exact dates). No one's talking about taking Iraq's word for it. No one's arguing the inspectors shouldn't have been there.
Irrelevant to (A) the UN’s inability to put precise data with the limited physical evidence, and (B) the fact that North Korea escaped detection so long, or that Iraq went virtually four years without inspectors on-site.
That's a question for the Clinton/Bush administrations, not I- I'm just repeating the background/history- NK was known to have material (in some form) for two nukes since 1994 (something Iraq has never been acknowledged to have).
… but for more since 2002.
