tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post3397800428904958749..comments2024-02-29T12:38:32.191-08:00Comments on MUSINGS ON IRAQ: Hans Blix Replies To Tony BlairJoel Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-32241470285418506022010-01-06T02:14:30.377-08:002010-01-06T02:14:30.377-08:00Rather than re-thinking their reports after the in...<i>Rather than re-thinking their reports after the inspectors returned in late-2002 and turned up no weapons programs, the CIA and White House ignored their findings and claimed that finding nothing was actually proof that Iraq was hiding everything because of Iraq’s previous behavior with inspectors in the 1990s.</i><br /><br />We probably disagree, because I think what the White House and CIA did was the more rationale coarse of action. The possibility certainly existed that the inspectors were successfully being duped. As you said yourself<br />"It’s mind-blowing how little the U.S. actually knew."<br />I think you have to error on the side of caution, which means not just the US but the international community should have been as aggressive as possible. I believe the point of sanctions was not just to contain Saddam, but weaken him to a point of collapse. Thanks to the UN corruption in the Oil for Palaces and Protection racket that was not going to happen.<br /><br />Yet even now we are seeing the international community playing dangerous games with Iran when there shouldn't be any doubt about Iran's intent to aquire nuclear weapons.Basspastorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09111355231233505292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-23547644446062813472010-01-05T00:14:08.479-08:002010-01-05T00:14:08.479-08:00I was wrong, Iraq had 20 al-Samoud 2 missiles that...I was wrong, Iraq had 20 al-Samoud 2 missiles that the inspectors told them to destroy. That began right before the war started. Afterward the U.S. found a couple more.<br /><br />I was thinking of these bigger missiles Iraq was doing R&D on and were building engines for that the inspectors also found and wanted destroyed.<br /><br />When the inspectors ended in March 03 they found no evidence of a reconstituted WMD or nuclear program. All of the major facilities that the U.S. listed were checked and nothing found. The aluminum tubes were found to be for rockets not centrifuges, the Niger documents were forgeries and there was no evidence that Iraq had gotten uranium from abroad, they didn’t find evidence of mobile labs, etc. Iraq was also cooperating more and more as the inspections continued. <br /><br />The only thing left were the unaccounted for stocks of WMD and agents that Iraq never verified they had destroyed after the Gulf War. The problem was this was done all in secret just after the war ended in the early-1990s because Iraq didn’t want the inspectors to know about their programs, so Iraq screwed itself because it could never prove what it had done. Many of the agents listed such as Sarin also had limited shelf life, and these were made during the Iran-Iraq war, so by 2003 a lot of it would’ve been useless. <br /><br />Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law, and head of Iraq’s weapons programs defected to Jordan in 1995 and told the U.N. inspectors and U.S. that all the WMD and nuclear programs had been shut down and that the WMD stocks had been destroyed. He also said that Iraq had hidden all kinds of banned material, which the inspectors later went in and got rid of. Kamal’s story of hidden equipment was used by Bush and others, but not his claim that all the WMD stocks were destroyed and the programs ended.<br /><br />U.S. intelligence was also so completely off on Iraq’s weapons programs that it didn’t matter what Iraq produced or the inspectors found they were never going to come up with what the CIA and others said Iraq had. You should read the Senate Intelligence Committee reports on pre-war intelligence. It’s mind-blowing how little the U.S. actually knew. Basically all the major claims on Iraq were based upon worst-case assumptions about Iraq after inspectors left in 1998 rather than any hard intelligence. Rather than re-thinking their reports after the inspectors returned in late-2002 and turned up no weapons programs, the CIA and White House ignored their findings and claimed that finding nothing was actually proof that Iraq was hiding everything because of Iraq’s previous behavior with inspectors in the 1990s. <br /><br />Finally, all the post-war investigations inside and out of Iraq found that Iraq had shut down its programs by the late-1990s because inspections, sanctions, and the occasional U.S. strikes made it impossible to maintain any of them. All the stocks were destroyed. The only thing found were some small labs run by Iraqi intelligence for agents that were probably used to assassinate regime opponents.Joel Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-877843254002154182010-01-04T22:13:40.325-08:002010-01-04T22:13:40.325-08:00Even the evidence they found out about Iraq's ...<i>Even the evidence they found out about Iraq's missile programs was on R&D not operational ones, and Iraq agreed to destroy everything the inspectors found.</i><br /><br />I am pretty sure that Saddam handed over some missles. I remember seeing a photograph of them.<br /><br />The only reason we know sanctions worked is because we invaded and couldn't find anything. Saddam was unable or unwilling to produce the evidence that his previously known stores of WMD had been destroyed. The burden of proof was on Saddam and he didn't deliver. As far as I'm aware we never found evidence that proved the stuff he was known to posses was destroyed. For all we know Saddam buried the stuff somewhere known to him and a few hardcore loyalists and we just never found it.Basspastorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09111355231233505292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-56102731026849451732010-01-04T21:25:36.919-08:002010-01-04T21:25:36.919-08:00On U.N. sanctions you might try reading "Cont...On U.N. sanctions you might try reading "Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked" Foreign Affairs July/August 2004<br /><br />It argues that the sanctions and inspections worked in both disarming Iraq, destroying its nuclear and WMD programs, prevented it from rebuilding its military, blocked most of its oil revenue, and prevented the development of its economy to keep Saddam weak.<br /><br />I was actually wrong too, because in 2002 the Bush administration did get new smart sanctions passed by the U.N. The article says that support for sanctions was declining amongst U.N. members in the 1990s, but the new smart sanctions that were more focused and specialized renewed support for them.Joel Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-75824206009079860262010-01-03T05:40:38.967-08:002010-01-03T05:40:38.967-08:00P.S.- Your also acting as if the U.S. was powerles...P.S.- Your also acting as if the U.S. was powerless in this situation, because as really happened, it didn't really matter what the inspectors turned up, the war was set for March 03 before they even returned to Iraq. <br /><br />And besides, as Ari Fleischer said in Dec. 02 "If Saddam Hussein<br />indicates that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is<br />violating United Nations resolutions, then we will know that Saddam Hussein again deceived the world. If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."Joel Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-23218349251944262602010-01-02T22:51:35.108-08:002010-01-02T22:51:35.108-08:00I don't think Blix trusted Saddam at all. I th...I don't think Blix trusted Saddam at all. I think he followed the old phrase don't trust, verify. He seems to believe in what the inspectors mandate was: to disarm Iraq, and they just didn't find anything.<br /><br />Even the evidence they found out about Iraq's missile programs was on R&D not operational ones, and Iraq agreed to destroy everything the inspectors found.<br /><br />Maintaining sanctions was becoming more difficult, especially because Saddam was trying to bribe countries like Russia and others through illegal money he was earning from the oil for food program, and pumping up humanitarian stories about his suffering public, but the U.S. and England were pushing for smarter sanctions in 2001 that would've been more targeted, but the Bush administration wasn't putting much effort into them because Iraq wasn't a real priority at first.Joel Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-58795680289926411982010-01-02T21:02:01.122-08:002010-01-02T21:02:01.122-08:00Is it just me that sees the non-sense Blix is spou...Is it just me that sees the non-sense Blix is spouting. For one Resolution 1441 did produce the "smoking gun" of an illicit missle program. Saddam gave up the goods on that one, but that didn't lead to war. Had the inspectors turned up WMD's than the rationale for invasion would have been undermined more not less. The argument would have been, see Saddam has repented let's lift the sanctions. <br /><br />IMO the fact that they were not finding anything rightly did increase the chance for war, not undercut the rationale in the first place. I maintain that a policy of "we can't find anything so we better just trust Saddam" would be maddness and that seems to be exactly what Blix supports.What?http://whatqmark.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-43073239349139146312009-12-29T21:26:03.505-08:002009-12-29T21:26:03.505-08:00I completely agree with Tony Blair. I wish they ha...I completely agree with Tony Blair. I wish they had used the moral argument all along. Certainly many Iraqis were, and some of them were probably willing to lie about WMD, or speculate and wonder what Saddam would do, because they were convinced that the world had a moral duty to end the tyranny, which did last much longer than necessary, if I may add my own opinion on the matter. The regime should have been overthrown in 1991. It would have been easier. There was no Al Qaeda back then, and I wonder if Al Qaeda would have taken shape like it did. The US should have dealt with Saddam as the criminal he was in 1991 when the US & allies had almost a million troops(!), instead of allowing him to stay in power for another 12 years, and on top of that enforcing cruel sanctions, while Saddam built dozens of palaces! The injustice is so messed up when I recall it, so wrong that so many people ignored the crimes of Saddam's regime for so long.Iraqi Mojohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14348791832474839472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-50353543168871139302009-12-29T20:06:19.398-08:002009-12-29T20:06:19.398-08:00Yeah, I think Blair thought that getting rid of Sa...Yeah, I think Blair thought that getting rid of Saddam was a moral issue that needed to be dealt with.Joel Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-77512366522073718032009-12-29T19:08:52.172-08:002009-12-29T19:08:52.172-08:00This could just be my faulty memory, but didn'...This could just be my faulty memory, but didn't Blair have almost as much of a bee in his bonnet about Ba'ath Iraq as the PNAC even prior to the Bush Administration's post-9/11 push for the invasion?AndrewSshihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12092217847584427587noreply@blogger.com