What if Blix had found Saddam's Iraq compliant ?

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
. . . march 2003 . . . blix reports the ba'athists have accelerated their compliance. full-compliance
is very near.

his team will not find any wmd stockpiles. for arguement's sake, lets assume none exist.
additionally though, lets assume, for arguement's sake, blix would not have uncovered what
dr. kay fell upon. what does the future for ba'athist iraq and the world look like to you ?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
US declared UN irrelevant, blix compromised and invaded iraq

asking for 1-2 months more like the inspectors did was too much for the US since they had been mobalizing everything to the gulf in the last few months and waiting stationary with a full fleet longer was very costly
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Czar
US declared UN irrelevant, blix compromised and invaded iraq

asking for 1-2 months more like the inspectors did was too much for the US since they had been mobalizing everything to the gulf in the last few months and waiting stationary with a full fleet longer was very costly

i'm assuming in this no campaign. we would have continued with the talk and would
have allowed the latest inspection process to proceed to closure. then what ?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
then the motive wouldnt have a leg to stand on, but like I said, they would have declared it invalid most likely because of some conenctions and maybe if they had the info point out the current scandal with saddams payoffs

that
or that it would have been proven effective to mobilize such a large fleet that next stop would be to move it to north korea
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Czar
then the motive wouldnt have a leg to stand on, but like I said, they would have declared it invalid most likely because of some conenctions and maybe if they had the info point out the current scandal with saddams payoffs

that
or that it would have been proven effective to mobilize such a large fleet that next stop would be to move it to north korea

in other words, you would have had zero confidence in the validity of blix's work (and
findings) because cynically there would have some mysterious 'connection' or possible
bribery charges linked to blix through saddam's milking of the oil-for-food program ? i
don't understand.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
no, I would, im just talking about what could happen in the situation and how the US would deal with it with them having a huge fleet nearby and their motive gone
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
What exactly did Dr. Kay stumble upon ?

"We were almost all wrong."
Kay confirmed what Blix had stated - Iraq had essentially disarmed.
Only the lack of 'Documentation' was open to discussion.
Iraq had no way to verify any stockpiles that the U.S. had
captured and destroyed at the end of Gulf-1.
We didn't even account for what we captured and destroyed there.

Are you still beating your wife?
How do you answer that kind of hypothetical questioning ?
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
The UN had been looking for 12 years. Iraq had been suspicious for 12 years. Neither side was budging, and neither side was finding anything new. One to two months would not have led to a solid conclusion, unless you think that Blix was some super searcher who did what no one else could do. With Blix's hatred for the US I sometimes doubt he even did anything over there but protest the war.


The facts are after the war millions of documents were uncovered that Blix had no idea about. There was also an entire branch of the Iraqi government setup to slow the UN and create a beareucratic nightmare. They did great. Even if Saddam didn't have weapons he sure left an impression with a lot of people (US, NATO, Europe, China, Iran, and UN) that he did. What did he really have to gain from this other than to keep Iran at bay.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: irwincur
With Blix's hatred for the US I sometimes doubt he even did anything over there but protest the war.


The facts are after the war millions of documents were uncovered that Blix had no idea about.

There was also an entire branch of the Iraqi government setup to slow the UN and create a beareucratic nightmare.

Can I see links for these statements?

And sounds like you agree with the liberals, which is a change from you. That we had no proof Saddam has WMDs so our war's foundation was built on a swamp.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
no, I would, im just talking about what could happen in the situation and how the US would deal with it with them having a huge fleet nearby and their motive gone

They would have went home like in 1998 when Clinton had 300,000 soldiers on the border. For some reason that time however even without a UN resolution the Europeans had a large fighting force there. Hmm, I wonder what had changed between 1998 and 2002 other than the fact that the UN had been kicked out of Iraq. Oh, I know, the Oil for Food program and the Iraqi people were a$$ raped by Europe. Such kindly liberal Socialsts they are.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What exactly did Dr. Kay stumble upon ?

"We were almost all wrong."
Kay confirmed what Blix had stated - Iraq had essentially disarmed.
Only the lack of 'Documentation' was open to discussion.
Iraq had no way to verify any stockpiles that the U.S. had
captured and destroyed at the end of Gulf-1.
We didn't even account for what we captured and destroyed there.

what exactly dr. kay stumbled upon is detailed in his october report.
read it. one or two pages in and the list begins.

your bolded statement above pertains to the absence of stockpiles,
not to the presence of the items he uncovered with his team and
detailed in the report.

where did kay confirm a thing blix had done ? none of the items
discovered by kay were ever found by blix. blix had to twist the
arm of the ba'athists to see their al-samoud missiles were put to
sleep, but he had no clue about their efforts to acquire illegal
missile tech from north korea or their development of new
biological strains or their development of scud fuel propellant,
etc., on and on. so what are you talking about ?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
no, I would, im just talking about what could happen in the situation and how the US would deal with it with them having a huge fleet nearby and their motive gone

They would have went home like in 1998 when Clinton had 300,000 soldiers on the border. For some reason that time however even without a UN resolution the Europeans had a large fighting force there. Hmm, I wonder what had changed between 1998 and 2002 other than the fact that the UN had been kicked out of Iraq. Oh, I know, the Oil for Food program and the Iraqi people were a$$ raped by Europe. Such kindly liberal Socialsts they are.

such hatred for Europe, amazing
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: lozina
Can I see links for these statements?

And sounds like you agree with the liberals, which is a change from you. That we had no proof Saddam has WMDs so our war's foundation was built on a swamp.

blix filed progress reports in february and march 2003. he was required to file them every month
under the rules for the new inspection regime but these last two months are most relevant now.

both reports, to some degree, review the progress achieved over the past 30 days, and highlight
areas where the baathists were starting to show greater 'openness'.

now, all you need do, is compare blix's reports for february and march 2003 with dr. kay's interim
progress report submitted in october 2003. blix's reports are a very short read, esp. february and
march, and the only part you need to read of dr. kay's interim report in his list of discoveries that
comes at the very start. comparing the two, you tell us where the similarities lie with regard to what
ech inspection tem discovered. very simple.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Can I see links for these statements?

I really don't have time to look up the various articles. Take it or leave it.

And sounds like you agree with the liberals, which is a change from you. That we had no proof Saddam has WMDs so our war's foundation was built on a swamp.

I can see things both ways and amazingly even can slant the other way - rarely. About the proof. Probably a good reaosn why circumstanital evidence is not always the best, but most of the time it was. In any court in the world the evidence we had against Saddam would have been more than enough for a conviction.

Whatever the case, Saddam did not do a good job of persuading the world that he was innocent. He actually made himself look even more guilty on nemerous occasions. Why? Who the hell knows. But when every decent intelligence agency in the world comes to the same conclusion - it is generally accepted as fact. In this case everyone in the world was wrong - so you can honestly say Bush was not lying, because you would have to then say that everyone was lying.

That being said. I am sure that there were still weapons over there - and the Sarin is proof. You will say that it is not enough, but the burden of proof is small. A single weapons does meet the threshold set by the UN. But then there is the logic involved, no one makes a single weapon. Nor do they purposely rebottle it into unmarked shells (normal bio shells would be marked for battlefield ID). I happen to think that there is a large cache of unmarked Mustard and Sarin shells somewhere. But the challenge is finding them in an area covering 150,000 sq miles with less than 1000 men looking. That is a lot of space per man. Which makes the 100 man UN missions look like a much larger joke.

such hatred for Europe, amazing

Well deserved. If anyone was blatantly lying to their people it was the leadership of France and Russia. They were the one padding Saddam's pockets, robbing the UN, and robbing the Iraqi people. Then they tried to make a moral stand against a war that was to cost them billions.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
So then CRGBPFY, you're sticking with the Bush Fantasy reguardless of the facts.

Oh boy!, they found a 14 year old arlilllary shell dud that had some 2-part constituant
in it's casing that would't mix and disperse unless armed and fired from a howitzer,
which also was so old that the components were in fact useless.

What did the subway dispersion of Sarin in Japan teach the world about nerve gas ?
That even in a confined envelope, the results were not as drastic as the consequences
were beleived to be - Yes 12 died, but there were hundreds that did not.
The 'Nerve Gas Panic' of the 50's and 60's proved to be more hype than substance.

Oh Whoope-De-Do, Kay found 'Programs' Anything can be a 'Program'
The USDA unleashed a plague of disease upon the American Public by
allowing the sale of tainted meat, cheese, and vegetables - that's a 'Program'
More people have died here in this country from the sloppy allowances of our
Governments Agriculture Department watchdogs than from Iraq's 'Programs'

Maybe if they keep looking they'll find a turd in a punchbowl over there.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
So then CRGBPFY, you're sticking with the Bush Fantasy reguardless of the facts.

Oh boy!, they found a 14 year old arlilllary shell dud that had some 2-part constituant
in it's casing that would't mix and disperse unless armed and fired from a howitzer,
which also was so old that the components were in fact useless.

What did the subway dispersion of Sarin in Japan teach the world about nerve gas ?
That even in a confined envelope, the results were not as drastic as the consequences
were beleived to be - Yes 12 died, but there were hundreds that did not.
The 'Nerve Gas Panic' of the 50's and 60's proved to be more hype than substance.

Oh Whoope-De-Do, Kay found 'Programs' Anything can be a 'Program'
The USDA unleashed a plague of disease upon the American Public by
allowing the sale of tainted meat, cheese, and vegetables - that's a 'Program'
More people have died here in this country from the sloppy allowances of our
Governments Agriculture Department watchdogs than from Iraq's 'Programs'

Maybe if they keep looking they'll find a turd in a punchbowl over there.

your criticisms above resemble a drip painting that manges to saturate alot of
ground without forming a coherent image. i can fill in the gaps and try to scrape
a meaning together, but . . . eh.

with respect to your troubles defining 'program', dr. kay didn't experience similar
difficulties when he wrote the report detailing the uncovered evidence, which must
serve to explain your epileptic response. he explicitly says early in the preamble
to the report that iraq's wmd capablities have undergone profound 'compartmentalization'.
hmmm, i wonder why . ..

as for the 14 year old artillery shell, that's another thread.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
It's a Hook, Line, ans Sinker swallowing of the bait.

You have already made up you mind that the Bush Administration if without fault
regardless of the facts. As more facts come out and the bush fantash is proved
baseless you continue to embrace the faulty logic that propelled the Bushies.

dr. kay (no capital letters, as you like to portray him) worked at the direction of Bush
and his administration. He, like all the others around bush (again, small letters)
only reported that evidence that they were paid to filter/mine for the 'Correct' data.
Facts were discarded if hey did not support a foregone conclusion.

dr. kay (little) had to resign from his position as Head Smoke and Mirror Generator
before he could talk about the facts as they were to be correctly presented.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Oh boy!, they found a 14 year old arlilllary shell dud that had some 2-part constituant

That is not the point. Quit trying to qualify everything to meet your own definitions. The facts... there were two shells found. One did have Sarin and it was still dangerous. One did have Mustard but it was degraded. Saddam was to have neither of these weapons. The odds of them being the only weapons Saddam built or stored are exceedingly low.

You are on the wrong side of this issue, the wrong side of logic, and the wrong side of history. No wonder you liberals are so angry right now, the history books are going to make you all look like complete and utter fools.

What did the subway dispersion of Sarin in Japan teach the world about nerve gas ?

It taught us that it could kill and injure - they did injure over 3000 people. They also had an inneffective release method - punching holes in a abaggie is not effective. An aeorsol release in a similar environment would most likely have killed at least 3000 and injured many thousands more. Sarin is not to be messed with, a mist sized droplet is deadly. It is a WMD.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
irwincur -

What's this - are you syzygy's designated clone ? or another 'secret' account he maintains ?

You are just parroting whatever he says and siding with indefensable situations.

'I'm on the wrong side of history ?' what kind of speel is that ? a Limbaugh Letter ?

Bush is the on the wrong side of history, both factual AND revisionist, as well as
being on the wrong side of 'Intelligence' both Military facts and personal reasoning.
I will conceed that he is on the 'Right' side of Stupidity - as in 'Compassionate Conservative'
with which he has proven over and over again and again that he fails to comprehend.

You talk about 2 that's TWO, yes QUANTITY 2 - obsolete artillary shells that had contents
that were of banned substance, residual Mustard Gas and depleted Sarin chemicals.
Do you even want to venture a guess as to how much banned WMD the U.S. has stockpiled ?
If it's banned why do we still retain the huge arsenal of materials that we can't use ?
Is it something that the Revisionist Historians are making up, or stuff we refuse to dispose of ?

But Saddam was supposed to give them up - yep, and so was Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
Clinton, and Bush II, the lightweight. Do you really think that any of our Presidents know
how much of what is where ? The Military would never volunteer that information to the
President, and what he dosen't know dosen't implicate him, or them in cover-ups.
(a la Reagan & Iran Contra)

Have you been paying any attention to what Kissinger hass been raying about Nixon
in the last few days ? He looks like a Madman (But he was our Madman !)
shows to me that both Nixon and Reagan were loose cannons in the Whitehouse.
And Bush isn't half the man that either of them was, but may be more of a Madman.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: irwincur
Oh boy!, they found a 14 year old arlilllary shell dud that had some 2-part constituant

That is not the point. Quit trying to qualify everything to meet your own definitions. The facts... there were two shells found. One did have Sarin and it was still dangerous. One did have Mustard but it was degraded. Saddam was to have neither of these weapons. The odds of them being the only weapons Saddam built or stored are exceedingly low.

You are on the wrong side of this issue, the wrong side of logic, and the wrong side of history. No wonder you liberals are so angry right now, the history books are going to make you all look like complete and utter fools.

What did the subway dispersion of Sarin in Japan teach the world about nerve gas ?

It taught us that it could kill and injure - they did injure over 3000 people. They also had an inneffective release method - punching holes in a abaggie is not effective. An aeorsol release in a similar environment would most likely have killed at least 3000 and injured many thousands more. Sarin is not to be messed with, a mist sized droplet is deadly. It is a WMD.

Actually, I would say it's the conservatives who are in a frenzy to redeem themselves of believing the whole WMD ploy by exaggerating the finding of a pair of obsolete artillery shells.

Sure, they constitute WMDs- but Bush didn't tell us we're invading Iraq because Saddam has an arsenal of 2 artillery shells- one of which has become inert, the other they do not know how to trigger correctly. That does not sound very threatening, does it?

Mustard gas- has a shelf life so to call them a threat you might as well sy Iraq's arsenal of AK-47's are WMD.

Sarin- Funny, Powell never mentioned Sarin in his speech to UN on Iraq's weapons. I can't find it mentioned as part of Iraq's deadly stockpiles anywhere- all I can find is reference to a research project conducted (long ago) on Sarin shells which never went into full production or military use.

Powell's speech:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/05/iraq/main539476.shtml

Here's what Scott Ritter has to say about the Sarin:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
Why do people think that 12 years and 4 months or 12 years and 6 months or 13 years would have made a difference on how Iraq handled this?

They had 12 years to provide documentaion that they destroyed WMD's from what they claimed at the end of the Gulf War I. How much longer should we have let it drag on? The original UN agreement was for Iraq to provide the documentation in 10 years (look it up yourself) and Iraq failed to do that. They had 2 additional years and now people are speculating how much longer we should have waited.

Now to answer my question.... It wouldn't have changed anything. We were poised to attack and to prevent an attack, the entire ruling party would have had to step down. Mainly due to his inability to conform to the UN demands and actions against his own people and the Kurds. It is also a strategic staging place to hunt down the leaders of most terrorist group heads that reside in the Middle East.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
In keeping with the 'Dud' rate, I recall a joyous night in the Central Hiland Hills
around An Khe, where when under a 'Probe' on the perimiter, we popped off
a bunch of Motar Flares to illuminate the killing zone - we stopped after 5
consecutive 'Duds' popped anywhere fro 20 to 40 feet up after exiting the tube.
We stopped in self defense - all we were lighting up was our mortar placements.
We needed no extra assistance to draw fire.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Why do people think that 12 years and 4 months or 12 years and 6 months or 13 years would have made a difference on how Iraq handled this?

They had 12 years to provide documentaion that they destroyed WMD's from what they claimed at the end of the Gulf War I. How much longer should we have let it drag on? The original UN agreement was for Iraq to provide the documentation in 10 years (look it up yourself) and Iraq failed to do that. They had 2 additional years and now people are speculating how much longer we should have waited.


As I was saying in another thread...

why should the burden of proof be on Saddam on the destruction of the WMDs? How does a country prove they destroyed WMDs? Does he get a receipt from a local scrap yard? What about the fact that the US is demanding this 'proof' now, but perhaps Iraq destroyed these weapons prior to, or immediately after the '91 gulf war? Do you not see a problem with this position and how much it favors the US position?

If a cop came up to me and said 'i know you have a knife in your pocket' and I let him search my pocket, if he does not find anything, can he now isnist: 'well I couldn't find the knife, but you must prove you don't have it anymore, because I saw you with a knife 12 years ago. otherwise: I shoot you, thanks'. Thats insane and any reasonable person should realize that.
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Why do people think that 12 years and 4 months or 12 years and 6 months or 13 years would have made a difference on how Iraq handled this?

They had 12 years to provide documentaion that they destroyed WMD's from what they claimed at the end of the Gulf War I. How much longer should we have let it drag on? The original UN agreement was for Iraq to provide the documentation in 10 years (look it up yourself) and Iraq failed to do that. They had 2 additional years and now people are speculating how much longer we should have waited.


As I was saying in another thread...

why should the burden of proof be on Saddam on the destruction of the WMDs? How does a country prove they destroyed WMDs? Does he get a receipt from a local scrap yard? What about the fact that the US is demanding this 'proof' now, but perhaps Iraq destroyed these weapons prior to, or immediately after the '91 gulf war? Do you not see a problem with this position and how much it favors the US position?

If a cop came up to me and said 'i know you have a knife in your pocket' and I let him search my pocket, if he does not find anything, can he now isnist: 'well I couldn't find the knife, but you must prove you don't have it anymore, because I saw you with a knife 12 years ago. otherwise: I shoot you, thanks'. Thats insane and any reasonable person should realize that.

You are absolutly correct, your analogy is insane. But your analogy doesn't take into account that in 91, the UN demanded that this proof be available in 10 years. So to correct your analogy: If a Judge told me that in 10 years I must have proof that I destroyed the 20 knives that I had when I commited numerous crimes and told me how to provide that proof (which they gave to Iraq) or I'd go to jail for the rest of my life, then I'd duplicate no... Triplicate no... I'd have this proof engraved in the most solid substance I could afford and have the proof duplicated a hundred fold and have the proof that I destroyed that knife and carry it with me all the time. Probably keep it after the 10 year mark just in case.

For Iraq, that was what the US insisted the UN demand in the end of GW1. Like it or not... That is how it went down and Iraq knew how to document what they did destroy, they didn't suddenly not know how to report that the rest of it was destroyed. I think (have no proof) that they were lying in 91 about what they had but that is their stupidity. You can't provide proof of destruction for what you don't have but the UN and the US had the report that the Iraqi's submitted as fact listing what they had and that is what we had to go on.