If Hans Blix thought that the inspections were a joke or “futile”, he would call them off. He did not call them liars, he asked for more evidence to exonerate them in order to make his job easier.
What I think the inspections are also indicating so far (although there still is time for evidence to appear) that the US’s supposed evidence is very weak at best.
Saying that the inspections show that the U.S.'s evidence is weak is like saying that a failed one-month search of all of Alberta by a handful of people for a hidden container that you know Alberta has means that the evidence for its existence is weak.
Even if you knew with certainty that there was a 5,000 liter tank of chemicals hidden within Baghdad itself, how likely do you think it would be that a handful of inspectors could find it if Iraq had intentionally hidden it? And we’re talking about an ENTIRE COUNTRY.
Look at what the inspectors are actually doing: They have a factory on their list, they go to the factory, and see if it’s producing what Iraq says it’s producing. But what if that factory has a concrete slab poured over a storage tank five years ago?
The inspectors are not sleuthing around trying to find intentionally hidden stuff. Their inspections are much coarser than that, at the facility level. If Sadam has build his program in hidden underground facilities in his palaces, or dispersed his WMD among the population, the inspectors will NEVER find it. That’s why it’s a two-part requirement - an HONEST declaration of his weapons programs, followed by inspections to verify that they have been destroyed. If the honest declaration isn’t there, the second part is irrelevant. Hans Blix admits as much.
And why are you guys being so credulous? For example, we had long discussions on this board a while ago about the aluminum tubes Iraq purchased. No one disputed the actual purpose - we had debates over what the tubes might be used for, but not that Iraq had them.
But the declarations don’t mention them. At all. And this doesn’t trouble you? The questions you should be asking are, “If those tubes were used for peaceful purposes, why wouldn’t Iraq declare them? And if they aren’t being used for peaceful purposes, don’t you think that it’s critical that Iraq is claiming they don’t have them?”
Then there’s all the precursors to chemical and biological weapons. We KNOW that Iraq bought a whole bunch of chemicals which CAN be used to make weapons of mass destruction. Sure, they can be used for other purposes. So part of the declaration is supposed to account for them, so the inspectors can go and verify that they in fact aren’t being used for the manufacture of WMD. So we get the declaration, and it says, "We don’t know what chemicals you are talking about ".
Now, it’s true that maybe he didn’t use those chemicals to build WMD. If so, WHY DIDN’T IRAQ ACCOUNT FOR THEM???
If Iraq is trying to avoid war, and didn’t make weapons of those chemicals, there is no rational reason for them to hide their location. The fact that they ARE hiding them is deeply troubling.
I don’t know why you guys can’t see this as a serious problem.
If you don’t know where it is, what sort of evidence do you have really?
That’s not what Hans Blix said. Although I would appreciate a link to the article you quoted with his statements.
Something one of the other articles you linked to mentioned :
This seems to me to say the inspectors don’t consider the inspections futile.
It wouldn’t shock me if Iraq had hidden chemical weapons. But then again it wouldn’t shock me that the US would be warmongering either.
And in the long run, I’m not as concerned about Iraq having chemical/biological weapons so much as them being used. Attempting to remove Saddam would only guarantee it.
There is a difference between a serious problem and just cause to kill thousands of people.
I see. So why are you even debating? If you don’t care whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then this whole inspection thing is just pointless to you, right?
And apparently you don’t care if he has nuclear materials either, I assume? Because he didn’t declare the aluminum tubes he bought, which are typically used to refine uranium, and his declaration omitted them.
What I care about is whether or not the US goes to war. In order to justify a war by my country, I don’t care about UN resolutions, what I care about is imminent danger.
Before thousands of people die I’d like a little more proof than some aluminum tubes.
The reason I started this debate is because the Bush administration seems to have disregarded the inspections before they are even over and this seems out of step with the UN.
If we know with certainty Iraq has WMDs, there’s no reason to search for it, is there? The point is we don’t know, we can only suspect.
Statements like this trouble me:
First of all, Saddam is clearly cooperating in the same way that you cooperate with a mugger who asks for your wallet. Secondly, perhaps you should suggest a better course of action for Saddam, since you are suspicious of cooperation, and non-cooperation would be a call to war. So what would make you happy?
This is the situation. We know he has stuff that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. We know he DID have plenty of weapons of mass destruction - the 1998 inspectors reports contained quite a lot of it. We also know he has large quantities of unused shells containing mustard gas.
Given our suspicions and things we know for sure, this is what we want:
An honest declaration which shows where all the precursor chemicals are, where the aluminum tubes are, etc. Repeat: We KNOW he has this stuff. What we don’t know is whether or not he has used them in a weapons program. So to prove he hasn’t, he has to show what he’s done with them.
We want to where those shells full of mustard gas are. Saddam claims they were destroyed - we want evidence.
We also have suspicions that he has active WMD programs, and we would like him to declare them and show us where they are, so they can dismantled and THEN weapons inspectors can verify that they have in fact been dismantled.
This is Saddam’s response:
We don’t have anything. Don’t know what you’re talking about. What precursors? What aluminum tubes? Here’s 10,000 pages of old photocopies and discredited reports for you to rummage around in.
The shells have all been destroyed, but we have absolultely no evidence to that effect.
We have no weapons programs.
Does this sound like a reasonable response to you? You’re focusing on whether he has 3) or not. But doesn’t it trouble you that he bought large amounts of aluminum tubes which have the main purpose of refining uranum for bombs, we saw him buy them, tracked the shipments into the country, and now he’s saying that he doesn’t have them, and never did?
Let me repeat for the 3rd time what Powell said:
So we KNOW he had enough raw materials to make this stuff. We don’t know whether or not he actually made the weapons, but we know he had the precursors. So we ask for a declaration to show where all this stuff is, and the declaration comes back saying Iraq doesn’t have anything at all? No tubes, no weapons, no precursors.
And you’re willing to just buy that? And tie the security of the United States to that trust?
If I were Saddam, I would do exactly what it seems like he’s doing. Bury all your weapons, temporarily cease weapons development programs, allow inspectors into the country, with knowledge that they could never hope to find anything in an area that large. Continue playing dumb about materials you’ve purchased, counting on the UN to keep the US at bay (especially given that, after 8 years of Clinton, our nation is seen as all talk, no action), and knowing full well that the UN will never authorize an attack for something as trivial as a madman trying to amass nukes. Wait a couple years until the heat dies down, then drive off the inspectors and resume weapons development. Eventually, you’ll have a shiny new nuke that you can use as a deterrent from hostile forces should you ever decide to invade, say, Iran, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. Or, in a pinch, you can sell nukes to terrorists, make some useful friends, and piss off your enemies.
As to what would make me happy, I would’ve really liked a weapons declaration that wasn’t a particularly bad joke. Without that, everything else is pointless. As it stands, this isn’t “cooperation”. It’s working the system.
Jeff
I might add that Saddam’s strategy would have been perfect under, say, Clinton’s presidency. He’s wagering that Bush doesn’t have the cojones to attack. I think he’s wrong.
Jeff
Actually, Clinton bombed the heck out of Iraq.
Whoah there. There’s a big leap between bio/chem weapons and nuclear weapons.
So Iraq had some aluminum tubes. With sophisticated technology like that, they must be weeks away from nuclear weapons! KILL THEM NOW!:rolleyes:
Actually, like the rest of the world, he knows the Bush will attack and that the Bush administration has very little interest in having peace with him. However, letting in inspectors that won’t find anything has a good chance of shifting world opinion in his favor so that the US is forced to attack unilaterally.
If he can drag out the war to a guerilla struggle, the US may be forced to eventually withdraw in the face of heavy civilian casualties, mounting international pressure, and impatience from the American public.
ElJeffe-
I find it a bit disturbing of all the bashing of the 10,000 page document, when in fact no one here has ever seen it. We don’t know that it’s a “bad joke”. I haven’t heard an unbiased analysis yet. The fact that it has extraneous stuff is irrelevant. In my experience, when giving information to the government, more is better. THe fact that it is missing reports of certain things is troubling, but why don’t we initiate a dialogue with them and ask them to clarify? Perhaps they are hiding something. Perhaps they truly have no idea about some of this stuff. Hell, our own military loses incredible amounts of money and equipment routinely, and we’re fairly organized.
Not in a manner that really accomplished much. Clinton was more of a “lob a few cruise missiles” sorta guy. Saddam couldn’t give a rat’s ass about an anti-air installation being blasted here and there.
If Saddam is actively seeking nukes, do you really think he won’t eventually succeed?
He may believe Bush will send a few troops in to rough the place up, but I honestly doubt he believes that we would go to the trouble of kicking him out. If he did, I doubt he would be maintaining his current course of action. Unless, of course, he’s so deluded into believing that he can withstand the full strength of the US armed forces.
At any rate, you’re now beginning to think like a crazed dictator. So let me ask you something: If you were Saddam, and you wanted to acquire nukes and other funsy-wunsy WMDs, how would you go about it?
Jeff
Sorry there wasn’t enough blood spilled for you.
If we fought a war with every dictator that could buy aluminum pipes we’d never have peace.
He doesn’t have to win, just survive.
???
I’m not going to touch that.
Avumende:
I’ve never seen the astronauts prancing about on the moon, yet I feel perfectly comfortable bashing those who claim the landing was a hoax. In this case, I base my bashing on the fact that every single account I have read of it, by those who actually have seen it, says that it’s full of crap.
perspective:
It’s not a matter of spilled blood, it’s a matter of the bombs actually accomplishing something. A lot of blood was spilled in Hiroshima, but there was actually a tangible and beneficial result - Japan surrendered. A lot of blood may have been spilled by Clinton’s bombing of anti-air installations, but the result was precisely squat.
If we ignore every dictator that buys equipment to build nukes, we’re even less likely to have peace.
Au contraire - he has to both survive, and maintain his power. If we dismantle the Republican Guard and drive Saddam into a cave somewhere, he can survive all he wants - he’ll still be deposed.
Sorry, that wasn’t meant as an insult. I was stating that you had seemed to speculate as to how Saddam might be thinking, and was asking you to further ponder how you might go about getting your way - ie, amassing WMDs without getting attacked by the US - if you were Saddam. Because if I were him, I’d probably be trying the exact same thing as he’s doing.
Jeff
I think if it was feasible to get rid of Saddam and ensure peace and stability in the nation and the region without incredible loss of civilian life, they would have done it during the Gulf War. The old Bush didn’t want to deal with it then and I don’t understand why the new one does now.
I think if you look at the military activity of Saddam after and before the Gulf War, you will see a significant decline. As far as I’m concerned the bombings and embargos have been extremely effective at keeping him in check.
I’m happy that the inspections have resumed and I hope that’s how we continue to deal with Saddam. It’s possible to hide things for a while, but eventually if they are there, they will be found.
There are some things we can control. Aluminum pipes isn’t one of them. Get real. Every country in world wants nuclear weapons whether they admit or not.
Musharaff is a dictator that already has nuclear weapons. He is our ally at present, but then again so was Saddam. The possible conflagration between India and Pakistan is a much more worrisome and realistic possibility.
Furthermore, the most potentially destabilizing force in the world today is the overbearing and threatening foreign policy of the Bush administration. If he plays the Iraq situation wrong, this could be the beginning of a long and serious ordeal that eventually American citizens will pay a price for. The fact that a military man like Powell is percieved as a dove in this administration is pretty indicative to me of it’s warmongering tendencies.
But I digress. I think we basically agree that Bush doesn’t care about the inspections unless they turn something up.
perspective:
There are quite a few reasons as to why we didn’t go in then. There wasn’t public support for it in the US. There wasn’t international support for it. We thought we could get Saddam to cooperate with us, using inspections and such. Bush Sr. didn’t have the stomach for a real war.
Now there is public support. Saddam has proven uncooperative. Bush Jr. does have the stomach for it. International support is still up in the air, but once the bombs start dropping, I bet most will hop onboard the bandwagon. Basically, the world is a different place now than it was in '91. Saying “we couldn’t justify going in there then, therefore we can’t justify it now” is simplistic.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the country is trying to get nukes, and what they plan to do with them.
Oh, yeah, that WAS the topic, huh? 
Yeah, I think we can agree on that.
Jeff