Anti-french feeling and lies

[Vympel]

By the way, dumbfuck:

The IAEA is continuing to follow up on acknowledged efforts by Iraq to import high strength aluminum tubes. As you will know, Iraq has declared these efforts to have been in connection with a program to reverse engineer conventional rockets. The IAEA has verified that Iraq had indeed been manufacturing such rockets

I'll be taking that concession now, biatch.

[Axis Kast]

I think you've confused UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.

My meaning is still clear.

Denied by the inspectors.

The inspectors deny that they believe the convoys carried prohibited materials. Nobody knows for certain.

What's he gonna do? Put it on the front page? "Look, a drone that doesn't even fit the criteria of prohibited item!" What a pathetic criticism.

Sensationalism. There was no reason why the drones should have been relegated beyond page two hundred. They were purposely buried to discourage what Blix knew would be American alarm.

Keep up the false analogies.

Israel led United Nations weapons inspectors by a leash through its facilities. Some were in fact camouflaged as large grain depots if I remember correctly. That discludes American overflights by SR-71s, too.

Clearly a strong argument my fucking ass. They reported fucking everything they found. You have zero reason to make the claim. And it's quite amazing that you do considering the US lack of success.

Do you actually believe a full reckoning and thorough investigation could ever have been made while Hussein was still in power? Whether or not you believe they would find anything after the fact, Bush’s line of reasoning is indeed solid.

Source please.

From FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html):

The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."

There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.

United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.

Sorry, Bush never made a case for threatening intelligence maneuvers. He made the case for WMD.

Are you denying that Bush might have unspoken rationales for war? You said it yourself: the man changed his tact numerous times during the whole ordeal, hoping to drum up support for an invasion.

You cannot deny that Hans Blix nor UNMOVIC did nothing to hinder Iraqi intelligence. Saddam was still free to do as he would so long as he could circumvent the United Nations.

Perhaps you should go find the relevant UN provisions, tell me if Iraq was required to destroy such facilities, and furthermore, I repeat the question that if they hadn't been used in years, and the inspectors were there, what danger was there of Iraq clandestinely building such things? You can't covertly test launch a fucking MISSILE, Kast.

That the inspectors discovered such a site at all proved that there were remnants of Iraqi weapons from prior to the 1998 régimes. Not to mention that the al-Samoud itself was apparently built in recent years.

Hello strawman. I didnt' say he was fucking expert on everything. Since when is expertise required in a field to know whether any work is actually being done in it?!

The man was a theoretician. Remember the Manhattan Project? How many of those working on the same had any idea of the ultimate conclusions of their work? There’s are such things as “tiers of security.”

My fucking ass it wasn't. You're the only moron I've ever seen who tries to hold it up as proof.

Bullshit. You simply disagree.

Ignoring the inconvenient fact that expense of fashioning them into crude centrifuges, and the uncertainty of actually getting something useful out of the process, would make the entire scheme not worth the trouble.

From whose point of view? Yours or Saddam’s?

This has what to do with the claim that they were for nuclear weapons? Oh that's right, nothing.

Baradei himself admitted that the tubes could be at cost fashioned into primitive centrifuges.

Bullfuck I didn't. We've been over this already. How do you know there were no results? How do you know what they've been used for?

Why were they sitting in a fucking warehouse for years on end?

es, heaven forbid I listen the fucking IAEA when I could listen to some paranoid fucking moron on the internet desperate to prove his case.

Baradei doesn’t say for sure that they couldn’t be used – merely that he believes they were the wrong tools for the job, Vympel. There’s a difference.

Would those be the disputed missiles that were scrapped? Idiot.

And the SCUDs?

My fucking ass. They were not illegal. What does 'spirit' have to do with whether they had a range greater than 150km, you moron?

Willing to give Iraq a great deal of leeway, aren’t we?

The fact that they built unmanned aerial drones is indicative of a dangerous capability. It’s a knowing contravention of UN prohibitions.

Iraq does not. South Africa was not under an inspection regime, idiot.

Iran’s first reactor will soon go online. South Africa was under embargo however. And again, I refer you to Israel.

Prove it. I'm tired of this shit- give me details of this intense observation.

I did.

Take your burying claim and shove it up your ass. It's Blixes fault that he didn't tell Washington what they wanted to hear? Fuck off. As for 'objective assessment', this coming from the side who spoke of WMD as if they were 100% definitely there and made voluminous erroneous claims on the subject before sanctions started.

Blix was hell-bent on peace. He tried every trick in the book to “legally” confuse the United States when it came to the drones.

Rumored hidden by who?

History Channel’s special on the Gulf War.

You fucking dumbass. Hitler engaged in a two-front war. Where did Saddam make that error?

We point to Hitler’s failings in the field as indicative of mental illness and an inability to comprehend the actual vulnerability of his fighting men. Saddam made similar illogical determinations based on will and desire rather than fact.

Who the fuck decides what the intent of the sanctions was? You? When I can fucking read them for myself?

Obviously the United States. A violation in spirit is an attempt to contravent.

Burden of proof fallacy. It is not up to me to disprove your bullshit Tom Clancy thriller claims. Fucking paranoid psycho- who the fuck is gonna fly UAVs with "made in Iraq" on the side over anyone, you deluded dumbfuck?

During wartime perhaps?

Where did it escape you that we didn’t want Saddam to stockpile anything anyway because it would have made him that much harder to preempt down the road?

In the same way that respectable newspapers faithfully repeated the forged Nigerian documents as evidence, yes.

But we know France violated the sanctions.

Welcomed by some, not all. Do you deny what I just gave as the situation in Iraq, obvious for all to see? That speaks volumes of what the expectations were.

You gave the correct situation, but not the original outlook.

Now, if you wish, replace United States with Israel. The question stands.

You ignore the danger Hussein poses even without WMD.

The President was speaking to those he was responsible for. The topic was the war on terror. It doesn't get much more simple than that.

Where did you miss the part where he repeatedly warned of “a long road ahead?”

My original contention was that the US failed in Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin Laden, and that this was the primary objective of that attack- the focus was shifted from this failure to the toppling of the Taliban- Afthanistan's 'liberation' offered up as substitute. The emphasis did retract from Bin Laden. Bush has even stated publicly that he wasn't important. I never said "the emphasis shifted unacceptably", which was your distortion- I said the emphasis shifted.

What’s your argument? That we failed to capture bin Laden? That’s obvious. That the destruction of the Taliban was later made our objective? That’s false.

The problem was the mission in Afghanistan was an utter failure. The money isn't there to rebuild the country. The Taliban was toppled, but Bin Laden remains on the loose (and declared unimportant by Bush, publicly, though I'm sure that they still hunt him privately), Karzai is the mayor of Kabul. The warlords hold sway. US troops are achieving nothing.

US troops are still in the process of rooting out potential terrorists and holdouts.

And that is the burden of proof fallacy, also known as asking for proof of a negative. You must prove that they ARE there, I am under no responsibilty to prove that they're not. It's not sound.

That’s ridiculous. If your argument is that nothing is there, you must then sustain that argument. Especially because you do not enjoy omnipotence and cannot claim to have visited all the sites in Iraq where such weapons might be found.

No relevance. I said it wasn't a question of power at all. They had no power.

Bullshit. The anti-war movement wouldn’t have even gotten off the ground had France, Germany, and Belgium signed on. We might also have gone into Iraq via Turkey.

The anti-war movement drove wedges between allies? Yeah, sure it did. Did the French government START the anti-war movement? Umm, no, sorry, don't know where you get that idea?

My argument is that they sustained and strengthened it, dumbass.

The skill of Iraqi intelligence is irrelevant to the issue of whether Iraq would be held responsible, which it undoubtedly would be, assuming they could pull off such a feat as to preventing knowledge of who pulled off the attack.

Why wait for an attack? Unlike you, I don’t think we should be held to moral fetters when dealing with our enemies.

To war? You have a problem with war now? It's practically fucking gift-wrapped, aren't you happy?

You fucking idiot. You made the argument that Saddam would avoid war at all costs. The Taliban sure didn’t.

Forgetting of course that America would destroy Iraq, nice little caveat you left out there.

Just like the Taliban concluded.

Doesn't fly- if it was a WMD attack, then they'd have to come from somewhere. Which power in the region would be the first place the US/Israel would want to look?

And what if it weren’t a WMD attack?

How is it flawed?

See above.

Wow, you sure know how to completely miss the point. I just debunked your outrage claim, I didn't talk about Iraq's responsibility for the "genocide".

You debunked nothing. You merely pointed out that Reagan blocked consequences so they could continue to support Iraq.

[Vympel]

The inspectors deny that they believe the convoys carried prohibited materials. Nobody knows for certain.

Not evidence for your side then, is it?

Sensationalism. There was no reason why the drones should have been relegated beyond page two hundred. They were purposely buried to discourage what Blix knew would be American alarm.

And you know this for a fact, do you? You just get crazier and crazier? How do you know that it was buried? Do you know how the documents were organized? Have you ever read them?

Israel led United Nations weapons inspectors by a leash through its facilities. Some were in fact camouflaged as large grain depots if I remember correctly. That discludes American overflights by SR-71s, too.

I'll deal with this in just a moment.

Do you actually believe a full reckoning and thorough investigation could ever have been made while Hussein was still in power?

Yes- Iraq had no choice but to acede to the wishes of the inspectors, especially in the last round. Your argument is not helped by the fact that Saddam is now gone and the weapons still havent showed up- it's quite possible the inspectors DID make a thorough investigation, it's just that they didn't find what the US wanted them to find.

Whether or not you believe they would find anything after the fact, Bush’s line of reasoning is indeed solid.

Sorry, that will depend on the evidence discovered now.

From FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html):

The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."

Back to your old habits again, Kast? Where does any of this sound like Iraq post 1991?

There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program.

Benign neglect. Yup, smacks of Iraq post-1991

As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.

Something that the CIA did not do for Iraq in post-1991, it seems.

United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits.

Something Iraq did not have the luxury of doing.

The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.

Do tell me where this circumstantial evidence is in the case of Iraq.

You have utterly failed to make a meaningful comparison whatsoever.

Are you denying that Bush might have unspoken rationales for war?

If he did, he should have spoken them, and made a convincing case for action.

You said it yourself: the man changed his tact numerous times during the whole ordeal, hoping to drum up support for an invasion.

Which doesn't endear him in my eyes.

You cannot deny that Hans Blix nor UNMOVIC did nothing to hinder Iraqi intelligence. Saddam was still free to do as he would so long as he could circumvent the United Nations.

Why would I deny something like that? The purpose of UNMOVIC was to check on Iraq's WMD, nothing more.

That the inspectors discovered such a site at all proved that there were remnants of Iraqi weapons from prior to the 1998 régimes.

I'll repeat the quesiton: is there a provision saying that such sites must be completely destroyed? By that logic, Iraq's nuclear facility (which did carry on legitimate research projects) is proof of remnants of Iraqi weapons. No such claim has been made?

Not to mention that the al-Samoud itself was apparently built in recent years.

Which is not a missile 4x the size, as you claimed the facility was tested out for. The moment any missile would be testfired with over 150km range, US radar would pick it up.

The man was a theoretician. Remember the Manhattan Project? How many of those working on the same had any idea of the ultimate conclusions of their work? There’s are such things as “tiers of security.”

We're not talking about the conclusions. We're talking about whether there was any activity post 1991.

Bullshit. You simply disagree.

Oh REALLY. *points above to IAEA quote regarding Iraq's 81mm rockets*

I'm still waiting for that concession.

From whose point of view? Yours or Saddam’s?

The IAEA, actually *again, points to 81mm rocket quote*

Baradei himself admitted that the tubes could be at cost fashioned into primitive centrifuges.

Sorry, his expert opinion was that they weren't being used for such a thing. Noone clings to this claim except you.

Why were they sitting in a fucking warehouse for years on end?

*points to IAEA quote*

Baradei doesn’t say for sure that they couldn’t be used – merely that he believes they were the wrong tools for the job, Vympel. There’s a difference.

The 81mm rocket explanation was established to the satisfaction of the IAEA. You have no argument. Give it up, and concede the point.

And the SCUDs?

Do they exist?

Willing to give Iraq a great deal of leeway, aren’t we?

Sorry, but that's what the treaty says. You can't point to a 10km range missile and claim it violates spirit, can you?

The fact that they built unmanned aerial drones is indicative of a dangerous capability. It’s a knowing contravention of UN prohibitions.

No, it's not a contravention at all. And UAVs are not indicative of a dangerous capability. They are remote controlled planes. It's the technology inside them that makes them impressive. The Iraqi UAV had pathetic range and couldn't even be remotely controlled for as great a distance.

Iran’s first reactor will soon go online.

I'm sorry, is Iran under inspections? Is it prohibited from developing such weapons? I thought not.

South Africa was under embargo however. And again, I refer you to Israel.

And I refer you to my reply to Israel.

Blix was hell-bent on peace. He tried every trick in the book to “legally” confuse the United States when it came to the drones.

What was confusing about it? You've thrown numerous claims around, but not once provided any proof.

History Channel’s special on the Gulf War.

Fine, can't ask for a source on that.

We point to Hitler’s failings in the field as indicative of mental illness and an inability to comprehend the actual vulnerability of his fighting men.
Saddam made similar illogical determinations based on will and desire rather than fact.

Once he was in the war, not before he entered into it- everyone thought Iraq was going to have an easy time of attacking Iran, reeling from Islamic revolution, and with the middle east and US behind him, he couldn't lose. Iran proved a tougher opponent. That doesn't say he's crazy.

Obviously the United States.

Replace States with Nations.

A violation in spirit is an attempt to contravent.

I've had quite enough of your rantings, I think. There is no such thing as a violation in spirit. Either it is prohibited, or it is not. There is no middle ground. This is international law.

During wartime perhaps?

"Look, Iraq might use UAVs on us if we attack, we better attack!"

Where did it escape you that we didn’t want Saddam to stockpile anything anyway because it would have made him that much harder to preempt down the road?

I don't dispute trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring *prohibited* items. The UAV was not prohibited. Deal with it.

But we know France violated the sanctions.

We do, do we? Maybe you should go back to page 1- quite a number of false stories about France came out since France put itself in opposition to the war- the bogus 1998 nuclear switches claim, the French passport claim- got your evidence that France violated the sanctions, or as usual, are you trying to glide this one by? Maybe it's like the Kornet missile claim, which was also basically debunked for the final time in an Army Times report.

You gave the correct situation, but not the original outlook.

If the original outlook had been different, then I think the situation would've been handled with a little more preparation, especially in terms of the Shi'ites.

You ignore the danger Hussein poses even without WMD.

Conventionally? No danger. Funding terrorists? Extremely weak evidence that such things went on. Could he be contained? Obviously- he was already.

Where did you miss the part where he repeatedly warned of “a long road ahead?”

What has that got to do with what he meant when he said he'd get Osama?

What’s your argument? That we failed to capture bin Laden? That’s obvious. That the destruction of the Taliban was later made our objective? That’s false.

It wasn't part of the argument. It was actually an aside in parentheses, but hey, you contested it.

US troops are still in the process of rooting out potential terrorists and holdouts.

Only part of the solution. The country needs money. No one's paying.

That’s ridiculous. If your argument is that nothing is there, you must then sustain that argument. Especially because you do not enjoy omnipotence and cannot claim to have visited all the sites in Iraq where such weapons might be found.

No, I don't need to sustain a thing. You just REPEATED the burden of proof fallacy. What you just said is precisely WHY the burden of proof is always on the party asserting the existence of something, not the party who denies something's existence. I am under no obligation to believe in pink unicorns without evidence, nor am I under any obligation to believe in Iraqi WMDs without evidence. Basic logic. QED.

Bullshit. The anti-war movement wouldn’t have even gotten off the ground had France, Germany, and Belgium signed on. We might also have gone into Iraq via Turkey.

And your reasoning for this is what? This is absolute conjecture, but at least I was part of the movement.

My argument is that they sustained and strengthened it, dumbass.

Yes, because anti-war protesters drew strength from France

Why wait for an attack? Unlike you, I don’t think we should be held to moral fetters when dealing with our enemies.

Precisely what Nazi Germany thought. Good for you, nice precedent there.

And by the way, for a second you may have thought you deftly shifted emphasis, but I was debunking your claim of danger to the United States by pointing out the grave danger to the Iraqi regime if it supported such an action. Nice try at the irrelevant red herring, though, I almost missed it.

You fucking idiot. You made the argument that Saddam would avoid war at all costs. The Taliban sure didn’t.

Nice try, moron, too bad the situation isn't remotely comparable. The regime of the Taliban isn't that of Saddam Hussein. Taliban Afghanistan was a fragmented, poorly developed, Islamic fundametalist regime who felt they had an obligation to their 'guest' Osama and his terrorist cohorts= and who furthermore actually thought they could win against the US (Afghanistan graveyard of empire cliches). Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator who didn't make a move unless he knew he was safe= the Iran invasion, the Kuwait invasion (US nonchalance conveyed by April Glaspie). He could've easily attacked Israel with WMD during Desert Storm if he wanted to- why didn't he? Maybe becayse he wasn't fucking crazy? Where exactly does the reasoning come from that he's a religious nutter who'd casually invite his own destruction? Because that's who the Taliban were.

Just like the Taliban concluded.

Keep them false analogies coming, dickhead.

And what if it weren’t a WMD attack?

Iraq's going to perpetrate generic terrorist attacks on Israel now? You just love this hypothetical crap, don't you? Are you going to ask what happens in Mars attacked Israel next? If it does, then you should find evidence that it did do it, then present it to the world; you know, like they had in .... Afghanistan?

Perhaps you'd enlighten me also as to what Iraq has to gain out of this particular stupid scenario?

But of course you're not being that straightforward with your question. You're bringing up the possibility that Iraq would attack Israel (I presume unconventional) as reasoning for a preemptive attack. Sorry, you must *show* that the threat is likely enough that it merits a response- not merely dream up scenarios- what's to stop every nation using that reasoning (another reason why I opposed the war, btw).

You debunked nothing. You merely pointed out that Reagan blocked consequences so they could continue to support Iraq.

Somewhere in your incredibly small fucking brain, tab A has accidentally been put into slot b. No consequences= no outrage= no cowed Saddam. You lose, game over.

[Vympel]

Oh, and just in case you missed it again, you know, pretending it wasn't there like you usually do?

The IAEA is continuing to follow up on acknowledged efforts by Iraq to import high strength aluminum tubes. As you will know, Iraq has declared these efforts to have been in connection with a program to reverse engineer conventional rockets. The IAEA has verified that Iraq had indeed been manufacturing such rockets

I'll be taking that concession now, bitch.

[jezrianna]

I like the way this guy sticks up for Saddam, Uday, and company. Yeah, the Iraqi people would sure be better off today if we'd left those guys in power. Way I see it, only a complete idiot (like Vympel) would give a damn about kissing the asses of thirdrate countries in the name of "International Law" when we could be crushing a dictatorship like Iraq. To put it another way, and so simply that even you can understand it, I don't care wether Iraq had WMD's. The fact that it was a dictatorship was enough reason to invade. Should have been for you too, or don't you believe in democracry?

[Vympel]

I like the way this guy sticks up for Saddam, Uday, and company.

Oh look, it's the oh so original 'you support Saddam' strawman distortion. Got anthing original?

Yeah, the Iraqi people would sure be better off today if we'd left those guys in power.

It's quite obvious that they were been better off, you fucking moron= thousands of them wouldn't be dead, they'd actually have food, running water, elictricity, medical care, their country wouldn't be littered with unexploded ordnance, and their wouldn't be Shi'ites filling the streets asking for an Islamic theocratic regime and looking to align themselves with fucking Iran.

Way I see it, only a complete idiot (like Vympel) would give a damn about kissing the asses of thirdrate countries in the name of "International Law" when we could be crushing a dictatorship like Iraq. To put it another way, and so simply that even you can understand it, I don't care wether Iraq had WMD's.The fact that it was a dictatorship was enough reason to invade.

So, does that mean you're going to support crushing other dictatorships? Including those that the US is friendly with, you craven, snivelling hypocrite? (I know that Kast doesn't care about hypocrisy, so you could sure take that position too)

Should have been for you too, or don't you believe in democracry?

Democracy? I'm sorry, I think you're confusing democratic government by the people with an occupied country run by a puppet who will have no credibility in the Middle East. Yes, democracy is sure to take root- just look at the lovely situation over there, you blind dumbfuck- run along now, thanks for playing.

[Axis Kast]

Axis Kast connects only the dots that make a picture he wants to see? Try Vympel leaves stones unturned in order to justify an early and incomplete analysis.

Iraq appears to you absolutely toothless, and I’m supposed to feel secure because of your absolute trust in that opinion?

Saddam Hussein has made seemingly rational decisions in the past and so that guarantees his constant rationality in the future despite a long history (since 1980) of bright-as-day strategic overreach and blind faith in fanatic shock troops barely out of university to carry an invasion of his well-armed, far more populous neighbor?

Iraq has repeatedly violated United Nations restrictions since 1991 between economic cooperation with companies from the United States to Russia and the importation of prohibited weapons components – including those reinforced aluminum tubes -, but I should take you word for it that there’s no cause for preemption?

Saddam Hussein has sought at every turn to circumvent and erode the spirit of embargo by maintaining the infrastructure of his military-industrial complex and developing unmanned aerial drones, but I am to take your word for it that he will forever remain unable to carry out even unconventional attacks as long as he is watched from afar by those with at best incomplete access to the very country whose weapons programs and illegal stockpiles they were commissioned to analyze?

The Ba’ath Party is led by rational men who wish to preserve their power of dictatorship at all costs, never mind neighboring “nuts” in Afghanistan who lead an equally repressive régime and yet felt somehow compelled to stand up against the world’s greatest military power?

Israel for years managed to impede the work of on-site weapons inspectors armed with satellite and airborne surveillance equipment but shouldn’t be compared with Saddam’s Iraq because in some cases the United States might have “fudged”, even when the CIA wanted a full disclosure of evidence if only for its own peace of mind? Israel bricked up doors and elevators and led inspectors on wild goose chases, but we can simply ignore the weeks and weeks of stall tactics by Saddam Hussein? It would have been permissible to station several hundred thousand men in Iraq around the clock for an indefinite period of time if only to ensure that Saddam eventually gave in and let a relatively small team of inspectors check a number of preordained sights always under Ba’ath Party surveillance anyway? You deny that there was strong logic to the argument made by George W. Bush that weapons inspections wouldn’t be fully effective without régime-change that removed impediments to the originally-intended “anywhere, anytime” policy envisioned but not actually practiced effectively by UNMOVIC?

You’re willing to tell me that war is unacceptable because you didn’t agree with the justification given by President Bush even when you also acknowledge that calls for weapons inspections might only have been part of the battle from the point of view of the American White House? You’re willing to tell me that I should have anticipated continued ineffectiveness on the part of the Iraqi intelligence apparatus and expected that they would never cooperate with other enemies of the United States and Great Britain? You’re willing to tell me that there wasn’t strong logic behind George W. Bush’s push to bring the United States out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq, a country where at least a fraction of the population might have felt indebted to us and the government would probably be under our direct influence for the next decades’ time?

Jesus Christ. You tell me I need to “deal with” the fact that Iraq can circumvent sanctions from time to time. And you know something? I agree. I think we do need to “deal with it.” And we did.

As for France? The fact that you argue that Chirac was no influence on the power of the protests is absolutely bogus. A huge number of Americans campaigned against the war if only because they had horrific misconceptions about national self-service and believed fervently that Chirac, Schroeder, and others were somehow the core of a concerned, morally correct movement. Without Paris and Berlin, Bush would have been far less taxed in the weeks leading up to the invasion. As for El Baradei? I want a link.

[Vympel]

Axis Kast connects only the dots that make a picture he wants to see? Try Vympel leaves stones unturned in order to justify an early and incomplete analysis.

Early and incomplete analysis? I'm not the one brandishing faked documents and bullshit about aluminum tubes.

Iraq appears to you absolutely toothless, and I’m supposed to feel secure because of your absolute trust in that opinion?

Your paranoia is not my problem.

Saddam Hussein has made seemingly rational decisions in the past and so that guarantees his constant rationality in the future despite a long history (since 1980) of bright-as-day strategic overreach and blind faith in fanatic shock troops barely out of university to carry an invasion of his well-armed, far more populous neighbor?

How exactly did you get the situation exactly BACKWARDS? It was Iraq that had the well-armed troops- it was Iran that had the young fanatics- not to mention little support from anyone else.

Iraq has repeatedly violated United Nations restrictions since 1991 between economic cooperation with companies from the United States to Russia and the importation of prohibited weapons components – including those reinforced aluminum tubes -, but I should take you word for it that there’s no cause for preemption?

No, it is not. A preemptive attack is only justified if you are in serious danger and the signs are clear.

Saddam Hussein has sought at every turn to circumvent and erode the spirit of embargo by maintaining the infrastructure of his military-industrial complex and developing unmanned aerial drones

And again, there is no such thing as the 'spirit' of the embargo. Point to where Iraq is forbidden from developing such drones, Kast.

but I am to take your word for it that he will forever remain unable to carry out even unconventional attacks as long as he is watched from afar by those with at best incomplete access to the very country whose weapons programs and illegal stockpiles they were commissioned to analyze?

Not only would he be unable to carry out unconventional attacks in such an environment, the risks of actually perpetrating the attack, and the total LACK OF BENEFIT he would get from doing it, is all that needs to be said on the matter. Cliched 'Saddam Insane' rhetoric holds no weight here.

The Ba’ath Party is led by rational men who wish to preserve their power of dictatorship at all costs, never mind neighboring “nuts” in Afghanistan who lead an equally repressive régime and yet felt somehow compelled to stand up against the world’s greatest military power?[/quote

Precsiely. The Ba'ath Party was nothing like the Taliban.

Israel for years managed to impede the work of on-site weapons inspectors armed with satellite and airborne surveillance equipment but shouldn’t be compared with Saddam’s Iraq because in some cases the United States might have “fudged”, even when the CIA wanted a full disclosure of evidence if only for its own peace of mind?

I've already gone over your FAS.org quote. Even the most casual observer can see the situation's aren't remotely comparable.

Israel bricked up doors and elevators and led inspectors on wild goose chases, but we can simply ignore the weeks and weeks of stall tactics by Saddam Hussein?

It's not up to me to prove they aren't there. It's up to the US to prove that they are. The situation is becoming quite the embarassment- and the administration sure as hell isn't making false comparisons with a mamby-pamby benign inspections regime with Israel.

It would have been permissible to station several hundred thousand men in Iraq around the clock for an indefinite period of time if only to ensure that Saddam eventually gave in and let a relatively small team of inspectors check a number of preordained sights always under Ba’ath Party surveillance anyway?

What was the Ba'athists gonna do, have the inspectors shot if they found something? The inspectors went where they pleased- they were never under Ba'athist authority. Furthermore, that inspectors should be accompanied by memebrs of the regime was part of the original inspections regime. One that was violated in 1998 not by Iraq, but by the United States. Tell me, if the US is so very right, why must it go around doing things in such an incredibly ham-fisted way? Why does it need forged documents? Why does it need trumped up charges? Why does it need to torpedo the inspections before they even start?

You deny that there was strong logic to the argument made by George W. Bush that weapons inspections wouldn’t be fully effective without régime-change that removed impediments to the originally-intended “anywhere, anytime” policy envisioned but not actually practiced effectively by UNMOVIC?

Anywhere, anytime wasn't practiced by UNMOVIC? I'm sorry, where do you get that from? Can you point to once incident in the 02-03 inspections where inspectors were barred from somewhere?

You’re willing to tell me that war is unacceptable because you didn’t agree with the justification given by President Bush even when you also acknowledge that calls for weapons inspections might only have been part of the battle from the point of view of the American White House?

What the other motives of the Bush administration were are unfortunately inscrutable. If you're going to war for a reason, you get up and you make the case. Especially when you're goint to the UN for approval. Their incompetence in proving their case is not my problem.

You’re willing to tell me that I should have anticipated continued ineffectiveness on the part of the Iraqi intelligence apparatus and expected that they would never cooperate with other enemies of the United States and Great Britain?

Considering that it's the exact same bullshit logic that Nazis used in Nuremberg to defend their naked aggression (they *might* attack us, so we better attack them first!), I would say it's completely unacceptable- especially considering when other powers adopt such reasoning for their own ends, and can point to the actions of the hyperpower as precedent. I can just picture India attacking Pakistan on those grounds: "we can't be sure they won't operate against us, we can't take the chance, so we'll have a war!" That's a fucking loony reason to go to war.

You’re willing to tell me that there wasn’t strong logic behind George W. Bush’s push to bring the United States out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq, a country where at least a fraction of the population might have felt indebted to us and the government would probably be under our direct influence for the next decades’ time?

That was Bush's logic? Rumsfeld has already declared that the US has no plans for military bases in Iraq= of course, he could be lying and that would be nothing new. US military forces moved to Qatar and other countries, as well as going home, IIRC.

Jesus Christ. You tell me I need to “deal with” the fact that Iraq can circumvent sanctions from time to time. And you know something? I agree. I think we do need to “deal with it.” And we did.

"I don't dispute trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring *prohibited* items. The UAV was not prohibited. Deal with it."

That UAV didn't circumvent sanctions.

As for France? The fact that you argue that Chirac was no influence on the power of the protests is absolutely bogus. A huge number of Americans campaigned against the war if only because they had horrific misconceptions about national self-service and believed fervently that Chirac, Schroeder, and others were somehow the core of a concerned, morally correct movement.

And you know this ... how?

Without Paris and Berlin, Bush would have been far less taxed in the weeks leading up to the invasion. As for El Baradei? I want a link.

Enjoy

That's his February 14th report. March 7 saw him reach conclusion on the aluminum tube matter.

An analysis of that saga can be found here

Pertinent quote from that, the Institute for Science and International Security:

The CIA analysis has wasted the time of inspectors in Iraq while not leading to any progress on exposing Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program. Inspectors have had to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for evidence to prove or disprove the CIA analysis. Faced with overwhelming negative evidence from the inspectors, the proponents of this analysis have simply ignored the negative reports or act as if the CIA possesses secret information it cannot share. If the CIA has such secret evidence, it should share it rather than producing faulty technical analysis.

By ignoring technical evidence and pushing flawed analysis, the proponents of the CIA analysis undermine the credibility of the President, Secretary Powell, and the CIA. The attacks against those who disagree serve to show their defensiveness and a mean spirit.

This case serves to remind us that decision-makers are not above misusing technical and scientific analysis to bolster their political goals. The problem is that such a strategy denigrates the process of conducting impartial technical analysis and misleads the public.

[h0rus]

I like the way this guy sticks up for Saddam, Uday, and company. Yeah, the Iraqi people would sure be better off today if we'd left those guys in power. Way I see it, only a complete idiot (like Vympel) would give a damn about kissing the asses of thirdrate countries in the name of "International Law" when we could be crushing a dictatorship like Iraq. To put it another way, and so simply that even you can understand it, I don't care wether Iraq had WMD's. The fact that it was a dictatorship was enough reason to invade. Should have been for you too, or don't you believe in democracry?

Fuck you. Have you actually read this thread and his replies?

[Axis Kast]

However, we are still exploring whether the tubes were intended rather for the manufacture of centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

The investigation is in fact not yet complete. So much for bonified conclusions. Nice try though.

How exactly did you get the situation exactly BACKWARDS? It was Iraq that had the well-armed troops- it was Iran that had the young fanatics- not to mention little support from anyone else.

Iraq’s troops were patently worthless. Conscripts just out of university led by Baath Party officials whose membership rather than tactical prowess had enabled them to gain key military titles. While Iran later graduated to similarly-armed shock troops, it began the war replete with American technologies and a large body of more or less able troops. The Ayatollah’s purges had indeed thinned his own ranks of experienced officers, but that’s hardly to imply that Iraq’s men were any better off. Saddam made a supreme gamble, following up dismal failures in the field with increasingly desperate, increasingly inane orders.

No, it is not. A preemptive attack is only justified if you are in serious danger and the signs are clear.

Which is ultimately opinion to opinion. Or didn’t you notice our reasoning that it was far more attractive to hit Iraq early rather than wait on the off-chance they wouldn’t be doing anything over the next decade? Hm. Didn’t we rely on North Korea to collapse for all these years, too?

And again, there is no such thing as the 'spirit' of the embargo. Point to where Iraq is forbidden from developing such drones, Kast.

There’s absolutely such thing as the “spirit of embargo.” Or hadn’t you noticed that the United Nations’ efforts were essentially mean to keep Iraq from ever developing a meaningful conventional – or unconventional – arsenal? Those drones represent a military technology the privilege to wish Iraq might as well have forfeited entirely in 1991. Perhaps you might ascribe to Baghdad only benign intentions. Perhaps you might consider those drones an inoffensive step forward. My opinions are fortunately not quite so wishy-washy.

Not only would he be unable to carry out unconventional attacks in such an environment, the risks of actually perpetrating the attack, and the total LACK OF BENEFIT he would get from doing it, is all that needs to be said on the matter. Cliched 'Saddam Insane' rhetoric holds no weight here.

You deny that Iraq would gain anything from helping provoke an attack on Israel, one of its greatest regional competitors? Or from supporting an independent strike on other American targets in the Middle East, even if only with information or laundered funds? You might not have noticed, but al-Qaeda didn’t do everything alone. There were always middle-men and intermediaries passing along passports, hard currency, and other items necessary for their infiltration of the United States. As an actual intelligence-gathering organization, Iraq’s foreign services were in just such a position.

The Ba’ath Party is led by rational men who wish to preserve their power of dictatorship at all costs, never mind neighboring “nuts” in Afghanistan who lead an equally repressive régime and yet felt somehow compelled to stand up against the world’s greatest military power?

Not every practitioner of religion is “nuts,” Vympel. That’s a dangerous conclusion by any stretch. While most of the Taliban do adhere to the ideology of Islamofascism, it doesn’t mean that they chose to harbor bin Laden based merely on some blind faith in a corrupted vision of Allah. I don’t doubt that among its higher echelons, the Taliban are every bit as power-hungry and self-serving – and thus largely as rational – as Saddam Hussein himself. Or hadn’t you missed the part where people were caught off-guard by what they saw as the Taliban’s knowing suicide? I’m not willing to take the risk that Saddam Hussein won’t ever challenge the powers that be under the table, hoping to escape without being caught.

I've already gone over your FAS.org quote. Even the most casual observer can see the situation's aren't remotely comparable.

Bullshit. You dismiss every comparison on that basis without anything more than a cursory look. Israel was in a very similar position to Iraq. Or are you going to try and tell me that it’s impossible to trip up the omniscient God that is Hans Blix?

It's not up to me to prove they aren't there. It's up to the US to prove that they are. The situation is becoming quite the embarassment- and the administration sure as hell isn't making false comparisons with a mamby-pamby benign inspections regime with Israel.

Those benign inspections were still meant to turn up evidence on all counts, if only for the Americans’ own benefit. They found nothing and were easily led by a leash to embarrassing conclusions. Why would the administration harp on its failures, either? The point was to go to war, not necessarily to sell it to all involved. Just because you’re left dissatisfied doesn’t mean that the White House didn’t achieve its ultimate goal.

What was the Ba'athists gonna do, have the inspectors shot if they found something? The inspectors went where they pleased- they were never under Ba'athist authority. Furthermore, that inspectors should be accompanied by memebrs of the regime was part of the original inspections regime. One that was violated in 1998 not by Iraq, but by the United States. Tell me, if the US is so very right, why must it go around doing things in such an incredibly ham-fisted way? Why does it need forged documents? Why does it need trumped up charges? Why does it need to torpedo the inspections before they even start?

Because inspections always relied on the indefinite presence – a dangerous thing, mind you, given international terrorism – of no less than one hundred thousand American fighting men and women on Iraq’s own borders, poised to strike around-the-clock. Or hadn’t you noticed the reports circulating that they had become an attractive target from the point-of-view of al-Qaeda?

Just because Bush was convinced never meant that the rest of the world would be convinced. Or hadn’t you noticed that most governments had nothing but criticisms out of self-interest? Don’t tell me you believe the French reaction was anything but a foundation by which Chirac sought to drum up support for a distinctly European camp or that Putin’s assessments in Russia were based on anything but a desire to tarnish the American reputation? Perhaps those documents were indeed forged. That means nothing other than somebody thought it would have been an easy way to drum up support for an agenda not fully disclosed to the public.

Any time you have inspectors joined by Ba’ath Party officials it’s a liability. Not to mention the strength of the original argument that the only complete and thorough inspections are those carried out in the wake of Hussein’s demise.

Anywhere, anytime wasn't practiced by UNMOVIC? I'm sorry, where do you get that from? Can you point to once incident in the 02-03 inspections where inspectors were barred from somewhere?

The very principle of “anywhere, anytime” was violated at all by the fact that Hussein was still in power and Ba’ath Party officials shadowed every team.

I can give you plenty of incidents wherein Saddam waffled until obliged by international pressure. Or don’t you remember his initial refusal to destroy the al-Samouds?

What the other motives of the Bush administration were are unfortunately inscrutable. If you're going to war for a reason, you get up and you make the case. Especially when you're goint to the UN for approval. Their incompetence in proving their case is not my problem.

We had plenty of evidence. Iraq was clearly in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and also the terms of their 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. There was indeed a legal basis for war even if France sought to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the mix.

Considering that it's the exact same bullshit logic that Nazis used in Nuremberg to defend their naked aggression (they *might* attack us, so we better attack them first!), I would say it's completely unacceptable- especially considering when other powers adopt such reasoning for their own ends, and can point to the actions of the hyperpower as precedent. I can just picture India attacking Pakistan on those grounds: "we can't be sure they won't operate against us, we can't take the chance, so we'll have a war!" That's a fucking loony reason to go to war.

Except for the fact that Iraq is led by a dictator with tendencies to make fantastic leaps of optimistic logic and requires one hundred thousand troops perpetually on his borders to compel compliance.

As for the India-Pakistan comparison? Bullshit. No other nation could escape consequences to the same extent as the United States. If India and Pakistan went to war, their excuses wouldn’t in the end actually matter because nobody would accept a preemptive attack in any case. There is no such thing as “precedent” in this situation. You think there was never before in history a preemptive war? Try Japan in 1941. The concept isn’t new, Vympel. We didn’t leave anything new for posterity.

That was Bush's logic? Rumsfeld has already declared that the US has no plans for military bases in Iraq= of course, he could be lying and that would be nothing new. US military forces moved to Qatar and other countries, as well as going home, IIRC.

Do you actually believe that there will be no long-term basing assignments in Iraq?

"I don't dispute trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring *prohibited* items. The UAV was not prohibited. Deal with it."

That UAV didn't circumvent sanctions.

Bullshit. They might have been used for reconnaissance or as facilitators for chemical drop tanks. Neither of those is very appealing.

And you know this ... how?

Common sense you idiot. The fact that you deny that the anti-war movement would have had the wind knocked out of it with France, Germany, and Belgium in the American camp is actually quite funny.

Pertinent quote from that, the Institute for Science and International Security.

And this proves what? That somebody in a high place agrees with your opinion? That’s nice. Or hadn’t you heard that Bush went to town on mine?

[Vympel]

The investigation is in fact not yet complete. So much for bonified conclusions. Nice try though.

Bzzt. Wrong. March 7, fool. Nice way to cherry pick through the evidence, though. Concession Accepted once again. The evidence is overwhelming- they were for artillery rockets- your last argument, that they hadn't made any progress on the rockets, was debunked. But I'm sure the wall of ignorance will remain.

Iraq’s troops were patently worthless. Conscripts just out of university led by Baath Party officials whose membership rather than tactical prowess had enabled them to gain key military titles. While Iran later graduated to similarly-armed shock troops, it began the war replete with American technologies and a large body of more or less able troops. The Ayatollah’s purges had indeed thinned his own ranks of experienced officers, but that’s hardly to imply that Iraq’s men were any better off. Saddam made a supreme gamble, following up dismal failures in the field with increasingly desperate, increasingly inane orders.

And this makes him INSANE?

Which is ultimately opinion to opinion. Or didn’t you notice our reasoning that it was far more attractive to hit Iraq early rather than wait on the off-chance they wouldn’t be doing anything over the next decade? Hm. Didn’t we rely on North Korea to collapse for all these years, too?

And the Soviet Union too.

There’s absolutely such thing as the “spirit of embargo.”

Oh? Please point where anyone made such an argument.

Or hadn’t you noticed that the United Nations’ efforts were essentially mean to keep Iraq from ever developing a meaningful conventional – or unconventional – arsenal?

No, they were meant to keep Iraq within a certain spectrum of purely self-defensive capabilities, not to prevent all military development outright.

Those drones represent a military technology the privilege to wish Iraq might as well have forfeited entirely in 1991.

Unsupported claim. That 'military technology' was made of duct tape, balsa wood, and was powered by a two-stroke.

Perhaps you might ascribe to Baghdad only benign intentions. Perhaps you might consider those drones an inoffensive step forward. My opinions are fortunately not quite so wishy-washy.

You're desperate. You know that the drone wasn't illegal, so you make a bullshit unsupported claim that there was some sort of 'spirit' that was violated. You know the aluminum tubes were not intended, or suitable, or being used, as centrifuges, that the level of secrecy Iraq engaged in purchasing them was extremely poor, and that the IAEA was fully satisfied of Iraq's explanation. Your best effort? Cherry pick the February 14th report where the March 7th report says THIS:

The IAEA has conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq's attempts to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminium tubes. As previously reported, Iraq has maintained that these aluminium tubes were sought for rocket production.Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.

The Iraqi decision-making process with regard to the design of these rockets was well documented. Iraq has provided copies of design documents, procurement records, minutes of committee meetings and supporting data and samples. A thorough analysis of this information, together with information gathered from interviews with Iraqi personnel, has allowed the IAEA to develop a coherent picture of attempted purchases and intended usage of the 81mm aluminium tubes, as well as the rationale behind the changes in the tolerances.

Drawing on this information, the IAEA has learned that the original tolerances for the 81mm tubes were set prior to 1987, and were based on physical measurements taken from a small number of imported rockets in Iraq's possession. Initial attempts to reverse engineer the rockets met with little success. Tolerances were adjusted during the following years as part of ongoing efforts to revitalize the project and improve operational efficiency. The project languished for long periods during this time and became the subject of several committees, which resulted in specification and tolerance changes on each occasion.

Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges and, moreover, that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable re-design needed to use them in a revived centrifuge programme. However, this issue will continue to be scrutinized and investigated.

The last sentence is a throwaway line referring to IAEA's mandate in Iraq to monitor the situation. The verdict was in= "the IAEA has concluded". And everyone has accepted it except you, because you don't have the fucking balls to admit it. You've obviously invested far too much of your ego in your delusions.

You deny that Iraq would gain anything from helping provoke an attack on Israel, one of its greatest regional competitors?

If by gain you mean 200 nuclear weapons falling on your head, that's quite a gain

Or from supporting an independent strike on other American targets in the Middle East, even if only with information or laundered funds? You might not have noticed, but al-Qaeda didn’t do everything alone. There were always middle-men and intermediaries passing along passports, hard currency, and other items necessary for their infiltration of the United States. As an actual intelligence-gathering organization, Iraq’s foreign services were in just such a position.

More bullshit "think up very scary things without any supporting evidence as justification for an attack". Where is the evidence?

[quote
Not every practitioner of religion is “nuts,” Vympel. That’s a dangerous conclusion by any stretch. While most of the Taliban do adhere to the ideology of Islamofascism, it doesn’t mean that they chose to harbor bin Laden based merely on some blind faith in a corrupted vision of Allah. I don’t doubt that among its higher echelons, the Taliban are every bit as power-hungry and self-serving – and thus largely as rational – as Saddam Hussein himself.[/quote]

They're the same because you say so? Sorry. Saddam Hussein is not an 'islamofacist'. He is not driven by religious ideals like the Taliban obviously were.

Or hadn’t you missed the part where people were caught off-guard by what they saw as the Taliban’s knowing suicide? I’m not willing to take the risk that Saddam Hussein won’t ever challenge the powers that be under the table, hoping to escape without being caught.

Yes, because he has so much to gain by taking such a risk? I could easily apply this bullshit reasoning to any nation I care to name.

Bullshit. You dismiss every comparison on that basis without anything more than a cursory look. Israel was in a very similar position to Iraq. Or are you going to try and tell me that it’s impossible to trip up the omniscient God that is Hans Blix?

Very similar? Oh yes, because the US 'benignly neglected' the Iraqi WMD situation for how long? Retard.

Those benign inspections were still meant to turn up evidence on all counts, if only for the Americans’ own benefit. They found nothing and were easily led by a leash to embarrassing conclusions. Why would the administration harp on its failures, either? The point was to go to war, not necessarily to sell it to all involved. Just because you’re left dissatisfied doesn’t mean that the White House didn’t achieve its ultimate goal.

We're not talking about whether the fucking goal was achieved, idiot, we're discussing the justification for it, OBVIOUSLY.

Because inspections always relied on the indefinite presence – a dangerous thing, mind you, given international terrorism – of no less than one hundred thousand American fighting men and women on Iraq’s own borders, poised to strike around-the-clock. Or hadn’t you noticed the reports circulating that they had become an attractive target from the point-of-view of al-Qaeda?

Does not follow. How does this 'indefinite presence' required by inspections justify the administration's piss poor handling of the diplomatic lead up to war?

Just because Bush was convinced never meant that the rest of the world would be convinced. Or hadn’t you noticed that most governments had nothing but criticisms out of self-interest? Don’t tell me you believe the French reaction was anything but a foundation by which Chirac sought to drum up support for a distinctly European camp or that Putin’s assessments in Russia were based on anything but a desire to tarnish the American reputation? Perhaps those documents were indeed forged.

Perhaps? THEY WERE FORGED. It was OBVIOUS. It has been admitted by the United States ITSELF. For fuck's sake ...

That means nothing other than somebody thought it would have been an easy way to drum up support for an agenda not fully disclosed to the public.

Oh, right, I get it, so you need to trump up charges to protect information 'not fully disclosed to the public', makes perfect sense

Any time you have inspectors joined by Ba’ath Party officials it’s a liability. Not to mention the strength of the original argument that the only complete and thorough inspections are those carried out in the wake of Hussein’s demise.

I'm sure the inspectors would dispute that, considering that they could go whereever they pleased and Iraq wouldn't dare stop them.

The very principle of “anywhere, anytime” was violated at all by the fact that Hussein was still in power and Ba’ath Party officials shadowed every team.

Bullshit. They could go anywhere anytime. The presence of the Iraqi government to watch the inspectors (a fucking sensible provision) is irrelevant to the question.

I can give you plenty of incidents wherein Saddam waffled until obliged by international pressure. Or don’t you remember his initial refusal to destroy the al-Samouds?

Because their range was in question. In the end, Blix insisted on their destruction regardless.

We had plenty of evidence. Iraq was clearly in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and also the terms of their 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.

Not 'evidence', and furthermore, not permission to go to war- those 91 resolutions say nothing about regime change in Iraq.

There was indeed a legal basis for war even if France sought to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the mix.

No legal basis whatsoever. A legal basis would've been provided by a second resolution.

Except for the fact that Iraq is led by a dictator with tendencies to make fantastic leaps of optimistic logic

Like believing April Glaspie?

and requires one hundred thousand troops perpetually on his borders to compel compliance.

So you think he wouldn't comply without those 100,000 troops on his border? How long, do you think, would it take for the US to move the forces to Iraq to compel compliance and make the argument for war if Saddam was clearly not complying?

As for the India-Pakistan comparison? Bullshit. No other nation could escape consequences to the same extent as the United States. If India and Pakistan went to war, their excuses wouldn’t in the end actually matter because nobody would accept a preemptive attack in any case.

Noone would accept their preemptive attack logic, but people should accept that of the US? What's the difference?

There is no such thing as “precedent” in this situation. You think there was never before in history a preemptive war? Try Japan in 1941. The concept isn’t new, Vympel. We didn’t leave anything new for posterity.

Actually, I was more thinking of the post-WW2 international order.

Do you actually believe that there will be no long-term basing assignments in Iraq?

Well, I was assuming that Rumsfeld was not lying.

Bullshit. They might have been used for reconnaissance or as facilitators for chemical drop tanks. Neither of those is very appealing.

WRONG. They DIDN'T HAVE THE RANGE. FUCKING IDIOT.

Common sense you idiot.

Your interpretation of the situation is 'common sense'? Wake the fuck up, you delusional psycho.

The fact that you deny that the anti-war movement would have had the wind knocked out of it with France, Germany, and Belgium in the American camp is actually quite funny.

blah ... blah ... blah .... I'm correct ... because I say so .... blah ... blah ... blah

*yawn*

And this proves what? That somebody in a high place agrees with your opinion? That’s nice.

Or hadn’t you heard that Bush went to town on mine?

Considering that he obviously 'went to town' on a mountain of lies, I'm sure you're very proud of that.

Your argument in the aluminum tubes respect has already been fucking destroyed, and you don't have the fucking balls to say so, because you're a snivelling wall of ignorance chicken shit who can't bear to concede a single point.

Fuck off and die, you hatfucker.

[Axis Kast]

Bzzt. Wrong. March 7, fool. Nice way to cherry pick through the evidence, though. Concession Accepted once again. The evidence is overwhelming- they were for artillery rockets- your last argument, that they hadn't made any progress on the rockets, was debunked. But I'm sure the wall of ignorance will remain.

This is certainly the first information I’ve seen to suggest that artillery rockets were in production. Last I heard, vast stores of the tubes were rotting in some warehouse.

So the conclusion that Saddam sought those tubes for a nuclear program is probably incorrect. That’s one offense stricken from a record of dozens. The criminal is still a criminal even if absolved of one in many crimes. As I said before, Iraq realistically forfeited the right to possess “questionable” technologies without raising suspicion the moment their troops crossed the border into Kuwait. Even el-Baradei admits it: the tubes could still have been turned to nuclear use if so desired. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that these imports – from India, no less – are illegal in the first place, centrifuge material or no.

And this makes him INSANE?

It certainly throws up red flags, dragging him from beyond the limits of rational behavior. To Saddam, the war might have seemed a grand idea at first. Unfortunately, his prosecution undermines any defense. The man was not merely ambitious to a fault but also displayed rash ignorance of reality in favor of imagined outcomes.

And the Soviet Union too.

The Soviet Union was dangerous even beyond the day it died. We all knew Saddam would languish. There was no way he would have been toppled from within. Uday or Quasi would have been everything to Saddam what Kim Jong-Il was to Kim Il Sung.

Oh? Please point where anyone made such an argument.

Did anybody have to make the argument? Germany wasn’t specifically prohibited from building aircraft carriers by the Treaty of Versailles (if I remember correctly). Had them begun doing so, would you have waved your hand dismissively merely because it was technically defended by legal precedent? I’d certainly hope not. When you’re in a position to deny progress to the enemy, you take that opportunity.

No, they were meant to keep Iraq within a certain spectrum of purely self-defensive capabilities, not to prevent all military development outright.

And who was about to invade Iraq? To observe which of his neighbors did Saddam require drones that could serve as a means of reconnaissance? Why should we have invited him to deploy at his borders to keep watch on American troops? Why should we have gambled that we’d be able to shoot them down without a problem rather than demanding they be destroyed in the first place? We are required by no power to give Saddam any leeway.

Unsupported claim. That 'military technology' was made of duct tape, balsa wood, and was powered by a two-stroke.

Which could still have mounted cameras to take photographs of targets we’d rather have kept hidden. And again, that excludes the possibility of their being used as “dumb bombs” to carry biological or chemical payloads.

You're desperate. You know that the drone wasn't illegal, so you make a bullshit unsupported claim that there was some sort of 'spirit' that was violated.

You’re the one insisting that Saddam Hussein is absolutely toothless, can never gain strength, and that his recent attempts to circumvent UNSC restrictions aren’t cause for alarm.

More bullshit "think up very scary things without any supporting evidence as justification for an attack". Where is the evidence?

You’re sure that Iraq doesn’t authorize its intelligence services to help facilitate terrorism in Palestine or disrupt the activities of key American allies such as Kuwait or Qatar? Your blind faith in Saddam Hussein’s remaining cowed is absolutely baseless. Since when did the Iraqi intelligence services drop off the face of the planet?

They're the same because you say so? Sorry. Saddam Hussein is not an 'islamofacist'. He is not driven by religious ideals like the Taliban obviously were.

And the Taliban made a decision of suicide merely because every single one of their high-ranking officials thought he’d go see Allah the moment the bombs began to drop? Bullshit. Afghanistan was ruled by a dictatorship that still harbored terrorists even to the point of personal destruction. You might be willing to take the risk that Saddam would not repeat that mistake. I’m certainly not.

Two years ago, you’d have made the argument that Afghanistan didn’t deserve our attention. Look where that took us.

Yes, because he has so much to gain by taking such a risk? I could easily apply this bullshit reasoning to any nation I care to name.

Any economic or military dislocation that he helps orchestrate or carry out is good from his point of view. It doesn’t matter if all his intelligence services did was provide passports.

Very similar? Oh yes, because the US 'benignly neglected' the Iraqi WMD situation for how long? Retard.

FAS was very clear to point out that not all American inability to detect Israeli weapons stemmed from benign neglect. But nice try at cherry-picking. Who’s to say that if Israel could block inspections without being detected that Iraq couldn’t do the same with a territory many times as large?

We're not talking about whether the fucking goal was achieved, idiot, we're discussing the justification for it, OBVIOUSLY.

Did it ever occur to you that George Bush merely had to package something to be sold? While he approached the Iraqi situation from a ham-handed angle and ended up doing more harm than good for a public relations standpoint, it doesn’t mean that reason to invade Iraq wasn’t there in the first place.

Does not follow. How does this 'indefinite presence' required by inspections justify the administration's piss poor handling of the diplomatic lead up to war?

Have you any idea how much a financial burden deploying 100,000 troops overseas for an indefinite period of time happens to be? It wasn’t as if France or Germany wanted to help in that respect either.

Why should we risk the lives of our troops by making them largely stationary targets? Why should we bear the burden and security risk of constant deployment? Why shouldn’t we occupy the country in question, install a friendly government, and in the process disembowel a dangerous régime?

I'm sure the inspectors would dispute that, considering that they could go whereever they pleased and Iraq wouldn't dare stop them.

But they didn’t go wherever they pleased without minders. Israel let the Americans have more or less full access. Look how that turned out. Bush was still correct: unless Hussein was gone, inspections would never have worked. Blix discovered that Saddam was indeed in violation of UNSC resolutions. Iraq had indeed defied the conventions of the 1991 cease-fire. Legal basis for war was there. The international community held out.

Bullshit. They could go anywhere anytime. The presence of the Iraqi government to watch the inspectors (a fucking sensible provision) is irrelevant to the question.

It also means they got to watch their own people you idiot.

Because their range was in question. In the end, Blix insisted on their destruction regardless.

He waffled back and forth as long as he could. In the end, it was our troops that compelled it.

Not 'evidence', and furthermore, not permission to go to war- those 91 resolutions say nothing about regime change in Iraq.

The aluminum tubes. The al-Samouds. These things were violations of the 1991 cease-fire even if they had nothing to do with WMD. Iraq was in contravention.

No legal basis whatsoever. A legal basis would've been provided by a second resolution.

The cease-fire.

Like believing April Glaspie?

Like relying on fresh troops without heavy weapons or any logistical backing to make a several-hundred-mile inroads into enemy territory. Like refusing to move his troops even when he knew they’d be destroyed in 1991.

So you think he wouldn't comply without those 100,000 troops on his border? How long, do you think, would it take for the US to move the forces to Iraq to compel compliance and make the argument for war if Saddam was clearly not complying?

Do you think he would have complied without the presence of American military might?

Quite a few months, actually, if we were going to start a war. Jesus Christ you’re dense.

Noone would accept their preemptive attack logic, but people should accept that of the US? What's the difference?

It’s a matter of fact. Nobody would accept India or Pakistan’s rationales no matter what. India could bring up charges tomorrow that Pakistan was sending people to set nuclear devices in New Delhi, but what do you think would happen if they hit Islamabad first? Do you honestly believe the rest of the world would feel compelled to sympathize with India’s military? To attack Pakistan?

Actually, I was more thinking of the post-WW2 international order.

Do you honestly believe that nobody would ever have thought about preemption unless we brought it up in Iraq? Bullshit.

WRONG. They DIDN'T HAVE THE RANGE. FUCKING IDIOT.

They certainly had the range to keep an eye on his borders depending where they were based. Or do you just assume all aircraft are parked in the center of Iraq? Fucking idiot indeed.

blah ... blah ... blah .... I'm correct ... because I say so .... blah ... blah ... blah

The fourth time you ignored the question. Concession accepted.

Fuck off and die, you hatfucker.

Oh … so … wounded … The Soviet wanker … has … fired torpedoes …

[Vympel]

This is certainly the first information I’ve seen to suggest that artillery rockets were in production. Last I heard, vast stores of the tubes were rotting in some warehouse.

So the conclusion that Saddam sought those tubes for a nuclear program is probably incorrect. That’s one offense stricken from a record of dozens. The criminal is still a criminal even if absolved of one in many crimes. As I said before, Iraq realistically forfeited the right to possess “questionable” technologies without raising suspicion the moment their troops crossed the border into Kuwait. Even el-Baradei admits it: the tubes could still have been turned to nuclear use if so desired. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that these imports – from India, no less – are illegal in the first place, centrifuge material or no.

Whether he is a criminal or not is not in question. Whether the charges against Iraq or true or not is.

It certainly throws up red flags, dragging him from beyond the limits of rational behavior. To Saddam, the war might have seemed a grand idea at first. Unfortunately, his prosecution undermines any defense. The man was not merely ambitious to a fault but also displayed rash ignorance of reality in favor of imagined outcomes.

By the same logic, would you declare Mussolini crazy- he clearly overestimated the abilities of his forces, but at the same time, no one ever said he was crazy- his conduct in the war was quite rational. Saddam's conflicts have been as well: he wouldn't have dreamed of attacking Iran without support, nor would he have dreamed of attacking Kuwait if he didn't think the US wouldn't care.

The Soviet Union was dangerous even beyond the day it died. We all knew Saddam would languish. There was no way he would have been toppled from within. Uday or Quasi would have been everything to Saddam what Kim Jong-Il was to Kim Il Sung.

Quite possible. But not the issue.

Did anybody have to make the argument?

Ummm ... yeah.

Germany wasn’t specifically prohibited from building aircraft carriers by the Treaty of Versailles (if I remember correctly).

The provisions for Germany's fleet were exclusive:

Article 181:

the German naval forces in commission must not exceed:

6 battleships of the Deutschland or Lothringen type, 6 light cruisers, 12
destroyers, 12 torpedo boats,

The Versailles Treaty was quite explicit. There was no room for 'spirit'.

And who was about to invade Iraq?

Um, the United States?

To observe which of his neighbors did Saddam require drones that could serve as a means of reconnaissance?

Actually, that drone would've been totally unsuited to strategic reconnaisance. It would've been used on the tactical level, giving Iraqi commanders some situational awarness. It was no Predator.

Why should we have invited him to deploy at his borders to keep watch on American troops? Why should we have gambled that we’d be able to shoot them down without a problem rather than demanding they be destroyed in the first place? We are required by no power to give Saddam any leeway.

Change of subject. No one denies you had the power, but you brought up the subject of the drones in a legal context.

By the way, you DO realize that if the drone was to fly in the manner that you describe, it would be in the no-fly zones?

Which could still have mounted cameras to take photographs of targets we’d rather have kept hidden.

Irrelevant. Iraq also had anti-ship cruise missiles not governed by Treaty that could destroy ships you'd rather have floating. Nay, they even had these things called assault rifles that fired bullets at people you'd rather keep alive!

And again, that excludes the possibility of their being used as “dumb bombs” to carry biological or chemical payloads.

It wouldn't be able to carry any meaningful payload in either respect- missiles are much more suited to that job, not to mention the drone wasn't even capable of beyond line-of-sight control.

You’re the one insisting that Saddam Hussein is absolutely toothless, can never gain strength, and that his recent attempts to circumvent UNSC restrictions aren’t cause for alarm.

Yes I am. He was toothless, and that was born out by how quickly Iraq was trounced.

You’re sure that Iraq doesn’t authorize its intelligence services to help facilitate terrorism in Palestine or disrupt the activities of key American allies such as Kuwait or Qatar?

Burden of proof fallacy. It is not up to me to prove a negative proposition. You must prove the positive. I do not need to sit here and debunk an endless parade of boogeymen.

Your blind faith in Saddam Hussein’s remaining cowed is absolutely baseless. Since when did the Iraqi intelligence services drop off the face of the planet?

Yes, and the existence of the KGB made a convincing argument for invading the Soviet Union

And the Taliban made a decision of suicide merely because every single one of their high-ranking officials thought he’d go see Allah the moment the bombs began to drop? Bullshit. Afghanistan was ruled by a dictatorship that still harbored terrorists even to the point of personal destruction. You might be willing to take the risk that Saddam would not repeat that mistake. I’m certainly not.

Two years ago, you’d have made the argument that Afghanistan didn’t deserve our attention. Look where that took us.

Actually, I made the argument that it was obviously and without question a terrorist stronghold and that Al-Qaeda should be destroyed.

Any economic or military dislocation that he helps orchestrate or carry out is good from his point of view. It doesn’t matter if all his intelligence services did was provide passports.

FAS was very clear to point out that not all American inability to detect Israeli weapons stemmed from benign neglect. But nice try at cherry-picking.

Oh look, it's a baseless 'you too' jibe.

Who’s to say that if Israel could block inspections without being detected that Iraq couldn’t do the same with a territory many times as large?

Because it's not a question of territory. It's also a question of whether the inspections regime was remotely the same, or as intensive, or the international scrutiny was as high. It wasn't. The US clearly wasn't very concerned that it's ally had nuclear weapons, nor was there any relevant conflict or treaty to galvanize international opinion.

Did it ever occur to you that George Bush merely had to package something to be sold? While he approached the Iraqi situation from a ham-handed angle and ended up doing more harm than good for a public relations standpoint

it doesn’t mean that reason to invade Iraq wasn’t there in the first place.

That is what we're discussing. A paragraph of stating the obvious is unecessary.

Have you any idea how much a financial burden deploying 100,000 troops overseas for an indefinite period of time happens to be? It wasn’t as if France or Germany wanted to help in that respect either.

Red herring. I'll ask again: how does an indefinite presence of troops realate to the ham-fisted handling of the leadup to war?

Why should we risk the lives of our troops by making them largely stationary targets? Why should we bear the burden and security risk of constant deployment?

Noone ever asked you to stay, you know.

Why shouldn’t we occupy the country in question, install a friendly government, and in the process disembowel a dangerous régime?

Because of the consequences.

But they didn’t go wherever they pleased without minders. Israel let the Americans have more or less full access. Look how that turned out.

Actually, you said inspectors were led about by their nose.

Bush was still correct: unless Hussein was gone, inspections would never have worked. Blix discovered that Saddam was indeed in violation of UNSC resolutions. Iraq had indeed defied the conventions of the 1991 cease-fire. Legal basis for war was there. The international community held out.

There was nothing in any of the post Desert Storm treaties that gave an automatic war trigger- hence, no legal basis.

It also means they got to watch their own people you idiot.

And this is so relevant in the context of unattended interviews being conducted and the relevant people *still* denying knowledge, or that after the regime is dead and gone *noone* from Iraq's secret, massive WMD program has come forth.

He waffled back and forth as long as he could. In the end, it was our troops that compelled it.

Considering that an invasion was imminent from any fool's point of view, I'd say waffling about destroying your weapons was foreseeable.

The aluminum tubes. The al-Samouds. These things were violations of the 1991 cease-fire even if they had nothing to do with WMD. Iraq was contravention.

Bzzt. Please point out the relevant provision that provides an automatic trigger for war without UN approval if Iraq is found to be in contravention.

The cease-fire.

And you're incorrect yet again:

Resolution 687 stated that any non-compliance by Iraq would have to be reported to the Council, and that it was the Security Council that would "take such further steps as may be required for the implementation" of the resolution and "to secure peace and security in the region".

Really, you don't read much, do you?

Like relying on fresh troops without heavy weapons or any logistical backing to make a several-hundred-mile inroads into enemy territory.

Oh? "As the Baathists planned their military campaign, they had every reason to be confident. Not only did the Iranians lack cohesive leadership, but the Iranian armed forces, according to Iraqi intelligence estimates, also lacked spare parts for their American-made equipment. Baghdad, on the other hand, possessed fully equipped and trained forces. Morale was running high. Against Iran's armed forces, including the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) troops, led by religious mullahs with little or no military experience, the Iraqis could muster twelve complete mechanized divisions, equipped with the latest Soviet materiel. With the Iraqi military build-up in the late 1970s, Saddam Hussein had assembled an army of 190,000 men, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft."

So, is crap intelligence a "fantastic leap of logic"? Careful now

Maybe you should brush up on some history and come back and tell me whether it was a 'fantastic leap of logic'.

Like refusing to move his troops even when he knew they’d be destroyed in 1991.

Funny, as I recall, there was an intense round of diplomacy going on prior to the air war- why would you move your bargaining chips before the deal has been made?

Do you think he would have complied without the presence of American military might?

Presence is not necessary. Threat of force, yes.

Quite a few months, actually, if we were going to start a war. Jesus Christ you’re dense.

And this helps your argument ... how? Moron.

It’s a matter of fact. Nobody would accept India or Pakistan’s rationales no matter what. India could bring up charges tomorrow that Pakistan was sending people to set nuclear devices in New Delhi, but what do you think would happen if they hit Islamabad first? Do you honestly believe the rest of the world would feel compelled to sympathize with India’s military? To attack Pakistan?

So why the hell should the world sympathize with America's claims- which it obviously did not?

Do you honestly believe that nobody would ever have thought about preemption unless we brought it up in Iraq? Bullshit.

And it's a *good* thing that you're the one to fucking do it?

They certainly had the range to keep an eye on his borders depending where they were based. Or do you just assume all aircraft are parked in the center of Iraq? Fucking idiot indeed.

NO FLY ZONES. FUCKING MORON- YOU CAN'T BASE AIRCRAFT ANYWHERE OTHER THAN THE CENTRE.

Furthermore, the drones range does not exceed .... *drumroll* 5 miles.

The fourth time you ignored the question. Concession accepted.

You moron. You've given your jackoff opinion and I've given mine. What concession? Ye Gods you're fucked.

Oh … so … wounded … The Soviet wanker … has … fired torpedoes …

Fuck off and die once more, you asslicking shitkicker.

[Axis Kast]

Whether he is a criminal or not is not in question. Whether the charges against Iraq or true or not is.

Incorrect. It’s actually whether a case can be made on any level for an invasion of Iraq – regardless of the evidence put forth by George W. Bush to the international public. We’re not here to debate anything but whether the ultimate goal of his admittedly ham-handed approach was in fact legitimate.

By the same logic, would you declare Mussolini crazy- he clearly overestimated the abilities of his forces, but at the same time, no one ever said he was crazy- his conduct in the war was quite rational. Saddam's conflicts have been as well: he wouldn't have dreamed of attacking Iran without support, nor would he have dreamed of attacking Kuwait if he didn't think the US wouldn't care.

Yes, I would declare Mussolini crazy. Do I think he was a raving lunatic? No. But did he display dangerous fits of overreaching ambition liable to drive him to poor conclusions or ignorance of irreversible fact? Yes. Look at Grazianni in Libya, at the Duc d’Aosta in Somaliland, and at Italian troops on the Greek front. Like Hitler before him and Saddam after, Mussolini was always prone to the “glorious meat-grinder approach” – that is, a seemingly rational invasion carried forth on the back of grandiose but ultimately irrational strategy often formulated in large part by one man against all outside advise and unnecessarily stuck to in the end despite the deaths of thousands. We can properly say that Saddam’s conventional resources are stretched too thin to do appreciable damage even on the off-chance he becomes aggressive. But can we say the same of his unconventional resources and intelligence apparatus, neither of which have been yet made fully ineffective? No, we cannot. And can we say that he will not commit these to minor if ultimately dangerous activities against American interests? No, we cannot.

Quite possible. But not the issue.

Absolutely the issue. A moment ago, you drummed up the Soviet Union as an example of a state you believed had collapsed on its own. But that’s irrelevant. We cannot expect the same fortuitous circumstances to proceed apace in Iraq. Saddam had heirs clearly defined, each with strong holds on large fractions of Iraq’s Ba’ath Party infrastructure. Iraq would have lingered almost certainly onward for ten years or more, always demanding tens of thousands of American troops onsite to compel the continued access by United Nations personnel. And unlike you, I’m not daft or naive enough to believe that the French, Germans, and Russians would have tried to perpetuate such a system indefinitely. After all, it’s in their best interests to overload and ultimately occupy American military power. Don’t even presume to ask me where the Chinese would seek to weigh in where all this is involved either.

Ummm ... yeah.

No, they did not.

After the Dawes Plan, Germany’s markets began to open once more. That didn’t stop the Whermacht from challenging the Allied powers however. Assuming that Germany couldn’t possibly rearm, they permitted the first steps of “legal circumvention” – an “outsourcing” of German troops and equipment to the Soviet Union for training. That same training later provided the core of the German army with valuable experience put to good use on the fields of France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Violation in spirit, Vympel, is a very dangerous thing. You might trust Saddam Hussein implicate to keep up his side of the bargain. I’m not that stupid.

Um, the United States?

Which of Saddam’s neighbors poses a military threat warranting the expansion of the Iraqi armed forces with reconnaissance drones and illegally reverse-engineered rockets built on components imported against United Nations Security Council resolutions on conventional armaments?

Actually, that drone would've been totally unsuited to strategic reconnaisance. It would've been used on the tactical level, giving Iraqi commanders some situational awarness. It was no Predator.

The argument doesn’t change. Why grant Iraq that privilege? Situational awareness is a boon. I sure as shit wouldn’t give it to them if it were in my power not to.

Change of subject. No one denies you had the power, but you brought up the subject of the drones in a legal context.

By the way, you DO realize that if the drone was to fly in the manner that you describe, it would be in the no-fly zones?

You think somebody couldn’t launch a drone in the no-fly zone from the back of a truck? Anything in that area isn’t magically shot down at once.

Irrelevant. Iraq also had anti-ship cruise missiles not governed by Treaty that could destroy ships you'd rather have floating. Nay, they even had these things called assault rifles that fired bullets at people you'd rather keep alive!

Irrelevant? Nay. Red herring, in fact. The drones were in the possession of UN weapons inspectors poised to destroy them. And what, exactly, could Iraq have done to stop them?

It wouldn't be able to carry any meaningful payload in either respect- missiles are much more suited to that job, not to mention the drone wasn't even capable of beyond line-of-sight control.

What, you’ve never heard of ground controllers? Define “a meaningful payload.” I’m talking small drop tanks or bacteria cultures and Anthrax or other spores.

Yes I am. He was toothless, and that was born out by how quickly Iraq was trounced.

On a conventional level. By the same reasoning, Afghanistan wasn’t at all dangerous either. Oops. Wrong assessment.

Burden of proof fallacy. It is not up to me to prove a negative proposition. You must prove the positive. I do not need to sit here and debunk an endless parade of boogeymen.

It sure makes sense to me. To make the argument that Iraq’s intelligence services are inactive seems the worst of the two evils. Yours is simply blind faith. That “negative” crap is worthless besides. Just because we can’t see the Iraqis plotting against us doesn’t mean we’re safe, Vympel.

Yes, and the existence of the KGB made a convincing argument for invading the Soviet Union.

Which just happened to be the home of millions of Red Army soldiers.

Actually, I made the argument that it was obviously and without question a terrorist stronghold and that Al-Qaeda should be destroyed.

Strawman. The question is actually whether or not you’d have identified Afghanistan as a threat based on what you call logical thinking. After all, they were a dictatorship every bit as reviled as Hussein’s. Why wouldn’t they too have wanted to keep a hold on power by obliging the United States in ejecting a terrorist mastermind? Iraq certainly escaped al-Qaeda’s ire all these years. Most Afghanis would probably have understood if not cared very little – assuming they knew at all.

Oh look, it's a baseless 'you too' jibe.

More like a reminder that cherry-picking doesn’t help here since there was more than “benign neglect” involved in the ruse.

In this case, the situation is very much like Iraq. We knew there were weapons. The problem was that our inspectors were being led to find nothing despite supposedly “free access.” Just like in Iraq! Hm.

Because it's not a question of territory. It's also a question of whether the inspections regime was remotely the same, or as intensive, or the international scrutiny was as high. It wasn't. The US clearly wasn't very concerned that it's ally had nuclear weapons, nor was there any relevant conflict or treaty to galvanize international opinion.

Strawman. It’s a question of how easily something can be hidden. Treaties and international opinion had nothing to do with the success or failure of on-site sanctions. And what leads you to think the inspection régime was all that much different? It also included ground personnel and airborne intelligence assets after all.

Red herring. I'll ask again: how does an indefinite presence of troops realate to the ham-fisted handling of the leadup to war?

It doesn’t. But the cost of having to base those troops indefinitely and expose them to the constant potential for harm in concentrated positions leads us to make choices. Particularly one that led to our invasion of a known dictatorship and state sponsor of terrorism with an eye toward strategic benefits and resource options in the post-war period.

Noone ever asked you to stay, you know.

But then Iraq would have been free to arm itself all it liked, no? Or hadn’t you heard that Kofi Annan and Co. wanted to avoid war at all costs. If we hadn’t done it, nobody would have. Great argument. I’m sure that looks fine as far away as Australia.

Because of the consequences.

As I’ve already pointed out, the likelihood of Islamofascism setting in and promulgating its own government is absolutely limited if not nil. The additional recruits gained by al-Qaeda are far outweighed by both the collapse of Iraq as a potential sponsor and the post-Afghanistan shuffle.

Actually, you said inspectors were led about by their nose.

Because of a series of ruses.

There was nothing in any of the post Desert Storm treaties that gave an automatic war trigger- hence, no legal basis.

If you violate the cease-fire, war continues idiot.

And this is so relevant in the context of unattended interviews being conducted and the relevant people *still* denying knowledge, or that after the regime is dead and gone *noone* from Iraq's secret, massive WMD program has come forth.

You’ve got to ask yourself: (A) did we find the right people, (B) where does their allegiance lie, and (C) how much did they know personally of what might have been a fragmented program?

Considering that an invasion was imminent from any fool's point of view, I'd say waffling about destroying your weapons was foreseeable.

And if invasion wasn’t imminent, would Iraq have done anything at all?

Bzzt. Please point out the relevant provision that provides an automatic trigger for war without UN approval if Iraq is found to be in contravention.

The cease-fire.

Maybe you should brush up on some history and come back and tell me whether it was a 'fantastic leap of logic'.

From “Strategy & Tactics” Number 215: “Ignorant Armies: The Iran-Iraq War, ‘80-’88, page 20.

“…The Iraqis used ideas from an exercise created by British instructors at the Baghdad War College in 1941 to aid in the planning of their invasion of Iran. […] Politics was an omnipresent force within the Iraqi military. High-ranking officers were frequently purged to ensure only leaders loyal to the régime served, though the purges at that time were not to the scale that decimated the Iranian officer corps. The ruling Iraqi Ba’ath party and the national intelligence service both maintained separate channels of political control, that is, interference, over the services. Security of the régime was a priority over military efficiency; performance in the field was the loser.

The army was not well-trained. Two-thirds of the troops had limited training at best. A small number of personnel went to the Soviet Union for instruction in the latest military techniques, but the Iraqi government feared if it sent too many officers there, they would be subverted and become agents for the Communists. No one in the higher ranks was allowed to make decisions; and so leadership was ineffective. Critical decisions were usually passed up the chain of command to Saddam Hussein and his personal staff. Units would stand by until a response was returned. Intelligence was frequently “white-washed” in order to appease superiors with glowing reports. Needless to say, that meant an uninspired performance by the armed services.

The army was divided into a regular force and the Ba’ath forces. The regular forces had various units within their structure. Only three of the divisions was organized for conventional warfare; the others were set up to fight the Kurds…”

So Saddam Hussein deployed against Iran an army of ill-trained conscripts led in the vast majority by political yes-men against an enemy he expected to defeat quickly while relying on a doctrine of “attrition.” Well, that makes prefect sense. The Iranian military possessed significant technological advantages at the war’s beginning, none of which would have begun to erode within the original timeframe of Saddam’s desired advance. His reasoning that Iran would be unable to rearm itself or reequip during the early stages of the war – when nothing had been yet expended – was horrifically flawed. Not to mention that the man led a military he had personally organized as a counter-insurgence establishment rather than a professional field force.

Saddam Hussein saw what he wanted to see through clearly “white-washed” glasses. The tank superiority you speak of was numerical; Iran’s vehicles were in actuality quantitatively superior on every level save for range (and they’d be acting largely in the defensive at first, in particularly oil-rich sectors supported by large roads linking key urban centers). Iraq at first possessed few roads by which to resupply the masses of infantry involved let alone the handful of tanks forward deployed. And let’s not even talk about the barely-tenable airforce which was at first unable to pilot its own aircraft and often lost to Iraqi penetration flights of three or four aircraft.

And this doesn’t even cover the Gulf War disasters in which Saddam allowed his forward-deployed forces to be annihilated during the opening stages of Desert Shield rather than ordering a timely retreat.

Funny, as I recall, there was an intense round of diplomacy going on prior to the air war- why would you move your bargaining chips before the deal has been made?

So Saddam Hussein allowed tens of thousands of troops to meet their doom simply because he was negotiating until the final minutes? Bullshit. The man, like Hitler, couldn’t contemplate defeat is what happened. Just like in the Iran-Iraq War, too.

Presence is not necessary. Threat of force, yes.

Are you fucking stupid? The “threat of force?” It’s been there since 1991. And that didn’t stop the al-Samouds or the illegal connection to foreign businesses. Hell, it took a massive buildup on his border to get the UN inspectorate in at all.

And this helps your argument ... how? Moron.

Why the fuck would we want to (A) deploy indefinitely in the Middle East or worse (B) redeploy an indefinite number of times as Saddam tap dances.

So why the hell should the world sympathize with America's claims- which it obviously did not?

Before the start of this whole thing, we were more trustworthy and Iraq not at all credible.

And it's a *good* thing that you're the one to fucking do it?

The point is that it doesn’t matter because the whole concept that we’ve opened a door that doesn’t exist is bullshit.

NO FLY ZONES. FUCKING MORON- YOU CAN'T BASE AIRCRAFT ANYWHERE OTHER THAN THE CENTRE.

Furthermore, the drones range does not exceed .... *drumroll* 5 miles.

You fucking idiot. The drone wouldn’t be immediately picked up. They could start operations from the back of a fucking truck.

Five miles is five miles too many.

You moron. You've given your jackoff opinion and I've given mine. What concession? Ye Gods you're fucked.

You never even answered the fucking question.

[Vympel]

Incorrect. It’s actually whether a case can be made on any level for an invasion of Iraq – regardless of the evidence put forth by George W. Bush to the international public. We’re not here to debate anything but whether the ultimate goal of his admittedly ham-handed approach was in fact legitimate.

And in my opinion it was not. If the question is can the case be made, then you must attempt to make it. You have utterly failed.

Yes, I would declare Mussolini crazy. Do I think he was a raving lunatic? No. But did he display dangerous fits of overreaching ambition liable to drive him to poor conclusions or ignorance of irreversible fact? Yes. Look at Grazianni in Libya, at the Duc d’Aosta in Somaliland, and at Italian troops on the Greek front. Like Hitler before him and Saddam after, Mussolini was always prone to the “glorious meat-grinder approach” – that is, a seemingly rational invasion carried forth on the back of grandiose but ultimately irrational strategy often formulated in large part by one man against all outside advise and unnecessarily stuck to in the end despite the deaths of thousands. We can properly say that Saddam’s conventional resources are stretched too thin to do appreciable damage even on the off-chance he becomes aggressive.

Do you know how to keepthings short? Making bad military decisions does not make one crazy, or, more importantly- unpredictable.

But can we say the same of his unconventional resources and intelligence apparatus, neither of which have been yet made fully ineffective? No, we cannot. And can we say that he will not commit these to minor if ultimately dangerous activities against American interests? No, we cannot.

Parnoia. You must prove your case.

Absolutely the issue. A moment ago, you drummed up the Soviet Union as an example of a state you believed had collapsed on its own. But that’s irrelevant. We cannot expect the same fortuitous circumstances to proceed apace in Iraq. Saddam had heirs clearly defined, each with strong holds on large fractions of Iraq’s Ba’ath Party infrastructure. Iraq would have lingered almost certainly onward for ten years or more, always demanding tens of thousands of American troops onsite to compel the continued access by United Nations personnel. And unlike you, I’m not daft or naive enough to believe that the French, Germans, and Russians would have tried to perpetuate such a system indefinitely. After all, it’s in their best interests to overload and ultimately occupy American military power. Don’t even presume to ask me where the Chinese would seek to weigh in where all this is involved either.

The point was the concept of deterrence and containment, not the concept of succession of leadership.

Ummm ... yeah.

No, they did not.

You just try that line of reasoning if you're a prosecutor in a court of law (this is a legal issue, after all) and try and argue "spirit".

After the Dawes Plan, Germany’s markets began to open once more. That didn’t stop the Whermacht from challenging the Allied powers however. Assuming that Germany couldn’t possibly rearm, they permitted the first steps of “legal circumvention” – an “outsourcing” of German troops and equipment to the Soviet Union for training. That same training later provided the core of the German army with valuable experience put to good use on the fields of France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Violation in spirit, Vympel, is a very dangerous thing. You might trust Saddam Hussein implicate to keep up his side of the bargain. I’m not that stupid.

Actually, you are THAT stupid, given your consistent mistakes in fact, legal errors, and attempts at misdirection and not even understanding what a logical fallacy is.

As for the Germany claim, the example you give is as usual, not useful- the Allies had it within their power to trounce Germany at any point up to and including the invasion of Poland in 1939- their research efforts in other countries did not allow them any advantage- it was Allied lack of balls in the face of true rearmament that did them in.

Which of Saddam’s neighbors poses a military threat warranting the expansion of the Iraqi armed forces with reconnaissance drones and illegally reverse-engineered rockets built on components imported against United Nations Security Council resolutions on conventional armaments?

Maybe this time you'll hear me: the United States, idiot. You know, those troops on the border you keep referring to?

The argument doesn’t change. Why grant Iraq that privilege? Situational awareness is a boon. I sure as shit wouldn’t give it to them if it were in my power not to.

You sure as shit would try and take their rifles away if it were in your power to. Even the administration didn't argue such a moronic position.

You think somebody couldn’t launch a drone in the no-fly zone from the back of a truck? Anything in that area isn’t magically shot down at once.

Yeah Kast, they're gonna launch it off the back of a truck (this in zones where Iraqi AD units and command centres were consistently bombed) to go and obtain crucial intelligence with their 5 mile wheed-whacker powered balsa-wood drone. Clearly, we must invade. God you're a fucking psycho.

Irrelevant? Nay. Red herring, in fact.

Wrong. In the absence of legal restrictions, the anti-ship missile point is perfectly within the ambit of your moron 'spirit' claims.

The drones were in the possession of UN weapons inspectors poised to destroy them. And what, exactly, could Iraq have done to stop them?

No actually, they were declared by Iraq, the inspectors went and looked at them, saw that they were not in contravention, and left them alone. You know, follwoing their mandate?

What, you’ve never heard of ground controllers?

Hey- idiot- it's UNMANNED. Ground controllers is how they're always controlled, you spastic. This particular drone couldn't be controlled out of line of sight.

Define “a meaningful payload.” I’m talking small drop tanks or bacteria cultures and Anthrax or other spores.

Not a meaningful payload- with only a 7m wingspan, construction held together by balsa wood and duct tape, and powered by such a pathetic engine, not to mention the 8km range, it was absolutely useless as a WMD delivery weapon. Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. Not to mention it's a moronic tactic.

On a conventional level. By the same reasoning, Afghanistan wasn’t at all dangerous either. Oops. Wrong assessment.

Actually, Afghanistan was dangerous because it was known to be an Al-Qaeda stronghold, since 1998 IIRC. Keep up them incredibly bone-headed false analogies.

It sure makes sense to me.

That's because you're an illogical moron, right up there with dumbass trekkies and creationists.

To make the argument that Iraq’s intelligence services are inactive seems the worst of the two evils. Yours is simply blind faith. That “negative” crap is worthless besides. Just because we can’t see the Iraqis plotting against us doesn’t mean we’re safe, Vympel.

"Negative" crap? Sorry, it's a principle of logical argument, and by virtue of that your position automatically fails, without argument. Your paranoia is not my problem. If you wanna put the fear in me, you're gonna have to make your case. It's not up to me to prove a negative, and it never is- you're making the positive claim, you provide the proof. You are steadily on your way to village idiot territory.

"I don't know that Indonesia isn't plotting aganst me. Clearly, we're not safe. Ergo, we must attack Indonesia"

Loon.

Which just happened to be the home of millions of Red Army soldiers.

So not only can you not make a single coherent point, you're also a coward who rants on and on about his safety but only insists on the attack of states who don't have a chance in hell of repelling you. Interesting.

Strawman.

Learn your fallacies, you fucking idiot. How can my stating my position be a strawman? It was *your* statement on guessing what my positon on Afghanistan would be that was the strawman. For fuck's sake, go get a clue, it's embarassing.

[qipte]The question is actually whether or not you’d have identified Afghanistan as a threat based on what you call logical thinking. After all, they were a dictatorship every bit as reviled as Hussein’s. Why wouldn’t they too have wanted to keep a hold on power by obliging the United States in ejecting a terrorist mastermind? Iraq certainly escaped al-Qaeda’s ire all these years. Most Afghanis would probably have understood if not cared very little – assuming they knew at all.[/quote]

Having trouble making sense of this trainwreck of unconnected points, suffice to say that Afghanistan's dictatorship was not in question. The question is whether Afghanistan was a threat. It obviously was, and everyone had known this since the late 90s. That Iraq was a threat like Afghanistan was not shown.

More like a reminder that cherry-picking doesn’t help here since there was more than “benign neglect” involved in the ruse.

Yes, I'm sure they wagged their finger at their ally very sternly indeed.

Because it's not a question of territory. It's also a question of whether the inspections regime was remotely the same, or as intensive, or the international scrutiny was as high. It wasn't. The US clearly wasn't very concerned that it's ally had nuclear weapons, nor was there any relevant conflict or treaty to galvanize international opinion.

Strawman.

LEARN YOUR FUCKING FALLACIES, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

It’s a question of how easily something can be hidden. Treaties and international opinion had nothing to do with the success or failure of on-site sanctions.

It does actually, since it applies directly to the amount of effort, concern, scrutiny and resources put into the search.

And what leads you to think the inspection régime was all that much different? It also included ground personnel and airborne intelligence assets after all.

How many? How long? Where was the threat of force?

But then Iraq would have been free to arm itself all it liked, no? Or hadn’t you heard that Kofi Annan and Co. wanted to avoid war at all costs. If we hadn’t done it, nobody would have. Great argument. I’m sure that looks fine as far away as Australia.

Funny, I'm not aware that sanctions require the presence of a military wherever they're imposed to be effective Prove your bullshit assertion that US military forces in the region somehow prevented Iraqi rearmament, rather than the UN resolution that imposed the sanctions. They didn't monitor compliance with jack shit.

As I’ve already pointed out, the likelihood of Islamofascism setting in and promulgating its own government is absolutely limited if not nil. The additional recruits gained by al-Qaeda are far outweighed by both the collapse of Iraq as a potential sponsor and the post-Afghanistan shuffle.

Absolutely limited if not nil? You're clearly disconnected from reality. The Shi'ites have gone ape shit.

Because of a series of ruses.

Was the Israeli policy 'go anywhere anytime'. I don't think it was:

"The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."

Inspectors could've walked right in there at any time and verified it as a nuclear site. They took Israel's word for it.

"United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits"

Funny, I don't recall where Iraq had any say in the agenda or timing of the visits.

If you violate the cease-fire, war continues idiot.

Wrong. The actual cease fire says otherwise, you lying sack of shit.

You’ve got to ask yourself: (A) did we find the right people, (B) where does their allegiance lie, and (C) how much did they know personally of what might have been a fragmented program?

They had a complete list of personalities, ranging from the lower ranks to the upper tiers- every scientist they knew of. And you're telling me out of all of these people not a single one is gonna admit anything, even after the fall? Wake up.

And if invasion wasn’t imminent, would Iraq have done anything at all?

It's not a question of Iraq destroying them. It's a question of the inspectors ordering their destruction, you know, like all the OTHER shit the inspectors had destroyed from 91-98

The cease-fire.

Wrong, idiot.

From “Strategy & Tactics” Number 215: “Ignorant Armies: The Iran-Iraq War, ‘80-’88, page 20.

“…The Iraqis used ideas from an exercise created by British instructors at the Baghdad War College in 1941 to aid in the planning of their invasion of Iran. […] Politics was an omnipresent force within the Iraqi military. High-ranking officers were frequently purged to ensure only leaders loyal to the régime served, though the purges at that time were not to the scale that decimated the Iranian officer corps. The ruling Iraqi Ba’ath party and the national intelligence service both maintained separate channels of political control, that is, interference, over the services. Security of the régime was a priority over military efficiency; performance in the field was the loser.

How does this relate to Iraq's erroneous intelligence estimate?

The army was not well-trained. Two-thirds of the troops had limited training at best. A small number of personnel went to the Soviet Union for instruction in the latest military techniques, but the Iraqi government feared if it sent too many officers there, they would be subverted and become agents for the Communists. No one in the higher ranks was allowed to make decisions; and so leadership was ineffective. Critical decisions were usually passed up the chain of command to Saddam Hussein and his personal staff. Units would stand by until a response was returned. Intelligence was frequently “white-washed” in order to appease superiors with glowing reports. Needless to say, that meant an uninspired performance by the armed services.

And of course, Saddam would have to be crazy not to know these things.

The army was divided into a regular force and the Ba’ath forces. The regular forces had various units within their structure. Only three of the divisions was organized for conventional warfare; the others were set up to fight the Kurds…”

So Saddam Hussein deployed against Iran an army of ill-trained conscripts led in the vast majority by political yes-men against an enemy he expected to defeat quickly while relying on a doctrine of “attrition.” Well, that makes prefect sense.

And what were the estimated capabilities of the Iranians, you dumbass? Iraq achieved territorial gains before Iran got it's shit together and brought back some of the Shah's military men- it wasn't a disaster from the get-go.

So far, your crazy argument is piss poor.

The Iranian military possessed significant technological advantages at the war’s beginning, none of which would have begun to erode within the original timeframe of Saddam’s desired advance.

Oh bullshit- what technological advances? Their American weaponry which they had no parts for? Their sabotaged F-14s? If they were so advanced at the beginning of the war, why did they lose so much territory?

His reasoning that Iran would be unable to rearm itself or reequip during the early stages of the war – when nothing had been yet expended – was horrifically flawed. Not to mention that the man led a military he had personally organized as a counter-insurgence establishment rather than a professional field force.

Saddam Hussein saw what he wanted to see through clearly “white-washed” glasses ... snip

We're all aware of the poor showing of the Iraqi conventional forces. However, it is a leap in logic to go from 'poor military performance' to 'Saddam should've know, therefore he was crazy'. That's a completely fucking idiotic thing to say. That way, I can take every defeat suffered by a nation in history and declare them crazy- was the US *crazy* to go into Vietnam, because they lost? Did that make the administration at the time completely irrational and unpredictable? No.

So Saddam Hussein allowed tens of thousands of troops to meet their doom simply because he was negotiating until the final minutes? Bullshit. The man, like Hitler, couldn’t contemplate defeat is what happened. Just like in the Iran-Iraq War, too.

So you'd argue that a dictator would be wise to retreat from his easily-gotten gains while engaged in diplomacy would be the smart thing to do, thereby losing everything he'd gone after

Are you fucking stupid? The “threat of force?” It’s been there since 1991. And that didn’t stop the al-Samouds or the illegal connection to foreign businesses.

But it *did* destroy Iraq's known WMD stockpiles, and that is the case to this day, which will be confirmed as each day passes until the search is abanodned for good (one team has already gone home in abject failure- should tell you what the US thinks of your Israel comparison).

Hell, it took a massive buildup on his border to get the UN inspectorate in at all.

Wouldn't have been necessary if the inspectors hand't been influenced to violate their mandate in 1998.

Why the fuck would we want to (A) deploy indefinitely in the Middle East or worse (B) redeploy an indefinite number of times as Saddam tap dances.

How many times did the US inflate troop numbers in the region in the 91-98 period to invasion levels in order to get Iraq to do something, Kast?

Before the start of this whole thing, we were more trustworthy and Iraq not at all credible.

And I can hear India making that claim from here.

The point is that it doesn’t matter because the whole concept that we’ve opened a door that doesn’t exist is bullshit.

No, it's not. Preemptive invasions were until the US pulled off Iraq, not on the list of responsible states.

You fucking idiot. The drone wouldn’t be immediately picked up. They could start operations from the back of a fucking truck.

Five miles is five miles too many.

Yes Kast ... declare war on the basis of a 5 mile drone .... you really are a psychotic.

"They have assault rifles. They could stand near the border and shoot at us with them. One assault rifle is a weapon too many."

You obviously have no fucking idea how deranged you look right now.

You never even answered the fucking question.

Oh really? Is that why you replied:

"The fact that you deny that the anti-war movement would have had the wind knocked out of it with France, Germany, and Belgium in the American camp is actually quite funny."

Hatfucker.

BY THE WAY, YOU LYING EDITING POST CHICKEN SHIT

I noticed how you conveniently removed my posting of what Resolution 687 says. You are dishonest, incapable of debating properly, and are clearly prone to simply stick your hands in your ears and saying "la la la" if presented with evidence that doesn't suit your position.

[weemadando]

Ummm ... yeah.

No, they did not.

You just try that line of reasoning if you're a prosecutor in a court of law (this is a legal issue, after all) and try and argue "spirit".

"Its about the law, its about the constitution, its about the vibe - thats it really, its the vibe."

[Crown]

I like the way this guy sticks up for Saddam, Uday, and company. Yeah, the Iraqi people would sure be better off today if we'd left those guys in power. Way I see it, only a complete idiot (like Vympel) would give a damn about kissing the asses of thirdrate countries in the name of "International Law" when we could be crushing a dictatorship like Iraq. To put it another way, and so simply that even you can understand it, I don't care wether Iraq had WMD's. The fact that it was a dictatorship was enough reason to invade. Should have been for you too, or don't you believe in democracry?

Fuck off cunt. Let's list the dictators that your 'democracy' has put in power by overthrowing democratically elected governments shall we? On second thought fuck it, since you clearly couldn't read and comprehend the whole point of Vympel's argument you wouldn't be able to read this either. In short; contribute or shut the fuck up.

In other news, The BBC reports;

Rumsfeld 'admission'

Mr Rumsfeld said in the same speech that he did not know why Iraq had not used the weapons of mass destruction against coalition forces invading in the country.

He said that they may have been destroyed prior to the recent conflict and he could not promise that such weapons would be found.

However, he said many suspected weapons sites had still to be investigated.

President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had cited their belief that Iraq had banned weapons as the main reason for their attack in March and April that led to the downfall of Saddam Hussein's rule.

BBC correspondent Justin Webb said that Mr Rumsfeld's statements were the closest the Bush administration has yet come to an admission that no weapons of mass destruction are going to be found in Iraq.

[Axis Kast]

And in my opinion it was not. If the question is can the case be made, then you must attempt to make it. You have utterly failed.

As much as you’ve failed to bring across the false point that Iraq is a toothless beast, you mean?

Do you know how to keepthings short? Making bad military decisions does not make one crazy, or, more importantly- unpredictable.

It does absolutely. If one looks at the military outlines he drew during both the Iran-Iraq and Persian Gulf Wars, one sees that he is precisely beyond rational predictability. Those same moves – all based on confidence in victory without any logical basis – also identify him as not fully sane.

Parnoia. You must prove your case.

There can be no proof. Why not? It’s extremely difficult to “catch” foreign intelligence services “in the act” – especially if their sole purpose is to act as providers or middle-men. Rather it’s a logical conclusion based on what knowledge we have of Iraq’s ultimate ambitions. Do you honestly put it past Hussein to attempt and support anti-American terrorism in whatever ways he can reasonably get away with? I would say that covers the sale of false passports and possible money laundering.

The point was the concept of deterrence and containment, not the concept of succession of leadership.

The point is that deterrence and containment are lengthy, expensive processes useful only in “bleeding” a target into final submission. We could not achieve that goal within a reasonable timeframe, nor is Iraq a choice target for that kind of strategy.

You just try that line of reasoning if you're a prosecutor in a court of law (this is a legal issue, after all) and try and argue "spirit".

It’s a legal issue only where the United Nations is concerned. Again, you are blind if you believe that Iraq does not gain any benefit from legal circumvention.

As for the Germany claim, the example you give is as usual, not useful- the Allies had it within their power to trounce Germany at any point up to and including the invasion of Poland in 1939- their research efforts in other countries did not allow them any advantage- it was Allied lack of balls in the face of true rearmament that did them in.

What would later become the core of the wartime Whermacht gained valuable experience in combined-arms warfare for tens of thousands of men in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, Allied blunders aside.

And your defense is a strawman nevertheless. The question was whether because that’s legal you’d have let it by you. According to your logic vis a vie Saddam’s current weapons programs, the answer is yes.

Maybe this time you'll hear me: the United States, idiot. You know, those troops on the border you keep referring to?

Iraq will never be allowed to threaten the United States. The question was whether they can make any argument as to the threat posed by their immediate neighbors. Iraq, that is. And the answer is no, they cannot. Any arsenal with which we provide them is token once it goes beyond regional police forces.

You sure as shit would try and take their rifles away if it were in your power to. Even the administration didn't argue such a moronic position.

Again, drones are a tool of the information age. The worth of one of those items is equivalent to entire formations of troops in a tactical situation. Not to mention the capability of said machines to serve as “dumb bombs” with chemical or biological cultures inside.

Yeah Kast, they're gonna launch it off the back of a truck (this in zones where Iraqi AD units and command centres were consistently bombed) to go and obtain crucial intelligence with their 5 mile wheed-whacker powered balsa-wood drone. Clearly, we must invade. God you're a fucking psycho.

If the whole idea of putting troops on the border is to prepare for potential invasion if necessary, why permit Iraq to make defensive arrangements?

And in case you hadn’t noticed, cargo trucks regularly ply Iraqi highways without being bombed. Or did before the war. To launch a drone from an isolated area in the middle of a desert is no great feat – especially once war has already begun.

Wrong. In the absence of legal restrictions, the anti-ship missile point is perfectly within the ambit of your moron 'spirit' claims.

And why not destroy it? You’re the only one who actually feels Iraq should be permitted to possess such weapons anyway – which are ultimately superfluous, mind you. An argument can be made that assault rifles, tanks, and basic artillery were necessary for internal defense. But the United States has declared the entire Persian Gulf an area of strategic importance. Iraq’s coverage of the area is worthless.

No actually, they were declared by Iraq, the inspectors went and looked at them, saw that they were not in contravention, and left them alone. You know, follwoing their mandate?

Notice that I was speaking hypothetically, you idiot.

Hey- idiot- it's UNMANNED. Ground controllers is how they're always controlled, you spastic. This particular drone couldn't be controlled out of line of sight.

And suddenly ground controllers can’t camouflage themselves or move about on the battlefield?

Not a meaningful payload- with only a 7m wingspan, construction held together by balsa wood and duct tape, and powered by such a pathetic engine, not to mention the 8km range, it was absolutely useless as a WMD delivery weapon. Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. Not to mention it's a moronic tactic.

A moronic tactic? How so? What’s so “moronic” about strapping bacteria cultures onto an unmanned aerial drone and having it fly into an approaching American formation?

A large payload is not always necessary to ensure the proper function of chemical and biological agents. Small quantities are all it requires.

Actually, Afghanistan was dangerous because it was known to be an Al-Qaeda stronghold, since 1998 IIRC. Keep up them incredibly bone-headed false analogies.

Exactly.

You continually refer to Iraq as toothless – but that’s in a conventional sense. Afghanistan was equally toothless. You’ve just admitted that there were unconventional dangers however. The same is true in Iraq.

Your paranoia is not my problem. If you wanna put the fear in me, you're gonna have to make your case. It's not up to me to prove a negative, and it never is.

Bullshit rules of debate. Waving your hand and suggesting that because we haven’t found WMD yet there are none is blind faith. You’ve in fact offered very little but trust in Saddam Hussein, none of which is founded on anything but equally idiotic assertions that he couldn’t possibly threaten us and that it’s okay because even if we get hit, we can flatten him after the fact. Or doesn’t September 11th ring a bell?

So not only can you not make a single coherent point, you're also a coward who rants on and on about his safety but only insists on the attack of states who don't have a chance in hell of repelling you. Interesting.

A coherent point? The KGB was carrying out a series of intelligence-gathering and sabotage efforts on American soil. If any other country were to do that, there would be serious consequences.

What don’t you get about realistic objectives and goals on a geopolitical level? How the fuck am I a coward for not wanting to become embroiled in another world war?

If you’re going to fight, it is best to do so against those same states who don’t have a chance in hell of repelling you.

Wow dude. You just proved yourself a total fucking moron.

Having trouble making sense of this trainwreck of unconnected points, suffice to say that Afghanistan's dictatorship was not in question. The question is whether Afghanistan was a threat. It obviously was, and everyone had known this since the late 90s. That Iraq was a threat like Afghanistan was not shown.

It was never a conventional threat, you fucking moron. And you’ve never proven more than that for Iraq. Saddam retained his unconventional arsenal – an intelligence service as well as prohibited weapons – until the very end. You’ve also conveniently ignored my point that Afghanis had no reason to invite their own destruction on any logical grounds. What makes you so certain that Saddam would be any more bright?

It does actually, since it applies directly to the amount of effort, concern, scrutiny and resources put into the search.

Not in this case. With men on the ground and assets in the sky or space, the United States covered as many of its bases as Hans Blix in this particular case.

How many? How long? Where was the threat of force?

How many? Well, the force certainly included a small ground component as well as flyovers by U2 spy planes. The American investigation seems to have lasted a few years.

The threat of force is irrelevant here. The Americans wouldn’t have been any more likely to uncover the Israeli ruse had there been tanks on the border. And that’s the fucking point.

Prove your bullshit assertion that US military forces in the region somehow prevented Iraqi rearmament, rather than the UN resolution that imposed the sanctions. They didn't monitor compliance with jack shit.

When there are no consequences, nations do as they wish. Or hadn’t you known that South Africa defied a near-universal embargo for years, importing foreign weapons from Israel and others?

Without the threat of force, Iraq would certainly have rearmed more quickly, vigorously, and openly. Not to mention that those troops compelled Iraq to open itself to inspections in the first place.

Absolutely limited if not nil? You're clearly disconnected from reality. The Shi'ites have gone ape shit.

And you think we wouldn’t use force to destroy any Islamofascist régime before it got off the ground?

Besides. There are very few other political avenues yet available. Since only the clerics carry any kind of messages at all, only the clerics will earn followings at this point in time.

Funny, I don't recall where Iraq had any say in the agenda or timing of the visits.

Perhaps you missed the part about bricked-up doors and elevator shafts?

Inspectors could've walked right in there at any time and verified it as a nuclear site. They took Israel's word for it.

Blatant assumption.

Wrong. The actual cease fire says otherwise, you lying sack of shit.

The actual cease-fire allows Iraq to violate its provisions without incurring consequences?

They had a complete list of personalities, ranging from the lower ranks to the upper tiers- every scientist they knew of. And you're telling me out of all of these people not a single one is gonna admit anything, even after the fall? Wake up.

And are these people now in custody? No.

It's not a question of Iraq destroying them. It's a question of the inspectors ordering their destruction, you know, like all the OTHER shit the inspectors had destroyed from 91-98.

Again compelled by troops. Answer the fucking question.

How does this relate to Iraq's erroneous intelligence estimate?

You’re telling me that Saddam Hussein is a rational man and yet he planned a war in 1979 with data first compiled in 1941, with troops no better than those of the Iranians – if not worse at the time -, and first-hand knowledge of the field limitations of his own forces?

And of course, Saddam would have to be crazy not to know these things.

He did know. He was fucking dictator. He had developed the armed forces during his rule. The man had coordinated and perpetuated the officers’ political system. He was fully aware of the drawbacks of his forces from a logical point of view but chose to ignore such factors, reliant on victory out of Providence.

And what were the estimated capabilities of the Iranians, you dumbass? Iraq achieved territorial gains before Iran got it's shit together and brought back some of the Shah's military men- it wasn't a disaster from the get-go.

So far, your crazy argument is piss poor.

At war’s start, the Iranian commands were ravaged. But Iran started out with better-trained personnel anyway as well as functioning American military equipment and far superior main battle tanks. Iraq made very limited headway, captured only one major city of all its primary objectives, surrounded others but failed to lay any effective sieges, and then melted back toward its own borders after Iranian counter-attacks. The performance was dismal. Not that the evidence prior to the invasion didn’t indicate such anyway.

My argument that Saddam Hussein displays illogical, irrational, and insane tendencies is sustained by this evidence. You merely chose to ignore it.

Oh bullshit- what technological advances? Their American weaponry which they had no parts for? Their sabotaged F-14s? If they were so advanced at the beginning of the war, why did they lose so much territory?

They too were unprepared. But much of that territory was of no actual strategic consequence. It was the result of surprise as much as Iraqi effectiveness. Not to mention that it was quickly recouped.

Saddam planned for a short war. That meant the attrition he looked toward to reduce Iranian effectiveness wouldn’t actually ever set in if things went according to plan. Oops.

Iran actually did manage to import some materials for American weaponry. Notably from Germany, Vietnam, and via the CONTRA affair. It also possessed items such as the Chieftan main battle tank.

We're all aware of the poor showing of the Iraqi conventional forces. However, it is a leap in logic to go from 'poor military performance' to 'Saddam should've know, therefore he was crazy'. That's a completely fucking idiotic thing to say. That way, I can take every defeat suffered by a nation in history and declare them crazy- was the US *crazy* to go into Vietnam, because they lost? Did that make the administration at the time completely irrational and unpredictable? No.

It wasn’t just a poor performance. It was poor planning based more on faith than logic. Saddam anticipated victory to the point of certainty despite the evidence. His strategy contained no logic. He is therefore unpredictable, illogical, and not fully sane.

So you'd argue that a dictator would be wise to retreat from his easily-gotten gains while engaged in diplomacy would be the smart thing to do, thereby losing everything he'd gone after.

When he refuses to disengage even while those forces are being annihilated and keeps them in a certain area while bombs fall? Yes.

But it *did* destroy Iraq's known WMD stockpiles, and that is the case to this day, which will be confirmed as each day passes until the search is abanodned for good (one team has already gone home in abject failure- should tell you what the US thinks of your Israel comparison).

The Iraqis had no means to eject inspectors before 1998. There was however waffling prior to 2003 during which time the US had to “get tough.” Had we backed down, it’d have been like pulling teeth. Link for that team?

Wouldn't have been necessary if the inspectors hand't been influenced to violate their mandate in 1998.

An unfortunate result of a sound plan.

How many times did the US inflate troop numbers in the region in the 91-98 period to invasion levels in order to get Iraq to do something, Kast?

Only once – in 1998. And then it was mostly aircraft. Never were one hundred thousand troops on-site around the clock for a potential ground invasion. Idiot.

And I can hear India making that claim from here.

And what makes you think it wouldn’t have made those claims had Iraq not occurred?

No, it's not. Preemptive invasions were until the US pulled off Iraq, not on the list of responsible states.

History is full of preemptive invasions – from Pearl Harbor to Barbarossa. Preemption – the concept of striking an enemy you believe to be dangerous before he hits you – is hardly “new.” Preemptive invasions will still be difficult for everyone else. What do you think makes India more likely to do it now than ever before? Do you really think, “The US did it!” will hold any water? Jesus Christ you’re dense.

Yes Kast ... declare war on the basis of a 5 mile drone .... you really are a psychotic.

It’s yet another argument to throw on the pile.

The fact that you deny that the anti-war movement would have had the wind knocked out of it with France, Germany, and Belgium in the American camp is actually quite funny.

You never said as much. It was intimated.

BY THE WAY, YOU LYING EDITING POST CHICKEN SHIT

I noticed how you conveniently removed my posting of what Resolution 687 says. You are dishonest, incapable of debating properly, and are clearly prone to simply stick your hands in your ears and saying "la la la" if presented with evidence that doesn't suit your position.

I never replied to that in the first place, you idiot. The cease-fire holds up on its own.

Jesus Christ. It's just an online debate. You really have problems if this makes you rant and rave.

[Vympel]

I never replied to that in the first place, you idiot.

I'm well aware of that, dumbass. It's why I drew attention to it in the first place.

The cease-fire holds up on its own.

No, it doesn't, you lying sack of shit:

Resolution 687 stated that any non-compliance by Iraq would have to be reported to the Council, and that it was the Security Council that would "take such further steps as may be required for the implementation" of the resolution and "to secure peace and security in the region".

Concession Accepted.

Jesus Christ. It's just an online debate. You really have problems if this makes you rant and rave.

Ah, so because it's an online debate somehow means that one side can be dihonest and be allowed to snip parts of the other's argument he is uncomfortable with and then repeat his moronic claims:

The actual cease-fire allows Iraq to violate its provisions without incurring consequences?

As if the other party never gave him the true facts of what the cease-fire did. You are dishonest, and intent only on winning the debate by whatever means necessary. I don't have time for such fuckwits- you've done it enough.

[Axis Kast]

Fuck off cunt. Let's list the dictators that your 'democracy' has put in power by overthrowing democratically elected governments shall we? On second thought fuck it, since you clearly couldn't read and comprehend the whole point of Vympel's argument you wouldn't be able to read this either. In short; contribute or shut the fuck up.

Since when does underhanded foreign policy bring our status as a democracy into question? Why bracket the title in quotations?

Are you attempting to imply that every democratically elected government should be free to do as it pleases merely because the majority or plurality of voters in one given area agree? Such reasoning has given rise to Adolf Hitler, mind you.

Vympel’s argument in this instance has nothing to do with American policies of containment during the 20th century.

Rumsfeld 'admission'

Mr Rumsfeld said in the same speech that he did not know why Iraq had not used the weapons of mass destruction against coalition forces invading in the country.

He said that they may have been destroyed prior to the recent conflict and he could not promise that such weapons would be found.

However, he said many suspected weapons sites had still to be investigated.

President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had cited their belief that Iraq had banned weapons as the main reason for their attack in March and April that led to the downfall of Saddam Hussein's rule.

BBC correspondent Justin Webb said that Mr Rumsfeld's statements were the closest the Bush administration has yet come to an admission that no weapons of mass destruction are going to be found in Iraq.

The British Broadcasting Company offers nothing new. It’s evidence that can be read into from both sides.

Your position: “Donald Rumsfeld is making a final acknowledgement that WMD will not be found.”

The other position: “Donald Rumsfeld is warning against the possibility that WMD were destroyed, dismantled, removed from Iraq prior to war, or will in fact go unfound. This is to say nothing of their actual existence.”

I'm well aware of that, dumbass. It's why I drew attention to it in the first place.

By calling me a dishonest liar?

No, it doesn't, you lying sack of shit:

Resolution 687 stated that any non-compliance by Iraq would have to be reported to the Council, and that it was the Security Council that would "take such further steps as may be required for the implementation" of the resolution and "to secure peace and security in the region".

Concession Accepted.

That’s a United Nations Security Council resolution, not a cease-fire signed by the United States of America.

Ah, so because it's an online debate somehow means that one side can be dihonest and be allowed to snip parts of the other's argument he is uncomfortable with and then repeat his moronic claims.

No. Since it’s an online debate I can’t see what drives you to ask me to “die” or to increase your font size to 24 simply to spout profane nonsense.

As if the other party never gave him the true facts of what the cease-fire did. You are dishonest, and intent only on winning the debate by whatever means necessary. I don't have time for such fuckwits- you've done it enough.

The cease-fire included provisions that made those centrifuges and al-Samouds illegal. Look beyond the WMD. Even Blix acknowledged that the centrifuges were a contravention of import laws.

By the way – wasn’t your original post far longer? I had steeled myself for a long evening of worthless, circular debate, too…

[Vympel]

By calling me a dishonest liar?

After reading the rest of your reply, I think I'll revise that down to 'incredibly thick'.

That’s a United Nations Security Council resolution, not a cease-fire signed by the United States of America.

LOL! That IS the cease-fire, you stupid fuck! You find me this magical 'cease-fire signed by the United States of America' that allows war.

No. Since it’s an online debate I can’t see what drives you to ask me to “die” or to increase your font size to 24 simply to spout profane nonsense.

Because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't even know enough basic fucking history to know that Resolution 687 is the cease-fire.

The cease-fire included provisions that made those centrifuges and al-Samouds illegal. Look beyond the WMD. Even Blix acknowledged that the centrifuges were a contravention of import laws.

The cease-fire also laid out what would happen if Iraq was found to be in breach- the Security Council decides. Nowhere does it say war must resume. Hence, no legal basis. Concession Accepted.

By the way – wasn’t your original post far longer? I had steeled myself for a long evening of worthless, circular debate, too…

The board was hacked, meaning that a lot of posts were lost when we reverted. The last post I made was among them.

[Knife]

Bringing this whole circle of life thing back to the beganing, , on Fox news (Oreilly to be specific) France has appearently hired Woody Allen to help ease the appearent 'boycott' of French good and/or tourism brought on by anti French setiment.

Ok, outside of say, New York, who gives a shit about Woody Allen?

[Vympel]

As much as you’ve failed to bring across the false point that Iraq is a toothless beast, you mean?

No, Iraq was big mean and scary, and should've kept the hyperpower quaking in its boots in fear of the fifth-rate tinpot.

It does absolutely. If one looks at the military outlines he drew during both the Iran-Iraq and Persian Gulf Wars, one sees that he is precisely beyond rational predictability. Those same moves – all based on confidence in victory without any logical basis – also identify him as not fully sane.

Monstrous leap in logic. I can take such bullshit reasoning and pompously declare as you just did that the author's of any failed military expedition I care to name were crazy and 'beyond rational predictability'.

There can be no proof.

Glad you admitted it, do go away.

Why not? It’s extremely difficult to “catch” foreign intelligence services “in the act” – especially if their sole purpose is to act as providers or middle-men. Rather it’s a logical conclusion based on what knowledge we have of Iraq’s ultimate ambitions.

Funny, no such 'logical conclusions' (in the *loosest sense of that phrase*) are seen as acceptable by a single intelligence agency.

Do you honestly put it past Hussein to attempt and support anti-American terrorism in whatever ways he can reasonably get away with? I would say that covers the sale of false passports and possible money laundering.

It's not a question of what I believe, it's a question of what can be proved.

The point is that deterrence and containment are lengthy, expensive processes useful only in “bleeding” a target into final submission. We could not achieve that goal within a reasonable timeframe, nor is Iraq a choice target for that kind of strategy.

Reasonable time frame? *gasp* You wouldn't be talking about the 2004 elections would you? And why is Iraq not a 'choice' target for that kind of strategy? Because you say so?

It’s a legal issue only where the United Nations is concerned. Again, you are blind if you believe that Iraq does not gain any benefit from legal circumvention.

Meaningless. All of Iraq's commitments are with the United Nations, not the United States. The events of 1991 were under the ambit of the UN, in case you didn't notice.

What would later become the core of the wartime Whermacht gained valuable experience in combined-arms warfare for tens of thousands of men in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, Allied blunders aside.

Such shenanigans are meaningless. The Treaty of Versailles was designed precisely to prohibit Germany from threatening the Allies ever again through exhaustive provisions- the problem was only that the Allies didn't have the balls to stop rearmament when it really started in Germany proper.

And your defense is a strawman nevertheless.

Abusing logic terms yet again, I see.

The question was whether because that’s legal you’d have let it by you. According to your logic vis a vie Saddam’s current weapons programs, the answer is yes.

Of course it's yes. The question is threat.

Iraq will never be allowed to threaten the United States. The question was whether they can make any argument as to the threat posed by their immediate neighbors. Iraq, that is. And the answer is no, they cannot. Any arsenal with which we provide them is token once it goes beyond regional police forces.

More bullshit. You are not permitted to arbitrarily exclude the United States from the region simply because it doesn't suit your position. It's presence there, over Iraq's airspace for more than a decade and on its borders, is fact.

Again, drones are a tool of the information age.

Tofflerian bullshit alert.

The worth of one of those items is equivalent to entire formations of troops in a tactical situation.

Obviously been reading too many breathless information warfare slogans.

Not to mention the capability of said machines to serve as “dumb bombs” with chemical or biological cultures inside.

More easily achieved by helicopter and aircraft delivery.

If the whole idea of putting troops on the border is to prepare for potential invasion if necessary, why permit Iraq to make defensive arrangements?

Who said it was necessary?

And in case you hadn’t noticed, cargo trucks regularly ply Iraqi highways without being bombed.

That's because it's a no FLY zone, Kast.

Or did before the war. To launch a drone from an isolated area in the middle of a desert is no great feat – especially once war has already begun.

"Look what they might do if we attack them! They'll launch UAVs from trucks! We better attack them!"

Two moronic statements in one. How efficient of you.

And why not destroy it? You’re the only one who actually feels Iraq should be permitted to possess such weapons anyway –

Really? That must be why Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 never insisted on total disarmament of Iraq. Idiot.

which are ultimately superfluous, mind you. An argument can be made that assault rifles, tanks, and basic artillery were necessary for internal defense. But the United States has declared the entire Persian Gulf an area of strategic importance. Iraq’s coverage of the area is worthless.

The argument can be made that any military weapon save for long range land attack missiles is defensive.

Notice that I was speaking hypothetically, you idiot.

And I was stating the obvious, idiot.

And suddenly ground controllers can’t camouflage themselves or move about on the battlefield?

NO. They can't. Do you know what facilities are necessary for controlling a drone? Just *try* and camoflage a control station, I'm sure it'll be very convincing. And so effective too, when it's only up to 8 fucking kilometres away.

A moronic tactic? How so? What’s so “moronic” about strapping bacteria cultures onto an unmanned aerial drone and having it fly into an approaching American formation?

1: With only 8km range, you are well within every single reconaissance unit of the enemy formation, including their own drones.
2: With such weak construction and power, a payload will restrict it's performance (height and range) even further
3: It will have to fly low for it's payload to have any effect (too high, and the agents will disperse on the wind), placing it well within all AA assets (Avenger HMMWVs and Bradley Stinger vehicles would be most appropriate for this)

A large payload is not always necessary to ensure the proper function of chemical and biological agents. Small quantities are all it requires.

4: Wrong. You would need a considerable amount of chemical/biological agents to ensure any meaningful battlefield effects- there's a reason artillery shells are the most popular method of delivery- saturation and range. Neither of which a drone has.

5: NBC protection on US troops would make it little more than a pathetic gimmick.

Hence, moronic tactic.

Exactly.

You continually refer to Iraq as toothless – but that’s in a conventional sense. Afghanistan was equally toothless. You’ve just admitted that there were unconventional dangers however. The same is true in Iraq.

You have not shown that the same is true in Iraq, that's the difference.

Bullshit rules of debate.

Sorry, them's the breaks.

If I were to say "all bannanas are fruit, all apples and fruit, therefore all bannanas are apples", would I be able to get away with saying "oh, that's just bullshit rules of debate"

Logic doesn't stop because you don't like it. Deal.

Waving your hand and suggesting that because we haven’t found WMD yet there are none is blind faith.

And the similarity to creationists is just eery: "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore, he exists!"

You’ve in fact offered very little but trust in Saddam Hussein, none of which is founded on anything but equally idiotic assertions that he couldn’t possibly threaten us and that it’s okay because even if we get hit, we can flatten him after the fact. Or doesn’t September 11th ring a bell?

Hey, idiot- Saddam Hussein isn't a terrorist organization. It's precisely the fact that he *would* be destroyed that he wouldn't do it. More on your inane Afghanistan comparison in a second.

A coherent point? The KGB was carrying out a series of intelligence-gathering and sabotage efforts on American soil. If any other country were to do that, there would be serious consequences.

Actually, I'm sure a lot of other countries did that, and still do that. Perhaps you'd like to point to all the serious consequences?

What don’t you get about realistic objectives and goals on a geopolitical level? How the fuck am I a coward for not wanting to become embroiled in another world war?

If you’re going to fight, it is best to do so against those same states who don’t have a chance in hell of repelling you.

Exactly. You save war for the defenseless little shitholes that can't repel you (or that you think can't repel you)- the act of a bully, while uneasily coexisting with with those states that an actually fight back.

Wow dude. You just proved yourself a total fucking moron.

Only a delusional fascist like you would think that you actually scored a victory just then- it is obvious that you think war is an option of first resort to be exercsied whenever you can get away with it.

It was never a conventional threat, you fucking moron.

AND WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS, YOU HATFUCKER?

And you’ve never proven more than that for Iraq.

That's YOUR job, dickhead.

Saddam retained his unconventional arsenal – an intelligence service as well as prohibited weapons – until the very end.

Fascinating. Proof?

You’ve also conveniently ignored my point that Afghanis had no reason to invite their own destruction on any logical grounds. What makes you so certain that Saddam would be any more bright?

His past behavior:

1: Why didn't he use WMD on Israel in 1991?
2: Why didnt' he use WMD on Coalition forces in 1991?
3: Why didn't he use WMD on US/UK forces in 2003?

Dumbass.

It
Not in this case. With men on the ground and assets in the sky or space, the United States covered as many of its bases as Hans Blix in this particular case.

Sorry, stating your position as fact is not an argument. Show that that was the case.

How many? Well, the force certainly included a small ground component as well as flyovers by U2 spy planes. The American investigation seems to have lasted a few years.

No-numbers vague hand-waving.

The threat of force is irrelevant here. The Americans wouldn’t have been any more likely to uncover the Israeli ruse had there been tanks on the border. And that’s the fucking point.

Oh really? You think Israel wouldn't be more forthcoming if they were about to be bombed back to the stoneage by the USAF?

When there are no consequences, nations do as they wish. Or hadn’t you known that South Africa defied a near-universal embargo for years, importing foreign weapons from Israel and others?

Red herring. I'll repeat what I asked of you: prove your bullshit assertion that US troops monitored compliance. They did not.

Without the threat of force, Iraq would certainly have rearmed more quickly, vigorously, and openly. Not to mention that those troops compelled Iraq to open itself to inspections in the first place.

Iraq opened itself to inspections by losing the war and submitting itself to resolution 687. The threat of force doesn't require the physical presence of an invasion level force, a fact you unwittingly admit to below.

And you think we wouldn’t use force to destroy any Islamofascist régime before it got off the ground?

Ah, and that's a *good* thing?

Besides. There are very few other political avenues yet available. Since only the clerics carry any kind of messages at all, only the clerics will earn followings at this point in time.

We'll see.

Perhaps you missed the part about bricked-up doors and elevator shafts?

Perhpas you missed the part about no such thing ever being found in Iraq?

Blatant assumption.

What?! IT'S IN THE ARTICLE!

The actual cease-fire allows Iraq to violate its provisions without incurring consequences?

The consequences are stipulated- nowhere does it say war.

And are these people now in custody? No.

Actually, some are?

Again compelled by troops. Answer the fucking question.

Hey- fuckwit: you obviously have a problem figuring out why your question is fucking stupid: INSPECTORS were the ones who decided whether something should be destroyed, Iraq had no say: I defy you to find one example of Iraq refusing to destroy weapons demanded by the inspectors.

You’re telling me that Saddam Hussein is a rational man and yet he planned a war in 1979 with data first compiled in 1941,

Hey, dickhead, it was intelligence on Iran at the time.

with troops no better than those of the Iranians – if not worse at the time -, and first-hand knowledge of the field limitations of his own forces?

'First-hand' knowledge? Man, your ass must be deep to pull this shit out of it on such a regular basis.

He did know. He was fucking dictator. He had developed the armed forces during his rule. The man had coordinated and perpetuated the officers’ political system. He was fully aware of the drawbacks of his forces from a logical point of view but chose to ignore such factors, reliant on victory out of Providence.

How are the decarations in his bunker, I've always wanted to know, since you seem like such an expert on Saddam and his frame of mind?

At war’s start, the Iranian commands were ravaged. But Iran started out with better-trained personnel anyway as well as functioning American military equipment and far superior main battle tanks. Iraq made very limited headway, captured only one major city of all its primary objectives, surrounded others but failed to lay any effective sieges, and then melted back toward its own borders after Iranian counter-attacks. The performance was dismal. Not that the evidence prior to the invasion didn’t indicate such anyway.

The evidence indicated as such? Where the fuck do you get this BS? The consensus was that Iran would be defeated, you stupid fuck.

My argument that Saddam Hussein displays illogical, irrational, and insane tendencies is sustained by this evidence. You merely chose to ignore it.

*looks at bleeding stumps of Kast's argument* The Black Knight always triumps, eh Kast?

They too were unprepared. But much of that territory was of no actual strategic consequence. It was the result of surprise as much as Iraqi effectiveness. Not to mention that it was quickly recouped. Saddam planned for a short war. That meant the attrition he looked toward to reduce Iranian effectiveness wouldn’t actually ever set in if things went according to plan. Oops.

Ah yes, only a crazy person factors in surprise to a military plan. And only crazy people suffer reversals in a military campaign

Iran actually did manage to import some materials for American weaponry. Notably from Germany, Vietnam, and via the CONTRA affair. It also possessed items such as the Chieftan main battle tank.

And that was when Kast, before or during the war?

It wasn’t just a poor performance. It was poor planning based more on faith than logic. Saddam anticipated victory to the point of certainty despite the evidence. His strategy contained no logic. He is therefore unpredictable, illogical, and not fully sane.

I can easily apply that to America's tactics in Vietnam. Concession Accepted.

When he refuses to disengage even while those forces are being annihilated and keeps them in a certain area while bombs fall? Yes.

Hey, dumbfuck, if you move your ground forces where the enemy has total air supremacy, they are MORE vulnerbale to air strikes, not less. Fuck, get a clue. Where do you get your military history, a cereal box?

The Iraqis had no means to eject inspectors before 1998. There was however waffling prior to 2003 during which time the US had to “get tough.” Had we backed down, it’d have been like pulling teeth. Link for that team?

"Since then, no evidence has surfaced to support these claims and the Alpha team is preparing to leave Iraq without having found weapons of mass destruction."

Obviously, they do not find your Israel comparison terribly relevant.

Only once – in 1998. And then it was mostly aircraft. Never were one hundred thousand troops on-site around the clock for a potential ground invasion. Idiot.

Idiot? You just proved my point! For the entire inspections regime, not a single ground invasion level force was necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance!

And what makes you think it wouldn’t have made those claims had Iraq not occurred?

Oh, it would still make the claim. Except it's claim to legitimacy would be stronger. If your argument had any merit that is, which it does not.

History is full of preemptive invasions – from Pearl Harbor to Barbarossa.

Like the company you're in? Nazi Germany and Japan?

Preemption – the concept of striking an enemy you believe to be dangerous before he hits you – is hardly “new.” Preemptive invasions will still be difficult for everyone else. What do you think makes India more likely to do it now than ever before? Do you really think, “The US did it!” will hold any water? Jesus Christ you’re dense.

I'm dense? You're the one claiming an artificial distinction between the preemptive logic of one versus another, not I.

It’s yet another argument to throw on the pile.

Better throw tanks, planes, anti-ship missiles, and small arms on that pile too.

You never said as much. It was intimated.

I said exactly that, dumbass. That you can't fucking read is not my problem.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Woody Allen, eh? I guess Jerry Lewis didn't want the job!

Ha Ha!

Who else could they use that is disliked by the public at large?
Disgusting pervert. (I've raised you, and instead of thinking of you as a daughter, now I'll fuck you,as Mia is too old)


Micheal Moore?
Jane Fonda?
How about Bagdad Bob? "There are no strains in the Franco/American friendship. We are selling record exports to America."

[Axis Kast]

LOL! That IS the cease-fire, you stupid fuck! You find me this magical 'cease-fire signed by the United States of America' that allows war.

President Bush sited a cease-fire in his case for the legality of war in a March 2003 speech just prior to the war.

Because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't even know enough basic fucking history to know that Resolution 687 is the cease-fire.

I’m not fully convinced. There had to have been documents signed in the field between the actual combatants.

The cease-fire also laid out what would happen if Iraq was found to be in breach- the Security Council decides. Nowhere does it say war must resume. Hence, no legal basis. Concession Accepted.

Even if you prove correct and Resolution 687 is the only form of cease-fire agreement, I was never convinced that the Security Council should have final say over American national defense. France, China, et al. certainly don’t share many of the same fears as Washington. Paris and Moscow are far more safe from an assault by Iraq – even if you don’t agree that one would occur under Hussein – than Washington or New York. An American or Israeli target was Saddam’s most attractive choice.

No, Iraq was big mean and scary, and should've kept the hyperpower quaking in its boots in fear of the fifth-rate tinpot.

I could have said the same of Afghanistan.

Monstrous leap in logic. I can take such bullshit reasoning and pompously declare as you just did that the author's of any failed military expedition I care to name were crazy and 'beyond rational predictability'.

Look at the determinations that Hussein made. That he’d win against a better-armed enemy by virtue of untrained mass warfare alone? That is was a good – or at the very least acceptable – idea to strand his troops in the desert on the Kuwaiti border during Desert Shield – even after the bombs began to fall? That his military was a capable enough machine to invade a country at least as militarily powerful as his own with an infrastructure he himself had helped to undermine? The man is illogical, Vympel. He is unpredictable. He is victim to illusions of grandeur. That’s a sign of basic insanity.

Funny, no such 'logical conclusions' (in the *loosest sense of that phrase*) are seen as acceptable by a single intelligence agency.

You’re willing to bet that Iraqi intelligence was twiddling its thumbs in relation to the United States up to and during the war? That their collective thumb was up their collective ass just because we didn’t catch anybody on the homefront?

t's not a question of what I believe, it's a question of what can be proved.

Proved to whom? There are different levels of proof. If you ask me, all the circumstantial evidence – as well as the physical evidence of clear circumvention – put forth thus far is proof enough of danger.

Reasonable time frame? *gasp* You wouldn't be talking about the 2004 elections would you? And why is Iraq not a 'choice' target for that kind of strategy? Because you say so?

A reasonable time frame as in within twelve months or less. The potential for disaster to strike some unit of our troops in the Middle East stationed to threaten Iraq was supreme. Not to mention that unlike in the Soviet Union, there was a clear line of succession in Iraq among Hussein’s own family.

Meaningless. All of Iraq's commitments are with the United Nations, not the United States. The events of 1991 were under the ambit of the UN, in case you didn't notice.

And to whom was Iraq the greater threat in the first place? France, Germany, China, Russia, or the United States? None of this “he’s toothless” crap, either. Answer the question. To whom did Iraq pose the greatest physical danger?

Such shenanigans are meaningless. The Treaty of Versailles was designed precisely to prohibit Germany from threatening the Allies ever again through exhaustive provisions- the problem was only that the Allies didn't have the balls to stop rearmament when it really started in Germany proper.

And neither did the United Nations. They allowed Saddam’s circumvention to go largely unpunished. He waffled incessantly over the al-Samouds until Washington made additional noise about an invasion. Not to mention that those aluminum tubes were never destroyed despite being illegal in the first place.

Of course it's yes. The question is threat.

Remarkably stupid. Why permit Iraq to rearm on any level beyond the most base?

More bullshit. You are not permitted to arbitrarily exclude the United States from the region simply because it doesn't suit your position. It's presence there, over Iraq's airspace for more than a decade and on its borders, is fact.

Of course I’m “allowed” to exclude them – because we dictate the terms in the first place.

Against who else could Iraq have put up a halfway legitimate argument against about its security?

Tofflerian bullshit alert.

“Bullshit alert?” If I were an American soldier poised to invade Iraq – even as part of the United Nations plan to continue sanctions under threat of invasion -, I’d sure as shit hope that Iraq didn’t have that kind of capability on even a basic level.

More easily achieved by helicopter and aircraft delivery.

Are you implying that either of those – a helicopter or an airplane – would more easily escape early detection and destruction than a small drone launched out of the back of a cargo hauler?

Who said it was necessary?

To force Iraq to comply with inspections? Jesus fucking Christ!

That's because it's a no FLY zone, Kast.

And you’re telling me there’s no potential for those drones to get in the air during a combat situation? Let’s remember that at times even American troops had to wait a few minutes for ground support.

"Look what they might do if we attack them! They'll launch UAVs from trucks! We better attack them!"

Two moronic statements in one. How efficient of you.

Actually, that’s a cogent argument. Because we were preparing for the eventuality of having to attack Iraq as part of the UNSC’s envisioned solution as well.

Really? That must be why Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 never insisted on total disarmament of Iraq. Idiot.

Clinton tried and failed. In case you hadn’t noticed, his strategy featured the now-clichés “cruise-missile lob.” Sure helped in Afghanistan, yessiree.

And who’s to say Bush 41 didn’t make mistakes? Or that Bush 43 picked up the ball a bit late?

The argument can be made that any military weapon save for long range land attack missiles is defensive.

And yet superfluous.

NO. They can't. Do you know what facilities are necessary for controlling a drone? Just *try* and camoflage a control station, I'm sure it'll be very convincing. And so effective too, when it's only up to 8 fucking kilometres away.

But I thought it was such a basic thing! That it was absolutely no threat because its systems were absolutely worthless. And here you had me nearly convinced the thing was run by remote-control.

Let’s see. Hospitals. Civilian housing. Schools.

1: With only 8km range, you are well within every single reconaissance unit of the enemy formation, including their own drones.
2: With such weak construction and power, a payload will restrict it's performance (height and range) even further
3: It will have to fly low for it's payload to have any effect (too high, and the agents will disperse on the wind), placing it well within all AA assets (Avenger HMMWVs and Bradley Stinger vehicles would be most appropriate for this)

Again, it’s a tactical drone. It provides real-time information for small units.

Weak construction and power limit its range, but not its utility inside a certain area.

Are you implying that every unit will have air-defense assets attached at all times?

4: Wrong. You would need a considerable amount of chemical/biological agents to ensure any meaningful battlefield effects- there's a reason artillery shells are the most popular method of delivery- saturation and range. Neither of which a drone has.

5: NBC protection on US troops would make it little more than a pathetic gimmick.

Hence, moronic tactic.

So small-scale attacks are acceptable? An entire small unit could become infected. Remember the fears that those twelve soldiers who surrendered to British troops before the war might have carried smallpox and that it could spread through blue-on-blue mingling later?

NBC protection that won’t necessarily come on in anticipation of the drone attack.

You have not shown that the same is true in Iraq, that's the difference.

Bullshit. They’ve got more capability than Afghanistan in the first place – on all levels.

Sorry, them's the breaks.

If I were to say "all bannanas are fruit, all apples and fruit, therefore all bannanas are apples", would I be able to get away with saying "oh, that's just bullshit rules of debate"

Logic doesn't stop because you don't like it. Deal.

The “proving the negative” argument is a means of evading having to ever justify your position and exposes a blind faith that has no place in politics.

And the similarity to creationists is just eery: "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore, he exists!"

And for whom does that look worse? Me or you?

Hey, idiot- Saddam Hussein isn't a terrorist organization. It's precisely the fact that he *would* be destroyed that he wouldn't do it. More on your inane Afghanistan comparison in a second.

Neither was the Taliban.

Your argument is bullshit, Vympel. The Taliban were told they’d be ejected from power and their country occupied if they didn’t turn over Saddam. They had at least as much assurance as Hussein – if not less, because Baghdad was reliant on UN intervention until the very end of inspections. Still, they held on to Osama. And this is again to say nothing of the potential for Iraqi intelligence forces to act as middle-men or for Hussein to plot the demolition of American military targets in the Middle East. Remember that al-Qaeda threatened the same as well.

Actually, I'm sure a lot of other countries did that, and still do that. Perhaps you'd like to point to all the serious consequences?

[

It’s that (A) we can’t catch them [or that we feed some misinformation] and (B) it’s not worth it to got to war with Britain, Russia, China, or France. Are you suggesting that we should grant Iraq the same privileges?

Exactly. You save war for the defenseless little shitholes that can't repel you (or that you think can't repel you)- the act of a bully, while uneasily coexisting with with those states that an actually fight back.

And this is a cogent argument in defense of Iraq, how? Appeal to strategic overreach? Criticism of failure to self-endangerment? Jesus fucking Christ.

Only a delusional fascist like you would think that you actually scored a victory just then- it is obvious that you think war is an option of first resort to be exercsied whenever you can get away with it.

Only a delusional idiot like you would foot the argument that I’m a coward for suggesting sound strategy.

AND WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS, YOU HATFUCKER?

It’s the basis of your whole argument. That Iraq isn’t a conventional threat and so must not be an unconventional threat either. What do you call them … ? Tremendous leaps of logic?

Fascinating. Proof?

You are asking for proof that Iraqi intelligence was still in existence until the war began? You are denying that the al-Samouds were prohibited but that Saddam had them because inspections ended early? He did have unconventional weapons and intelligence capabilities until the end. Period.

His past behavior:

1: Why didn't he use WMD on Israel in 1991?
2: Why didnt' he use WMD on Coalition forces in 1991?
3: Why didn't he use WMD on US/UK forces in 2003?

Dumbass.

Perhaps because when he attacked Israel, he was hoping to avoid Palestinian casualties?

He didn’t use WMD on Coalition forces in 1991 because his régime wasn’t in clear danger of falling apart. Or don’t you remember that he was still in power subsequent to the cease-fire.

He didn’t use WMD in 2003 because it was previously destroyed, buried, disassembled, or never existed in the first place.

But this is all conjecture. Unlike you, I have no faith that history will repeat itself.

Sorry, stating your position as fact is not an argument. Show that that was the case.

The same assets were present and still American inspectors were fooled.

No-numbers vague hand-waving.

But still true.

Oh really? You think Israel wouldn't be more forthcoming if they were about to be bombed back to the stoneage by the USAF?

I honestly believe that even had force been a possibility that Israel would never have fully divested itself of its full arsenal. I don’t believe anybody would.

Red herring. I'll repeat what I asked of you: prove your bullshit assertion that US troops monitored compliance. They did not.

The rest of the world monitored compliance, idiot. Not to mention that Iraq was long able to break economic sanctions. Or how did the Indian centrifuges and Chinese air-defense systems get there … ? Those American troops weren’t always on top of things.

Iraq opened itself to inspections by losing the war and submitting itself to resolution 687. The threat of force doesn't require the physical presence of an invasion level force, a fact you unwittingly admit to below.

Bullshit. Saddam was waffling until the end. In this case, without the threat of full invasion, who’s to say what he would have done? It took 100,000 men on his border and a huge array of threats to get him to destroy the al-Samouds.

Ah, and that's a *good* thing?

Good or bad, no Islamofascists.

Perhpas you missed the part about no such thing ever being found in Iraq?

… I’m not even going to say where you went wrong with that. But I will say I laughed for quite a while.

What?! IT'S IN THE ARTICLE!

They were taken for a fucking train ride even when they did go. Not to mention that it never says whether inspectors were on-site at all. Only that the site was “explained away.”

The consequences are stipulated- nowhere does it say war.

I am still under the impression that the cease-fire and the resolution are two different things.

Actually, some are?

All of them?

Hey- fuckwit: you obviously have a problem figuring out why your question is fucking stupid: INSPECTORS were the ones who decided whether something should be destroyed, Iraq had no say: I defy you to find one example of Iraq refusing to destroy weapons demanded by the inspectors.

Because TROOPS threatened to INVADE.

Hey, dickhead, it was intelligence on Iran at the time.

His invasion was BASED ON A PLAN DRAFTED IN 1941. He expected complete victory AGAINST A BETTER-ARMED FOE. He threw troops into a meat-grinder with the expectation that ELAN would save the day and grant his conscripts victory. The man compounded a poor warplane (which could have been made by a sane man) with delusions of absolute grandeur (which couldn’t).

'First-hand' knowledge? Man, your ass must be deep to pull this shit out of it on such a regular basis.

He built and perpetuated that Ba’ath Party system of “yes-men,” you idiot. It was his decision to ignore it. Delusions of grandeur.

How are the decarations in his bunker, I've always wanted to know, since you seem like such an expert on Saddam and his frame of mind?

What part of perpetuation of a system of “yes-men” and making some of the political appointees himself don’t you understand?

The evidence indicated as such? Where the fuck do you get this BS? The consensus was that Iran would be defeated, you stupid fuck.

Based on wishful thinking on all sides. Again, look at the kind of decisions Hussein made to forward the invasion.

Ah yes, only a crazy person factors in surprise to a military plan.

The man is illogical andunpredictable. What kind of logical leader makes a plan for a quick war during which he expects not to face the enemy at full strength because of attrition?

And that was when Kast, before or during the war?

During.

I can easily apply that to America's tactics in Vietnam. Concession Accepted.

The argument is whether Saddam is logical, predictable, practical, and absolutely sane (as in displaying no characteristics of mental failure). The answer is no.

Hey, dumbfuck, if you move your ground forces where the enemy has total air supremacy, they are MORE vulnerbale to air strikes, not less. Fuck, get a clue. Where do you get your military history, a cereal box.

So you move them, you fucking idiot. You tell them to retreat.

Obviously, they do not find your Israel comparison terribly relevant.

That’s not “abject failure.” Other teams are still there.

Idiot? You just proved my point! For the entire inspections regime, not a single ground invasion level force was necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance!

After 1998, that changed. Why did it take 100,000 men and threats of invasion for Saddam to comply with the UNSC over the al-Samouds?

Oh, it would still make the claim. Except it's claim to legitimacy would be stronger. If your argument had any merit that is, which it does not.

No, its claim to legitimacy would not be strong. It would be criticized just as viciously.

My argument has no merit? Look at what you’re saying. You just admitted they would still make the claim without our having set a precedent. That means we didn’t set a precedent. Concession accepted.

Like the company you're in? Nazi Germany and Japan?

You asked for historical precedence.

I'm dense? You're the one claiming an artificial distinction between the preemptive logic of one versus another, not I.

No, that’s what you’re doing. You’re telling me we created a new kind that’s somehow our legacy.

Better throw tanks, planes, anti-ship missiles, and small arms on that pile too.

Anti-ship missiles, yes.

I said exactly that, dumbass. That you can't fucking read is not my problem.

Violate a cease-fire and there’s no longer a cease-fire. Or hadn’t you heard?