The Inspections Are Working

[BPSCG]

Your question is far from serious, so why should a serious answer be given?

No, my question is utterly serious. He was ordered to get rid of it and prove he'd gotten rid of it. Why didn't he? What was his purpose? What did he have to gain by not getting rid of it?

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.

If he couldn't do anything with it, why didn't he get rid of it, as directed?

 

[BPSCG]

Then where are the documents Joe?


You think that failure to document the destruction of his WMDs was a bookeeping mistake?


BTW, these questions are purely rhetorical. Joe will not endanger his rep here by actually engaging in a discussion and backing up his points.

Don't you just love it when you put up a post and it is immediately proven true? Here are JE's next two posts, which prove he is nothing more than an echo chamber for thaiboxerken:

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.

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.

JE seems to think that repeatedly exchanging the same opinion with someone he totally agrees with is somehow a form of debate.

 

[WildCat]

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

Strawman? You wrote:

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.

So now you wish to revise your claim that while the Bush administration didn't claim there was an imminent threat, you "perceived" that there was one?

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".

None of which has anything to do with the "imminent threat" you apparently "perceived", despite the Bush administration saying Iraq was not an imminent threat.

You should try honesty in your debating... it's surprisingly fun.

 

[JoeEllison]

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...

Don't forget "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The fact that people avoided the specific term "imminent threat" doesn't mean that they weren't fear-mongering and suggesting that Iraq presented a threat that didn't exist in reality.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, my question is utterly serious. He was ordered to get rid of it and prove he'd gotten rid of it. Why didn't he? What was his purpose? What did he have to gain by not getting rid of it?

If he couldn't do anything with it, why didn't he get rid of it, as directed?

I personally think he did it only to spite the orders to make himself feel as if he actually "got on over" on the UN. Instead of asking people to disprove your assertion that he could make WMD's with this yellowcake, perhaps you should actually provide evidence to support your claim.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Don't forget "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The fact that people avoided the specific term "imminent threat" doesn't mean that they weren't fear-mongering and suggesting that Iraq presented a threat that didn't exist in reality.

The message is the same, but for some reason, the neocons are being picky about the semantics. I think it's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Megalodon]

Strawman? You wrote:

So now you wish to revise your claim that while the Bush administration didn't claim there was an imminent threat, you "perceived" that there was one?

No, I'm saying that the Bush administration claimed there was an imminent threat, although not using those exact words.

English... you should learn it sometime...

None of which has anything to do with the "imminent threat" you apparently "perceived", despite the Bush administration saying Iraq was not an imminent threat.

You are either dishonest or deluded... Either way, you're a waste of time.

 

[JoeEllison]

The message is the same, but for some reason, the neocons are being picky about the semantics. I think it's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

Earlier in the same speech, Bush said "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.[/i] Of course, that also wasn't implying that Iraq presented an "imminent threat", just a possible nuclear threat in less than a year. Nothing "imminent" about less than a year, is there?

 

[BPSCG]

I personally think he did it only to spite the orders to make himself feel as if he actually "got on over" on the UN.

And your evidence is...

Instead of asking people to disprove your assertion that he could make WMD's with this yellowcake, perhaps you should actually provide evidence to support your claim.

If you read my posts in this thread, you'll note I have made no claims that he could or could not make WMDs from yellowcake. I have been asking what legitimate use he could have for yellowcake. And I have not gotten a single reasonable answer.

We do know that you can use yellowcake as an early step in making nuclear weapons - even the naysayers here acknowledge that.

What I am trying to do is to get people to tell me whether there is some legitimate reason for someone to be acquiring yellowcake.

If you see me buying bleach and ammonia at the grocery store, you have evidence that I'm preparing to make poison gas. But you'd have to go a long way from there to conclude for certain that I'm preparing to make poison gas, because there are plenty of legitimate uses I could have for both of those items.

So, what legitimate use could he have had for yellowcake?

 

[Big Les]

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.


Indeed, "imminent threat" anyone?

A little OT, but that's certainly how the "shoulder to shoulder" UK government sold the war to politicians and the public alike.

And about 30 seconds googling shows the US government did make statements to the same effect.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/John_Bolton_Bush_never_said_Saddam_0325.html

It was the primary pretext for war, and I'm stunned that anyone would try to deny that. Have you picked up a copy of a defence journal in the last five years? Because the world's military thinkers seem to think that was the reason for the war, even as they try to work out the best way to deal with the aftermath, and to prosecute future campaigns.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And your evidence is...

I have none. I only have the knowledge that he lacked the equipment, resources and facilities to make WMD's from yellowcake. So, why would he keep it given these facts? Perhaps he was dumb enough to think he could make WMD's from the substance.

If you read my posts in this thread, you'll note I have made no claims that he could or could not make WMDs from yellowcake. I have been asking what legitimate use he could have for yellowcake. And I have not gotten a single reasonable answer.

Ok, let's say there is no "legitimate use" for yellowcake, what's your point?

We do know that you can use yellowcake as an early step in making nuclear weapons - even the naysayers here acknowledge that.

So?

What I am trying to do is to get people to tell me whether there is some legitimate reason for someone to be acquiring yellowcake.

What if there isn't? What if his reason for acquiring it was to simply boost his own ego?

 

[BPSCG]

I have none. I only have the knowledge that he lacked the equipment, resources and facilities to make WMD's from yellowcake. So, why would he keep it given these facts? Perhaps he was dumb enough to think he could make WMD's from the substance.

You don't really believe that, do you? The word "Osirak" does mean something to you, doesn't it?

Ok, let's say there is no "legitimate use" for yellowcake, what's your point?

Then the only uses for it are illegitimate ones. Let's have a look at some possible illegitimate uses for yellowcake:

• Printing counterfeit money with it.
• Hiding narcotics inside it for smuggling.
• Donating it to Cynthia McKinney's presidential campaign.
• Sneaking it into a Betty Crocker plant and replacing 550 tons of flour with it.
• Putting it in a paper bag, putting the bag on thaiboxerken's front porch, setting it on fire, then ringing the bell and having a good laugh when thaiboxerken gets all that nasty burnt yellowcake all over his shoes.
• Holding on to it until the day when the international pressure eases off and he can resume his nuclear program.

Which do you think is most plausible?

What if there isn't? What if his reason for acquiring it was to simply boost his own ego?

Since you yourself acknowledge you have no reason to believe that, shall we table that "what if" until you do?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You don't really believe that, do you? The word "Osirak" does mean something to you, doesn't it?

Osirak, whatever happened with that facility after the sanctions took effect?

• Holding on to it until the day when the international pressure eases off and he can resume his nuclear program.

Which do you think is most plausible?

The last one is may have been his reason, however, that's like waiting for a neocon to change his mind about WMD's in Iraq. So, in essence, it's the same as holding onto it to simply feel better about himself and think that he's "one up" on the world.

Since you yourself acknowledge you have no reason to believe that, shall we table that "what if" until you do?

I did have reason to believe it, I gave those reasons but you've seemed to have forgotten. I'll restate, he had no capability to make WMD's, so why would he hold onto it?

 

[joobz]

No, my question is utterly serious. He was ordered to get rid of it and prove he'd gotten rid of it. Why didn't he? What was his purpose? What did he have to gain by not getting rid of it?

Did the IAEA, those responsible for the oversite, require Saddam dispose or get rid of the yellowcake that he had? You seem to want to gloss over this point.

If he couldn't do anything with it, why didn't he get rid of it, as directed?

I'm sure he wanted to do something with it. I'm sure he didn't want to give up the commodity value that it has. But most importantly, he couldn't do anything with it. mainly because the inspections were working.

 

[BPSCG]

Osirak, whatever happened with that facility after the sanctions took effect?

Okay, good, so you acknowledge that Saddam and his scientists weren't complete ignoramuses about how to build nuclear weapons.

The last one is may have been his reason, however, that's like waiting for a neocon to change his mind about WMD's in Iraq.

Spare me the ad homs. It's a strategy that North Korea has played very successfully. Stall, cheat, play for time, agree to behave when it suits your purpose, announce you're going to stop behaving when the opportunity comes. You won't get your atomic bomb as quickly as you would if you could work unfettered, but you'll get it in time.

I did have reason to believe it, I gave those reasons but you've seemed to have forgotten. I'll restate, he had no capability to make WMD's, so why would he hold onto it?

Waiting for the geopolitical situation to change in his favor. We've seen that strategy work.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It seems that BP is trying to debate Saddam's motives instead of what everyone else is talking about.

BPSCG, can yellowcake be used to make WMD's?

 

[BPSCG]

Did the IAEA, those responsible for the oversite, require Saddam dispose or get rid of the yellowcake that he had?

Texas answered that question on page 2 of this thread. The answer is "yes."

I'm sure he wanted to do something with it.

Do you think he had any legitimate purpose for it? (Please don't make me go over the same ground with you that I just did with thaiboxerken...)

But most importantly, he couldn't do anything with it. mainly because the inspections were working.

No, what's most important is that he did not destroy it or dispose of it as directed. As long as he had it, he was in a position to wait things out until the geopolitical climate turned in his favor, the way North Korea did so successfully.

 

[BPSCG]

It seems that BP is trying to debate Saddam's motives instead of what everyone else is talking about.

BPSCG, can yellowcake be used to make WMD's?

That's a ridiculously vague question. It's like asking, "Can eggs be used to make a loaf of bread?"

Do you mean, "Can you make WMDs" (I prefer 'nuclear weapons') "out of nothing but yellowcake?"

No.

Do you mean, "Is getting yellowcake a useful step if you want to build a nuclear weapon?"

Yes.

Of course, you can make other things with eggs. Omelets, quiches, pizza, birthday cakes, mayonnaise, Irish cream.

What other things can you make with yellowcake?

 

[mrbaracuda]

What other things can you make with yellowcake?

Russian cheese cake?

 

[joobz]

Texas answered that question on page 2 of this thread. The answer is "yes."

I'm rather disappointed in you here. I read the document Texas listed and it's clear that it was a UN resolution that required the IAEA to carry out certain tasks. It was the IAEA's job to decide what the course of actions were to be. I do not know what they required of Saddam. If they felt that his ownership and non useage of yellowcake was acceptable or not. I do not know. That was the reason for my question.
"Did the IAEA, those responsible for the oversite, require Saddam dispose or get rid of the yellowcake that he had? You seem to want to gloss over this point."

If so, then you have a legitimate point. If not, then there's nothing of interest here.

Do you think he had any legitimate purpose for it? (Please don't make me go over the same ground with you that I just did with thaiboxerken...)

I feel like you are badgering me here. I've answered the question several times now and am starting to believe that you ask as a rethorical device than an honest question.

1.) It's a commodity worth value. If the IAEA allowed him to keep it, I can understand his desires to not want it sold.
2.) He most likely wanted to develop a nuclear weapons program.

but he couldn't. It's an example of diplomacy that was working. Yes, saddam lashed at the bit. Kicked inspectors out, but when the weight of the world was on his shoulders, he complied. We invaded after his compliance.

No, what's most important is that he did not destroy it or dispose of it as directed. As long as he had it, he was in a position to wait things out until the geopolitical climate turned in his favor, the way North Korea did so successfully.

Are you suggesting we go in and invade north Korea? or that we should have invaded north Korea preemtively?

My problem with Iraq was.
1.) It wasn't a threat
2.) Even at the time didn't serve our political needs.
3.) In Iraq war 1, Cheney knew an occupation would be a "quagmire"
4.) We had a much more important front on the war on terror, Afghanistan.

We could have kept the sanctions going and placed more effort in afghanistan, but the threat of WMDs made us change course. That was a mistake.