Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "You still deliberately choose to ignore those 6,000 warheads that Iraq FALSELY reported to the UN had been expended during the Iran-Iraq war."
Nope, I fully acknowledge them. Let me give you my version of the (short) history of Iraq's attempts to hide chemical weapons:
(a) Iraq bought / developed / used chemical weapons during the gulf war, which ended in the late 80s.
(b) Iraq was defeated militarily by the US and allies in 1992, and as part of the agreement to end hostilities, agreed to get rid of its chemical weapons.
(c) UN resolutions requiring Iraq to get rid of its chemical weapons were passed, and UN inspectors went to Iraq.
(d) Iraq tried to hide its chemical weapons, hindered UN inspections, but despite this, chemical weapons kept getting found.
(e) It became very obvious that Iraq would repeatedly refuse to get rid of its chemical weapons.
(f) Bush and Blair read the above history, noticed that Iraq insisted on keeping its chemical weapons, and in 2002 concluded that Iraq would never get rid of its chemical weapons.
(g) Saddam read the above history, noticed that Iraq's chemical weapons kept getting found, and decided to finally give up on hiding them.
(h) Bush and Blair expected Iraq to continue to hinder UN inspectors, and called for a UN resolution demanding inspections.
(i) Iraq, in a complete surprise to all the hawks, opened its doors to UN inspections, even allowing inspectors unhindered access to Saddam's palaces. They even proposed to allow the CIA full unhindered access to the country.
(j) Bush and Blair, seeing Iraq's acceptance of UN inspections, failed to realize that Iraq truly had gotten rid of its chemical weapons, and due to faulty humint, (which largely consisted of out of date information and expatriates who were known liars with an ax to grind) concluded that the chemical weapons were still there.
(k) The CIA and M5 leaked to the press that they had no proof of Iraq still possessing chemical weapons, but Bush and Blair still believed their faulty humint.
(l) Most of the world, including most of Iraq's neighbors, weighed the evidence and concluded that inspections should continue of Iraq.
(m) But Bush and Blair, still believing their faulty humint, concluded that the UN inspectors were working for Iraq, and that it would be in the best interests to attack Iraq immediately as they were certain that WMDs would be located very quickly.
(n) But no WMDs were used or even found, indicating that when Saddam said that Iraq had gotten rid of their chemical weapons (as of 2002/2003) he was telling the truth.
-- Carl
P.S. Re: "But being the "intelligence professional" you claim to be, surely professionally trained in all the "dark arts", can you sit there and TRUTHFULLY tell us that a totalitarian regime would just haphazardly account for such deadly weapons without having absolute accountability for their disposition and/or destruction."
I've never claimed to be an intelligence professional. But what you're claiming is to be able to sit there and tell us that you know how a totalitarian thinks.
You're so 100% convinced that Saddam would keep track of the destruction of those WMDs. How do you know this for sure? Another explanation is that Saddam, being an Arab, did not want to lose face, so when he ordered the remaining, undiscovered WMDs destroyed, he also ordered that all record of their destruction be also destroyed, thereby "proving" to the world that Iraq had been unfairly accused of hiding WMDs.
Your problem is that you came up with a thesis back in 2002, and you haven't altered it in response to new information.
For that matter, Bush and Blair's mistake is an old one.
In war, (and international relations) it's a good idea to take advantage of your opponent's repetitive behavior. (For example, their repeatedly hiding chemical weapons and hindering UN inspectors.) But one should never assume that one's opponent will not change his tactics. (And get rid of their WMDs, and welcoming UN inspectors.)
Your explanation of reality is incompatible with the demonstrable change in attitude towards inspectors between 1998 and 2002. My explanation is that in 1998 the Iraqis were trying to hide their WMDs, while in 2002 they were trying to prove that they didn't have any (which was true) and, to a lesser extent, that they'd never had any (which was not true).
Never assume that your opponent is an idiot who won't change his tactics.
That is the mistake that Bush and Blair made, and it is costing them big time. What pisses me off is that it's costing the rest of us too. And wait till you see what the US troops returning from the occupation are going to say. |
