Hans Blix : WMD destroyed 12yrs ago

[errata]

Recently Hans Blix, former head of the UN weapon inspections team Unmovic, had this to say:
The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said.

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991."

source (http://www.itv.com/news/2111921.html)

Also, the new chief inspector had this to say
"It's becoming more and more difficult to believe stocks (of WMD) were there," Perricos said, adding that it was unlikely Saddam could have made a successful job of quickly destroying them before the invasion and covering his tracks.

"If you are in a hurry, you don't do it systematically, with attention," he said. "You leave more evidence, somewhere."
source (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&click_id=2813&art_id=qw1063799820495B265&set_id=6)

The experts are beginning to weigh in. Five months should be long enough for something. Meanwhile, the US still refuses to let Unmovic return preferring instead to use their own Iraq Survey Group. :dubious:

Does anyone think a signifigant WMD program post-1991 will uncovered?

[PatriotX]

Oddly enough, I hope so. Strangely, it'd be great if there was a substantial al Qaeda connection as well. I would so love it if the the invasion was well justified.

[Rayn]

I agree with SimonX it would be a disturbing shame to believe that we have spent a billion dollars a week in a completely "unjustified" war (at least as far as the administration's initial justifications are concerned). Hopefully we won't come out like the largest jackasses of all time on this one, but only time will tell.

[Olentzero]

How much more time do you need?!

[smiling bandit]

I believe its commonly acceopted that Iraq used such weapons against the Kurds well after 1991.

[laigle]

Never heard that one Bandit. I know he used them on the Kurds BEFORE 1991, but I haven't ever heard of any WMD use since the first Gulf War.

[MrTuffPaws]

Bandit:

As far as I know, the last time it is known that gas was used in Iraq, was in 1988.

[Fear Itself]

Originally posted by SimonX
Oddly enough, I hope so. Strangely, it'd be great if there was a substantial al Qaeda connection as well. I would so love it if the the invasion was well justified. That's not likely to happen:

Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=1776&e=1&u=/ap/bush_saddam)President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq

[DrDeth]

Yes, that is all very nice. Blix says that NOW, after we can't find any, that he THINKS they were PROBABLY destroyed. Perricos says he doesn't think they were destroyed recently. And maybe they are right. Maybe Saddam secretly destroyed all his expensive nice shiney toys, and did so in a way that he still had the Sanctions go on that were costing him billions. :dubious: And- maybe Saddam also did this without keeping any records. Why?

OR- maybe they were there, and Saddam moved them to Syria. Maybe he destroyed most of the older ones- the weapons that were getting old and no so reliable, and moved the rest.

But you know- Blix wasn't this sure back then, in fact he was openly dubious of Saddam's lack of records and evidence for such destruction. Hindsight is 20/20. :rolleyes:

[hazel-rah]

Yes, Blix wasn't sure, so he advocated against invading Iraq. Considering no WMDs have been found, it was a pretty good position to take. Your "hindsight is 20/20" quip loses its sting when you realize his foresight was just as sharp. Too bad our president is so willfully blind.

[musicguy]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Maybe Saddam secretly destroyed all his expensive nice shiney toys, and did so in a way that he still had the Sanctions go on that were costing him billions. :dubious: Why?



Just a guess, but, maybe when you have enemies in the region, letting them know that you have destroyed your weapons isn't such a good idea. And since the US is determined to invade anyway, why not let them think you have all of the stuff so that they proclaim it to the world and end up looking foolish.

[Eolbo]

And maybe the simplest explanation of all is the right one. The Iraqis said they had destroyed them and they had. They were never able to be believed because their enemy just didn't want to believe, no evidence was good enough or ever could have been good enough.

[sailor]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Yes, that is all very nice. Blix says that NOW, after we can't find any, that he THINKS they were PROBABLY destroyed. Are you serious? Blix was dead set against the US agression and, for that reason, together with the UN was lambasted and demonized by the US. The fact is he and the UN were right and the USA was wrong.

[jshore]

Originally posted by laigle
Never heard that one Bandit. I know he used them on the Kurds BEFORE 1991, but I haven't ever heard of any WMD use since the first Gulf War.

Before, after, what's the difference?

Originally posted by sailor
The fact is he and the UN were right and the USA was wrong.

Right, wrong, what's the difference?

You guys are just so yesterday with this all this quibbling shit. You gotta get with the program, man! You must be reading that subversive literature at the library that John Ashcroft would like to find out about. ;)

[Marley23]

But you know- Blix wasn't this sure back then, in fact he was openly dubious of Saddam's lack of records and evidence for such destruction. Hindsight is 20/20. :rolleyes:
Blix has been 100% consistent if you ask me. He pleaded for more time throughout the run-up to this war and said that there was no definitive evidence Iraq had WMD. He never wavered, and was quite evenhanded in that he also criticized Iraq's slowness in cooperating every chance he got. Bush and the Pentagon weren't interested in waiting, and said so. They also said they had all the evidence they needed. Color me VERY unsurprised that this is happening.

Originally posted by DrDeth
Maybe Saddam secretly destroyed all his expensive nice shiney toys, and did so in a way that he still had the Sanctions go on that were costing him billions. :dubious: Why?
The sanctions didn't really hurt him, that was one argument against them. He was still filthy rich. Anyway, the destruction of the weapons wouldn't have been secret at all, as it was supervised by UNMOVIC for years. That was one of the terms of surrender- that he not acquire WMD and destroy whatever he had. The inspectors remained in the country for years to attempt to ensure this.
That said, Saddam wasn't a bookkeeper. An AP article from last week offers one theory as to what happened here. Here's a link to it in the Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38764-2003Sep7.html) [They ask for your birthdate and zip code, but no registration or money.] A small excerpt:

Ex-inspectors now say, five months after the U.S. invasion, that the "unaccountables" may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.

Some may represent miscounts, they say, and some may stem from Iraqi underlings' efforts to satisfy the boss by exaggerating reports on arms output in the 1980s.

"Under that sort of regime, you don't admit you got it wrong," said Ron G. Manley of Britain, a former chief U.N. adviser on chemical weapons.

His encounters with Iraqi scientists in the 1990s convinced him that at times, when told to produce "X amount" of a weapons agent, "they wrote down what their superiors wanted to hear instead of the reality," said Manley, who noted that producing VX nerve agent, for example, is a difficult process.

[SPOOFE]

Just a guess, but, maybe when you have enemies in the region, letting them know that you have destroyed your weapons isn't such a good idea.
One theory I heard was that Saddam was deliberately doing all he could to foster the belief that he still had WMD's, to stave off Iran. If that turns out to be the case, that just means that Saddam tricked the United States into attacking him.

It's like a guy holding a fake gun accosting the cops. If he refuses to put it down, no matter how non-threatening it is, are the cops wrong to still take him down anyway?

[Abe]

Marley23 is quite accurate. Blix has demonstrated consistency all the way and his behaviour has been beyond reproach. Both the US and the UK selected specific portions of Unmovic's reports to infer that invasion of Iraq must take place immediately. Since Unmovic is a scientific body, Unmovic's reports will necessarily be of the "mixed bag" type, as opposed to the usually categorical assertions of politicians. The problem with mixed bags is that they allow those practicing selective bias to pick and choose the facts to use and broadcast in support of their own position, while ignoring the items that are less favourable or in opposition.

Some details I recall from a couple previous discussions, all with plenty of supporting cites:

Tony Blair's Speech to His Parliament (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=170882) - the second page of this thread (somewhat old but still relevant) deals with Blix, France, and the situation in general; the first page is about the thread's OP, referring to the famous speech Blair gave as he launched the public drive for war in support of Bush, and the latter's lack of supporting arguments.

Mass Psychosis in Bush Administration? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179185) - ignore the seemingly administration-bashing title of the thread and go through this discussion. It sets out the facts behind the propaganda involved in slandering France, the UN, Blix & Unmovic, etc. It also contains complete refutations to challenges to the legitimacy of Blix's position and by extension his character (that part of the discussion starts on the 2nd or 3rd page I think).

Originally posted by SPOOFE
One theory I heard was that Saddam was deliberately doing all he could to foster the belief that he still had WMD's, to stave off Iran. If that turns out to be the case, that just means that Saddam tricked the United States into attacking him.

I heard the same too, but it seems a weak theory, largely unsupported, illogical, and representative of post hoc rationalization. It was discussed and largely derided on these boards, IIRC. Perhaps more may come of it with improved evidence, but on the whole it seems more likely Saddam wanted to preserve face by not acquiescing completely to external forces; plus assuming he disarmed he probably didn't want the whole region (including segments of Iraq's own population) to know that the only weapons left at his disposal were a rag-tag army and a few cranky missiles. That's not the same thing as tricking someone into attacking you -- which is a tremendous and rather pointless risk to take when that someone is the US (as the Taleban and Milosevic learned in recent years).

The issue here, especially when talking about reports prepared by Unmovic -- a scientific body -- is the facts of WMD program assesments, not post hoc speculations that suggest Saddam was asking for it all along. Where is the evidence of dire threat or terrorism? It's not in Unmovic's reports. There's little of substance in intelligence reports we have heard that can be corroborated. The evidence is not, apparently, in Iraq either (that we know of so far, and it's been a goodly time now).

It's like a guy holding a fake gun accosting the cops. If he refuses to put it down, no matter how non-threatening it is, are the cops wrong to still take him down anyway?

It's not like that, which is why I always object to the all too popular technique of argument by analogy. But, if we must, try this one: it's like a guy with a significant criminal record but no recent offences who is approached by some cops. The cops suspect him of being armed, the man says he isn't, and the cops begin to frisk him. The man refuses to cooperate, but eventually agrees. Before they are done searching, the cops interrupt their search, pull out their guns, and demand that the man drop his weapons immediately. The man responds that he is not armed. The cops quickly attempt to persuade disbelieving bystanders that the man is a lethal and heavily armed menace and that there is no time to risk with a proper investigation and trial. They dismiss bystanders’ opposition, threaten the more vocal objectors, and quickly bribe or coerce a few others to act as cheerleaders, after which they summarily shoot the suspect dead. Apart from the victim's criminal record, there was at no time visible evidence of imminent threat. When the dead man's body is examined, no weapons are found to warrant the cops' actions.

I think that's a closer analogy, though (like all analogies) it still has some problems.

[Walker in Eternity]

Jshore

Please clarify.

Whats your point exactly, get with what programme?

[jshore]

Originally posted by Abe
I think that's a closer analogy, though (like all analogies) it still has some problems.

Way closer! I like it.

Originally posted by Stryfe
Jshore

Please clarify.

Whats your point exactly, get with what programme?

That post was very tongue-in-cheek, basically mocking the fact that the Bush Administration (and many of their defenders) don't seem too worried about "minor" details of fact...like whether Saddam did or did not have WMD and when, whether or not he did have connections to September 11th, and so on. [If you think the warnings of propaganda and semantic abuse by leaders contained in books like "1984" were silly, try parsing a Bush speech! I find it really frightening actually.]

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
One theory I heard was that Saddam was deliberately doing all he could to foster the belief that he still had WMD's, to stave off Iran. If that turns out to be the case, that just means that Saddam tricked the United States into attacking him.

It's like a guy holding a fake gun accosting the cops. If he refuses to put it down, no matter how non-threatening it is, are the cops wrong to still take him down anyway? Absolutely right.

In any case, what we saw in Iraq convinces me that, right or wrong, the world is better off without Saddam in power. We can quibble all we like over whether or not the US should have done it with or without the UN until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, the world is better off without Saddam.

(Yes, I know, someone is going to come along in a nanosecond or two and say the same thing about Bush. We can quibble about that one, too, until the cows come home. My point remains.)

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
In any case, what we saw in Iraq convinces me that, right or wrong, the world is better off without Saddam in power. Why bother even posting nonsense like this? WTF are you trying to say? Right or wrong, it's still right? Jesus. And what exactly did "we" see in Iraq that convinces you? WMDs? Armed conflict? What?

[Roland Saul]

I would ask HOW the world is better off without Saddam??

I would suggest that the average Iraqi sees very little difference in dying by decree or dying by DU or "Smart" bombs.......
perhaps the difference being that Saddam protected them rather well against what is happening now.

He is a murderous bastard, no doubt, but you cannot argue the fact that he held a stable nation by whatever means.

The rate of death in Iraq remains higher now than during his reign, the resources of Iraq are now taken further from the Iraqi people, the world of Islam is now hell-bent on revenge for the war, the Iraqi infrastructure is in ruins AGAIN, which will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths by disease and starvation.

Americans are faced with paying for the war at the expense of critical social infrastructure. (This is very bad for the world IMHO.)

The world is retching at the obscene way Iraqi resources are being (mis)-handled by White House cronies.
The Middle East is hugely de-stabilised once again. (Bad for the world, GREAT for oil interests..)
American credibility in terms of policy is gutted, perhaps permanently. ( Now THAT might be a good thing for the world, now that the cards are on the table.)

[BrotherCadfael]

So the world would be better off with Saddam in power? OK, we pretty well see where you're coming from...

Oh, and to answer your question: torture chambers, mass graves, child jails, genocide...

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
Why bother even posting nonsense like this? WTF are you trying to say? Right or wrong, it's still right? Jesus. And what exactly did "we" see in Iraq that convinces you? WMDs? Armed conflict? What?

Right on, Desmo! I too yearn for the happy days when Saddam was in power!

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Stryfe
Jshore

Please clarify.

Whats your point exactly, get with what programme? S/he's being sarcastic. C'mon, you're from the UK, you're meant to get irony!

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Brutus
Right on, Desmo! I too yearn for the happy days when Saddam was in power! Is that the best you can do? You know what, Brutus, a couple more months of inspections and the whole of the UNSC and more would have been behind an invasion to remove Saddam. I would have applauded this on humanitarian grounds. But the PNAC administration and their meat puppet GWB (and their zombie-like my prez right or wrong supporters) couldn't wait, and threw the international community into deep crisis. And it indeed turns out that the motivation for this "urgency" was a crock. That is what people are objecting to. I'm sorry that what we've been saying for more than a year now is turning out to be true, and your side turns out to be full of shit. It must be deeply disheartening.

[mazirian]

Originally posted by Brutus
Right on, Desmo! I too yearn for the happy days when Saddam was in power!

Ahh.. The good old days, when Saddam was Reagan's best little fuckbuddy in the Middle East. Nobody cared about few gassed Kurds back then. Saddam and Rummy shaking hands like long-lost fratboys meeting again. Good times...

[jjimm]

Originally posted by mazirian
Ahh.. The good old days, when Saddam was Reagan's best little fuckbuddy in the Middle East. Nobody cared about few gassed Kurds back then. Saddam and Rummy shaking hands like long-lost fratboys meeting again. Good times... Cite. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm)

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
So the world would be better off with Saddam in power? OK, we pretty well see where you're coming from...

Oh, and to answer your question: torture chambers, mass graves, child jails, genocide... And no doubt the Iraqis that were killed during the invasion are happy now. As are their families. All of them free from the threat of Saddam killing them. Ditto with the U.S. soldiers who have died. Their families can now say, "well, at least Saddam didn't kill them". And you guys get to pay, what, 6 billion a month for this happy outcome?
Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
Right on, Desmo! I too yearn for the happy days when Saddam was in power!Knowing you, Brutus, you could say that without anyone even suspecting any sarcasm. ;)

[Roland Saul]

Mass graves like the ones needed now for the Iraqi civilian war dead? Or political prisons without trial or charge like Gitmo?

What's worse anyhow? People being tortured and imprisoned or being outright killed by huge scale bombing or poisoned by radioactive munitions? Both the same in my book.

By your logic, the situation in Iraq is better now than before the war. How is that? Why are there demonstrations all over Iraq to get the US the hell out ? How EXACTLY has the world political climate or standrd of living been improved?

So Iraqis are better off dead than oppressed? Is their oppression over? There's about 5,000 miles of razor-wire and about 10,000 dead civilians to illustrate the "end of oppression" in Iraq.

What about the "democracy" now in place in Iraq? Yep, LOTS of elected leaders there now, you betcha.

Money spent so far on pillaging the oil resources? 150 billion or so?
Money spent so far on critical infrastructure? Any guesses? Maybe 0?

Progress and plans made towards holding free elections in Iraq? None?
Progress towards raping the country and making sure ALL the money goes to American corporate interests? Right on schedule.

Credible sources of information justifying ANY of the reasons for going to war? 0?

Credible sources of information from inside Iraq these days? 0? Oh darn, they've all been shut down or killed.

Progress towards prosecution of those responsible for 9/11? None?

Witholding of information critical to successful determination of culpability in 9/11 by the American government? Excellent so far.

Screwing of the American soldiers taking part in this war? Unequaled in history. Likewise taxpayers.

[sailor]

Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
In any case, what we saw in Iraq convinces me that, right or wrong, the world is better off without Saddam in power. We can quibble all we like over whether or not the US should have done it with or without the UN until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, the world is better off without Saddam. Repeat with me: The ends do not justify the means.

Desirable ends do not justify evil means. Accomplishing desirable ends by bad means is never desireable or acceptable. The USA has used lies, has subverted international relations and has become an agressor which is evil which can never be justified by any ends.

If Saddam had slipped on a banana peel and broke his neck I definitely would not miss him. But the way his removal was achieved is shameful and signifies a great loss for the world. Yes, I wish we could go back to the previous situation where Saddam was in power but where the USA had not done so many evil and immoral things.

I believe President Bush is a threat to America and to the world and both America and the world would be better off without him. If he had choked to death on a pretzel I would not miss him but I would never condone his assasination.

What you are saying is that anything goes if the ends are good and that you find it acceptable that people who think President Bush is evil would try to kill him. That is what you and Brutus are saying and I disagree. You should not be proposing such points of view.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
...Knowing you, Brutus, you could say that without anyone even suspecting any sarcasm. ;)

Scary how well some get to know me here ;)

[Tee]

Hans Blix is a lawyer first and a diplomat second, beaurocrat third, with anything else in his resume probably coming a distant fourth. I have no objection to what he's saying, that almost all of what Saddam had in the summer of '91 was probably destroyed just as Iraq had claimed.

This does not explain the fact that sometime between 1991 and 2001 Iraq had developed a nuclear program under the noses of the inspection teams (says the IEAE), had experimented with VX gas under the noses of the inspection teams (says Scott Ritter), and somehow had proscribed spanking-new missiles in residence when the inspection teams were allowed back in last year - despite Iraq being sanctioned up the wazoo and having few resources with which to devote to arms production. And God only knows what else is contained in that country, where average farmers have stockpiles of C4 explosive and 10-year olds possess RPGs and Kalishnikovs.

The whole lot of "inspections" is a sick joke, as are sanctions and Oil-for-Food. But the international community congratulates itself on "containment" and lavishes praise. [And ignores - wholesale - the fact that he was fighting a war by proxy under containment, as sure as if he was launching missiles, in Palestine. Judging from the amount of "Free Palestine" signs carried at the anti-war demonstrations, people did notice this situation and marched in favor of it, which is just disgusting.]

The US and the UK flying over parts of the country to keep the rabid ruler from exterminating Iraqis of the wrong sort - of this, I'm proud. I think toppling Saddam should have been done sooner instead of bombing at will and sanctioning the place into vast poverty...but in the end I'm satisfied that Saddam has been removed permanently and the Iraqis have a shot at a genuine representational government for the first time since the country was formed. And that eventually thereafter, there will be that much less US presence in the Middle East.

We will, out of our own pockets and with help sent from numerous countries, rebuild their schools and their infrastructure, and assist them in rebuilding their security forces, their government and their industries, athletic programs, etc, and then we'll leave. That's pretty much how its going to be, imo.

[Fear Itself]

Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
So the world would be better off with Saddam in power? Is the world better off with Kim Jong Il in power in North Korea? By your logic, Bush is shirking his international responsibilities by not invading immediately. America is not responsible for toppling every tin-horn despot in the world.

[smiling bandit]

As far as I know, the last time it is known that gas was used in Iraq, was in 1988.

Ah, my bad. I was thinking they'd done that in 1992, as a reprisal for Desert Storm.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by sailor
Are you serious? Blix was dead set against the US agression and, for that reason, together with the UN was lambasted and demonized by the US. The fact is he and the UN were right and the USA was wrong.

Ah, how soon we forget. True, Blix and the UN were in favor of more Inspections, and waiting to see what the Inspections found (as was I). But Blix openly praised the realistic threat of US agression, as he admitted that Saddam would never had let the Inspectors back in without it. Nor did Blix say at that time that he doubted that Iraq had any WMD. In fact- again I will point out that Blix was openly dubious about Saddams lack of evidence for such destruction. True- Blix was keeping an open mind. However, he never predicted there weren't any WMD's either.

Like I said- NOW he says it is clear there are no WMD. Yes- "NOW". I agree that we should have waited and let the Inspections continue, but Blix doing this now is purely Political.

But again- the fact that there are none there NOW is NOT evidence at all that there weren't any. They could have been moved to Syria.

[athelas]

>And maybe the simplest explanation of all is the right one. The
>Iraqis said they had destroyed them and they had. They were
>never able to be believed because their enemy just didn't want
>to believe, no evidence was good enough or ever could have
>been good enough.

Right. Even though they let inspectors through to rummage through their collective cellars, and the inspectors came up with nothing, the silly US and its mindless zombie cohorts wouldn't admit that they had no WMDs. Silly Yankees!

>Money spent so far on pillaging the oil resources? 150 billion or so?

Secure to prevent burnings a la 1991 and pillaging are two entirely different things.

>Money spent so far on critical infrastructure? Any guesses? Maybe 0?

Cite?

>Is the world better off with Kim Jong Il in power in North Korea?
>By your logic, Bush is shirking his international responsibilities
>by not invading immediately. America is not responsible for
>toppling every tin-horn despot in the world.

Obviously, the US wanted to remove SH before he became KJI. Two entirely different situations, though I'm sure that if KJI had no nukes, the US would jump at the chance.

Besides, it's obvious that Iraq must be invaded before. Why? Because we have to do it alphabetically !

[jshore]

Originally posted by DrDeth
But again- the fact that there are none there NOW is NOT evidence at all that there weren't any. They could have been moved to Syria.

Or, outer space!

[errata]

So.... does anyone still think we're going to find WMD's?

So far no one seems ready to defend a positive on this. While there are plenty of off-topic "Saddam was evil" and some almost on topic "containment didn't work", but still no "we'll find them eventually".

Interesting.

[sailor]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Ah, how soon we forget. True, Blix and the UN were in favor of more Inspections, and waiting to see what the Inspections found (as was I). But Blix openly praised the realistic threat of US agression, as he admitted that Saddam would never had let the Inspectors back in without it. Nor did Blix say at that time that he doubted that Iraq had any WMD. In fact- again I will point out that Blix was openly dubious about Saddams lack of evidence for such destruction. True- Blix was keeping an open mind. However, he never predicted there weren't any WMD's either. He said there was not enough evidence.
The USA said there was more than enough evidence.
Blix and the UN were right.
The USA was wrong.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
We can quibble all we like over whether or not the US should have done it with or without the UN until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, the world is better off without Saddam.

Apparently, we do need the UN's help to pull this one off.

[Marley23]

the bottom line is, the world is better off without Saddam.
Which was never really in dispute. But why was it necessary to lie about everything else?

[Abe]

originally posted by Athelas
Obviously, the US wanted to remove SH before he became KJI. Two entirely different situations, though I'm sure that if KJI had no nukes, the US would jump at the chance.

Since there was no concrete evidence of WMD back then it is misleading to suggest this was a war of nuclear pre-emption. It wasn't. WMDs and corresponding programs were alleged. Their presence was suspected, yes, but their existence at the time relied significantly on the various assurances from US and UK governments. Which is still the case. A brief regime of weapons inspections turned up weapons, yes, but no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or materials. Then the inspections were boycotted by the US statement that they would invade Iraq within a specific timeframe regardless of WMDs, and regardless of whether the Iraqi regime was willing to step down (yet both these items were earlier cited as factors that could prevent aggression)

As an aside, if you think the US would willingly engage in war with North Korea to remove Dear Leader as it did with Iraq to remove SH you are in grave error, even assuming N. korea had no nukes. North Korea is the most heavily militarized state in the world, it has one of the largest armies, it is one of the poorest places on the planet, it is not sitting on a fortune in oil and gas, etc. Iraq, on the other hand, was not a threat since its invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it has massive deposits of oil and gas, and its security forces were generally poorly trained, not cohesive, and very poorly equipped -- facts that made aggression that much more attractive an option. A short-term military victory against Iraq, in spite of a very few naysayers, was practically assured (and I say this as a layman when it comes to military matters). Yet notice that the medium-term victory is nowhere near, and a long-term one is far, far beyond the horizon. Now imagine taking on a similar task against the rather mightier North Korea, leaving aside factors like the vulnerability of South Korea and of course the presence of China. We're talking about massive conflict, not just rolling over disorganized and poorly equipped Iraqi forces.

For the people who in rather tiresome fashion keep trying to impugn Hans Blix's work, consider this: on the job, it would have been inappropriate for Blix & co. to state they believed or didn't believe Iraq had WMDs, because they were not there to influence opinion by using more opinion. Their job was to go in and determine, factually, whether there were WMDs and/or WMD programs in Iraq, and to destroy any found. Blix and Unmovic's assessments and reports, should you care to read them instead of relying on idiotic FOX News reports, indicate a balanced, scientific, even-handed approach to the problem, an approach that emphasizes evidence and not hearsay and propaganda. These reports do not show any evidence of WMDs, and much the same was stated by Blix. After the inspections were cut short and Blix's job in Iraq was effectively terminated, he is perfectly free to provide an opinion based on the considerable knowledge and evidence at his disposal, since there is no chance that the stating of such opinion could compromise or jeopardize the integrity of inspections that are long terminated, or of their public perception. I don't see how Blix can be faulted for this -- for purposes of comparison, Bush and Blair provided very categorical (definitely not balanced) assertions not sufficiently based on evidence at a time when they well knew such assertions would influence decisions. Yet some people insist on wanting to nail Blix for reporting the facts and occasionally providing a legitimate opinion when safe to do so. Let's not waste more time please.

[i]Originally posted by DrDeth
But again- the fact that there are none there NOW is NOT evidence at all that there weren't any. They could have been moved to Syria.

I would say that firstly, there was no concrete evidence there were WMDs 9 months ago, and there still appears to be no evidence for these beasts. Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything at all. Wild speculation will result in all sorts of hypotheses, and the one you quote in particular seems unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically useless. If the weapons aren't there, you are saying, they could have been there before the war but hidden in another country since. That's possible, however one must then obtain reliable evidence that the weapons were hidden or moved somewhere else -- evidence that to my knowledge is simply not there. Merely alleging without supporting evidence that the WMDs were moved away, when the very existence of these alleged weapons is in question, hardly constitutes a logical course of reasoning (it is, in fact, a multiplication of unknowns).

[errata]

I think we may have a non-debate here. Wow.

I can still hear the way Bush said "weapons of mass destruction" so vehemently. Guess I'll have to rely on memory from here on out.