Recently Hans Blix, former head of the UN weapon inspections team Unmovic, had this to say:
Also, the new chief inspector had this to say
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?
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.
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.
How much more time do you need?!
I believe its commonly acceopted that Iraq used such weapons against the Kurds well after 1991.
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.
Bandit:
As far as I know, the last time it is known that gas was used in Iraq, was in 1988.
That’s not likely to happen:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Before, after, what’s the difference?
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. 
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.
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. [They ask for your birthdate and zip code, but no registration or money.] A small excerpt:
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?
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 - 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? - 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).
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 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.
Jshore
Please clarify.
Whats your point exactly, get with what programme?
Way closer! I like it.
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.]
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.)