Apparently, we do need the UN’s help to pull this one off.
Which was never really in dispute. But why was it necessary to lie about everything else?
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 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).
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.