[hodwik]

Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access.

If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members.

Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis.

Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_U...

Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found.

Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:) that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position.

and

Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

[user_0001]

Not forgetting the US uncessingly trying to undermine the weapon inspections to their own end, according to Blix [1]

Before Blix was sent in, again the cover of "International" weapons inspection (note, not US inspections) were subverted by the US spying and constant attempts to discredit the results if they were wrong (wrong as in not the US version of events) [2]

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966639.stm [2] http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/07/world/us-spied-on-iraq-und...

[hodwik]

[1] Blix didn't say the US "uncessingly" tried to undermine the inspectors. He said that he believed there had been a single leak from someone in the US Government about Blix's failure to report two weapons, and was unable to say who did it -- "Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification."

[2] Spy agencies spy. That is to be expected.

[AnimalMuppet]

It's messier even than that. Iraq didn't have WMDs, but they wanted their neighbors to think that they did. But they wanted the inspectors to think that they didn't. So they couldn't have the inspections be unambiguously clear that Iraq had nothing, because then Iraq's neighbors wouldn't fear Iraq as much. So they tried to play this game of doubt, and the US reached the conclusion that Iraq wanted its neighbors to reach.

[EliRivers]

Remember this graphic, much shown in the media?

The bullshit made up nonsense about mobile WMD factories? Yes. I recall that the thinking was that there were entire convoys of these driving around in deserts somewhere. They had to exist, right, because that explains why we can't find the WMDs.

The decision had been made. Access was irrelevant because the invasion was going to happen anyway. Any number of "smoking guns" could have been found, or just plain fabricated as necessary.

[hodwik]

Just about everyone thought there were WMDs. The decision had been made, yes, but because we thought there were hidden caches and moving caches that the weapons inspectors were ill-equipped to find, and Saddam was comfortable with everyone (Iran especially) believing that.

(I mean, people are still digging up 1980s-era WMDs in Iraq. They're pretty easy to hide, they're not large. It wasn't an insane thing to believe.)

Saddam just made a bad bet when he thought we would go back to inspections the last time, he had played his little good guy/bad guy game too long.

And in the end, good riddance, we should have taken him out WMDs or not -- the problem wasn't an invasion in Iraq, but a poorly planned invasion in Iraq.

[EliRivers]

Just about everyone thought there were WMDs

That is just plain not true. Loud voices shouted over and over that it was true, it was true, here's a bullshit report we made up, believe us believe us. That's not the same as just about everyone.

I read the UN inspection summary myself. It was pretty clear that there was no decent evidence of WMDs (barring some leftover materials from the discontinued productions), or a continuing program to make them. Many of the intelligence people involved agreed. That we were lied to very loudly doesn't mean everyone thought it was true. There was a predetermined agenda; justify an invasion. Make up whatever bullshit we have to. You've got this "curveball" guy making up nonsense bullshit stories that no intelligence analyst in his right mind would believe? Just order the intelligence guys to shut up and get on with invading.

And in the end, good riddance, we should have taken him out WMDs or not -- the problem wasn't an invasion in Iraq, but a poorly planned invasion in Iraq.

Why should we have taken him out? We did it, and it made things worse. A lot, lot worse. How can you possibly, with the benefit of hindsight, maintain that invading Iraq was a good thing to do? Have you seen the state of the place now?

[hodwik]

>"Have you seen the state of the place now?"

I'm not saying the war was free, no war is. Iraq took 116,000 people.

That being said, that number could have been much lower had the initial surge been stronger.

And we knew that Hussein was willing to risk great civilian casualties. We had seen 800,000 deaths as the result of his war with Iran, an estimated half a million killed by his secret police, 180,000 kurds, and so on.

What's more, his policies bankrupted the country, putting many into poverty.

Iraq has now seen a 600% increase in nominal GDP. They now have a national government with representatives from Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups. There is now twice as much electricity produced in their country. Graduation rates are up from 50% to 80% of students. The long-term benefits will be significant.