The Inspections Are Working

Texas said:
Yes BUT the UN ordered it to be removed, destroyed or rendered harmless per Resolution 687 issued in 1991. 13 years later it was still there.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Click to expand...

This depends on what the formal definition of nuclear weapons useable materials is. Clearly there are many things that can be used in a nuclear weapon that are preffectly acceptable, others not so much.

So it is not clear if natural uranium would fit into that or not.
 
BPSCG said:
As I said, I haven't seen a serious answer to my question, "What do you do with 550 metric tons of yellowcake?"

Megalodon suggests that Saddam was collecting it, much like a normal person would collect stamps or commemorative coins. No particular good reason - he just likes having a nice collection.
Click to expand...

It is likely it was purchased for nuclear programs he had, the issue is did he have any active nuclear programs of was this just old things from old programs sitting in a wearhouse?(hmm that makes a workable definition of much of the collection of the national air and space musuem)
 
Texas said:
The UN ordered the IAEA to destroy or remove all nuclear related material in 1991 under Resolution 687. The IAEA did not do as it was ordered. Once again the UN is all bark and no bite.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with anything? Turning this over or destroying it(not sure how you would destroy it other than in a nuclear reactor) was not a demand made by this administration.
 
Megalodon said:
Which means, bringing it back to the thread title, that the inspections were working.
Click to expand...
The inspectors were supposed to verify compliance, which they were unable to do because Saddam didn't document the destruction of his WMD's. They were not there to search high and low for banned materials, that was mission creep necessitated by Saddam's failure to document.

The phrase "the inspections were working", in context, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
WildCat said:
The inspectors were supposed to verify compliance, which they were unable to do because Saddam didn't document the destruction of his WMD's. They were not there to search high and low for banned materials, that was mission creep necessitated by Saddam's failure to document.

The phrase "the inspections were working", in context, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Let's all remember that the main context is a war started based on a perceived imminent threat posed by a nation under inspection, when the inspectors on the ground rightly asserted no such threat existed.

That and, of course, the pathetic attempts at revisionism going on...
 
Megalodon said:
Let's all remember that the main context is a war started based on a perceived imminent threat posed by a nation under inspection,
Click to expand...
No one claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, in the last SOTU address before the war Bush specifically said that Iraq was not an imminent threat.

That and, of course, the pathetic attempts at revisionism going on...
Click to expand...
Indeed, "imminent threat" anyone?
 
Megalodon said:
Let's all remember that the main context is a war started based on a perceived imminent threat posed by a nation under inspection, when the inspectors on the ground rightly asserted no such threat existed.

That and, of course, the pathetic attempts at revisionism going on...
Click to expand...

Between the revisionism and the outright lies... well, what else can we expect from people who still support Bush and the invasion at this late stage? Obviously, Iraq complied with the inspectors and the UN, and didn't have any WMDs. The bizarre double standard of expecting 100% accurate record keeping from Iraq(a nation that Americans generally consider to be a backwards third-world hellhole) while knowing full well that America cannot keep track of its own books with perfect accuracy, is the sort of thing that reinforces the fact that Iraq was going to be invaded no matter what Saddam Hussein did or didn't do.
 
JoeEllison said:
Obviously, Iraq complied with the inspectors and the UN, and didn't have any WMDs.
Click to expand...
Then where are the documents Joe?

The bizarre double standard of expecting 100% accurate record keeping from Iraq(a nation that Americans generally consider to be a backwards third-world hellhole) while knowing full well that America cannot keep track of its own books with perfect accuracy, is the sort of thing that reinforces the fact that Iraq was going to be invaded no matter what Saddam Hussein did or didn't do.
Click to expand...
You think that failure to document the destruction of his WMDs was a bookeeping mistake? :eye-poppi


BTW, these questions are purely rhetorical. Joe will not endanger his rep here by actually engaging in a discussion and backing up his points.
 
JoeEllison said:
Between the revisionism and the outright lies... well, what else can we expect from people who still support Bush and the invasion at this late stage?
Click to expand...
Has anyone else noticed how many of JE's posts begin with an ad hom directed at everyone he disagrees with?
 
The right wingers know they can get away with such things because they understand the fact that most people remember and respond to threats. When a threat is found to be false or made-up, it's not quite so significant and the dishonesty of the situation is lost on them. Fear mongering works.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is likely it was purchased for nuclear programs he had, the issue is did he have any active nuclear programs of was this just old things from old programs sitting in a wearhouse?(hmm that makes a workable definition of much of the collection of the national air and space musuem)
Click to expand...
Ooh, this is the best one yet - it was going to be part of the Baghdad Museum of Saddam's Failed Nuclear Program, which was scheduled to be opened to the public in June, 2009.


Other explanations/excuses we've seen so far:
  • He was just carrying it (like the 497-1/2 feet of rope)
  • Well, he did plan to make nukes, but then gave up on them, so what's the big deal that he didn't actually destroy it?
  • There are other non-nuclear warhead uses for depleted uranium, which is, y'know, like the same thing as yellowcake.
  • Bookkeeping error.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
The right wingers know they can get away with such things because they understand the fact that most people remember and respond to threats. When a threat is found to be false or made-up, it's not quite so significant and the dishonesty of the situation is lost on them. Fear mongering works.
Click to expand...
So it is your position that we had nothing to fear from Saddam's possession of 497-1/2 feet of rope 550 metric tons of yellowcake.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The right wingers know they can get away with such things because they understand the fact that most people remember and respond to threats. When a threat is found to be false or made-up, it's not quite so significant and the dishonesty of the situation is lost on them. Fear mongering works.
Click to expand...
What's really interesting is that a threat can be found to be false or made up, and they still pretend that the nonexistent threat counts as a valid justification for action... when they aren't pretending that the treat really DID exist. These are people who have shown a pattern of never giving up on any failed idea, no matter how many times it has been shown to be wrong. They just present all of the same exact discredited arguments over and over, as though repetition creates reality.
 
BPSCG said:
As I said, I haven't seen a serious answer to my question, "What do you do with 550 metric tons of yellowcake?"

Megalodon suggests that Saddam was collecting it, much like a normal person would collect stamps or commemorative coins. No particular good reason - he just likes having a nice collection.

Joobz suggests that it's a pointless question to ask why someone would collect 550 tons of something that you could make 50 nuclear warheads out of. Okay, joobz, here's an answer that's just as serious as yours: To impress the neighbors.

Hm, come to think of it, that's actually a more serious answer than yours.
Click to expand...
Your question is far from serious, so why should a serious answer be given?

He couldn't do anything with the yellowcake. I'm sure he wanted to create nuclear weapons, but who cares? He couldn't because the sanctions and inspections were working.
 
BPSCG said:
So it is your position that we had nothing to fear from Saddam's possession of 550 metric tons of yellowcake.
Click to expand...

Correct. The Bush administration changed it's official "history" of why we invaded Iraq from "to stop Saddam's WMD programs" to "to liberate the people of Iraq." They did this because they realized, after the invasion, that there was no WMD threat.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Correct. The Bush administration changed it's official "history" of why we invaded Iraq from "to stop Saddam's WMD programs" to "to liberate the people of Iraq." They did this because they realized, after the invasion, that there was no WMD threat.
Click to expand...
One has to wonder how anyone can still believe that Iraq was a military threat to America, when they weren't even able to put up a reasonable fight when we invaded. Of course the Bush administration had to change their reasoning... since it was never their real reasoning to begin with.
 
WildCat said:
No one claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, in the last SOTU address before the war Bush specifically said that Iraq was not an imminent threat.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim that anyone used the phrase "imminent threat", so your strawman is noted.

However, a concept can be explained in many different ways. You can, for instance state that Iraq poses a "unique and urgent threat", or that "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq".

Unless, of course, you're trying to say the pre-war alarmism and fear-mongering didn't exist in the first place, in which case I recommend medical help...


Indeed, "imminent threat" anyone?
Click to expand...

You should try honesty in your debating... it's surprisingly fun.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom