I agree with your point that if WMD did not exist, it would be impossible to account for them: one cannot prove a negative.

So by itself, the logic of the inspections didn’t “work,” a logical faux-pas I found troubling even as the inspections were being undertaken.

And if all we had to go on was Colin Powell’s UN testimomy, I’d almost certainly agree with you in retrospect, especially given the logically-impossible requirement underlying the inspections that the Iraqi government “prove a negative.”

But the determination that Saddam Hussein had WMD was made long before Mr. Powell’s testimony, dating well back to the mid 90’s: it was the strongly-held consensus of virtually every intelligence agency who investigated the matter, and was the official position of the UN (which is why that august body approved sanctions).

In this connection, we know that France, China and Russia each had strong historic ties with and economic interests in Saddam’s Iraq, and saw it in their best interests to avert an invasion, preferring to see sanctions simply fizzle away over time.

If they had had any second thoughts about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, why would they not play that card in order to avert the invasion that threatened to cost them billions?

So — Colin Powell’s comments merely supplemented (albeit most dramatically and persuasively) what was already known. In my opinion, it was so plausible, and so consistent with what their own intelligence services were telling them, that those 3 countries in particular saw no basis to claim otherwise.

I’m afraid I don’t find either the vintage of the weapons or the “small amounts” of them to be insignificant: they were significant precisely because Mr. Hussein had admitted to having them, but had not accounted for their destruction.

Having failed to account for such “small amounts”, one had to wonder why they were not accounted for; whether or not they had been maintained; and whether or not other WMD had been newly constructed or acquired and hidden along with the pre-91 weapons. The obstructionist behavior of the Iraqis towards the inspectors was also troubling.

So IMO the “failure to account” was highly significant, far more so than either the vintage of the weapons found, their condition or their numbers or amounts.

I notice I misspelled “Merkur” in my last post. Sorry — it was unintentional.

Brian

… as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents… If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq War, UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be on the order of a thousand tons… There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more… Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent… In 1995, as a result of another defector, we find out that, after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein had initiated a crash program to build a crude nuclear weapon, in violation of Iraq’s UN obligations.

As you say, way off-topic. The point is relevant to L Scott’s position however: “Accounting for the weapons in order to prevent military action would have been good.” I agree, it would have been good. The problem is that, if those weapons identified by Powell did not in fact exist, then there is simply no way that anybody could possibly account for them.

Your point about Rwanda raises the biggest weakness of the UN. In the case of Rwanda, the US, UK, Russia et al on the security council did not want to intervene to stop the genocide, they therefore blocked the UN from doing anything.

THe UN can only act when the US and others on the security council want it to act.

I’m sure that chemical weapons existed in Iraq, since while I was there I met some of the victims of Halabja. The problem is, that was in the 1990s; no significant WMDs have been found post-invasion, as far as I’m aware – but feel free to prove me wrong.

The issue of WMDs in Iraq is pretty far off topic, and I’d promised myself I wouldn’t contribute to it.

But, I think it is worth noting that WMDs were found in Iraq, post-Saddam.

True, most of these were old and probably degraded.

But that makes the point they were some of the very ones that Mr. Hussein was known to have had on hand prior to inspections, had failed to account for, and, indeed, had prompted and sustained the UN inspections themselves, not to mention having factored heavily into the rationale for invasion.

It’s also worth noting that the debates before the war, both domestic and international, centered on what to do about the WMD Mr. Hussein was known to have, not on whether or not he had them.

Was military action warranted? Should sanctions be prolonged, and if so, for how long and under what conditions should they be lifted? Those were the topics of pre-war debate.

Brian

The Bush administration’s decision to go to war was a brash move that put a lot of real people in peril, but the so-called diplomatic efforts were also very deadly (with comparitively little in the way of public outrage) and did not seem to be yielding much. The sanctions were grinding the weak and poor and the oil-for-food kickbacks were funding Sadaam.

With the view we now have into Iraq and the UN-management of sanctions and weapons inspections, it becomes increasingly apparent that there was (and is) a real problem at the top. The UN does not seem ready to acknowledge problems or reform.

Accounting for the weapons in order to prevent military action would have been good. That’s my point.

The UN Secretariat (and Annan in particular) were clearly negligent in their duty – but the members of the Security Council (including the US) were largely responsible for failing to provide the political pressure or material support that would have led to a response.

And the US gov incompetence in dealing (or not)with Katrina has never been matched by the UN.

Sure. 800,000 slaughtered in Rwanda can’t possibly compare to Katrina.

In the first instance I can assure you that the gun existed because it was a supposition that I created. There is no possibility that the lunatic felon was not lunatic, nor that he was not a felon. The police did not, as you say “shoot somebody who was unarmed” It’s my story. He was armed. You don’t have to stand in his defense. He would have killed kids.

In that case, I apologise – I thought I was supposed to be taking your argument seriously. As I now understand, what you’re saying is that this is a hypothesis that you’ve made up in order to prove your point.

Back in the real world, meanwhile, policemen are required to have a good reason for shooting people. The primary requirement in your convenient hypothesis would be that the suspect was armed, and if you can’t find a gun post-incident, that reasoning looks pretty weak. The point I was making about labelling somebody a “lunatic felon” is that this would be hard for a police officer to do, since those terms require the judgement of a court. Which is why we have courts in this country, in case you were wondering.

Obviously you don’t think so, which is why I’m glad you’re not a police officer.

I am also pretty sure that WMD existed in Iraq since they were used there to kill people.

I’m sure that chemical weapons existed in Iraq, since while I was there I met some of the victims of Halabja. The problem is, that was in the 1990s; no significant WMDs have been found post-invasion, as far as I’m aware – but feel free to prove me wrong.