The Inspections Are Working

thaiboxerken said:
How can you say the inspections didn't work when Hussein's nuclear and WMD programs were rendered inactive because of them? I guess your cognitive dissonance has your mind in a knot.
Click to expand...


Because they were not. His program was stopped first by Israel bombing his reactor and then the bombing of his re-built facilities in 1991 and again in 1998 while the IAEA was being led by the nose declaring all was just dandy.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Click to expand...

THis was 7 years after IAEA placed their "seals" .
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
Because they were not. His program was stopped first by Israel bombing his reactor and then the bombing of his re-built facilities in 1991 and again in 1998 while the IAEA was being led by the nose declaring all was just dandy.
Click to expand...

That's your fantasy, and it's fine for you to hold to such silly beliefs. Yes, the first bombing crippled the facility. However, there is no evidence that there was an active WMD/nuclear weapon program going on during the inspections. The only semblence of evidence shown so far is yellowcake which has been sealed by inspectors and seals only broken by americans after the invasion. This shows, for a fact, that the inspections were working.
 
Texas said:
Because they were not. His program was stopped first by Israel bombing his reactor and then the bombing of his re-built facilities in 1991 and again in 1998 while the IAEA was being led by the nose declaring all was just dandy.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html



THis was 7 years after IAEA placed their "seals" .
Click to expand...
were the seals broken?
Was there evidence of a uranium enrichment facility?
Was there...
oh never mind.

You're right... we must invade all countries we don't like.
 
joobz said:
were the seals broken?
Was there evidence of a uranium enrichment facility?
Was there...
oh never mind.

You're right... we must invade all countries we don't like.
Click to expand...

You are so busy apologising for Saddam you can't even comprehend the evidence. Clinton didn't invade he just did what he had to do since the IAEA had failed.
 
joobz said:
were the seals broken?
Was there evidence of a uranium enrichment facility?
Was there...
oh never mind.

You're right... we must invade all countries we don't like.
Click to expand...

C'mon Joobz, it's not fair to bring facts into this.
 
Texas said:
You are so busy apologising for Saddam you can't even comprehend the evidence.
Click to expand...

What evidence?

Clinton didn't invade he just did what he had to do since the IAEA had failed.
Click to expand...

And he was wrong to bomb these places since there was no evidence of WMD or nuclear weapon production.
 
Texas said:
I see I have found the Saddam fan club so further discussion is pointless.
Click to expand...
You dissapoint me. You can't support your arguments with facts so you resort to false jingoistic dichotomies. You're either with us or against us? Good job there. Why don't you also call me a commie pinko while you're at it.


BTW, check back in this thread and show me where I said Saddam was a great guy we can trust. While you're looking for something that doesn't exist you should see this post.
joobz said:
I agree. I, personally, saw no reason to lift the inspections. It was in the UN's best interests to maintain them. Saddam was a caged dangerous animal. But he wasn't unique in that fashion. I would much rather have seen our military and diplomatic resources focused on afghanistan and the groups which were directly responsible for 9/11. Since the weapons inspections were successul, a change in that policy represented a foolish decision.
Click to expand...


I'm practical. it's clear that the Iraq war stretched our military. We would have been much better served to focus on the front we started on, Afghanistan.
 
joobz said:
I'm practical. it's clear that the Iraq war stretched our military. We would have been much better served to focus on the front we started on, Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Why? If you look at the issue strategically the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was to find a single man. The Taliban was irrelevant except for the fact that they gave Bin Laden safe haven. Bin Laden slipped trough the net but he can no longer operate freely anywhere but he can effectivly hide out since to find a single individual with that terrain and support he gets from others is next to impossible. There is no hope of changing Afghanistan into a functioning state so we are wasting resources there and should be shifting them to Iraq. If Bin Laden is still alive he is far away from Afghanistan and we could put a million boots on the ground there and accomplish nothing. The truth is that Afghanistan is a smokescreen for the left to get us out of Iraq, a place that can be salvaged. Afghanistan has Benn proven throughout history to be ungovernable. The moment we cut and run from Iraq then the cry will be lifted to leave Afghanistan as well. I have spent all the time I intend to on this issue. So please spare me the red herring of Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
Why? If you look at the issue strategically the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was to find a single man. The Taliban was irrelevant except for the fact that they gave Bin Laden safe haven.
Click to expand...
False. Taliban was directly relevant because they harbored the terrorist which orchestrated the primary attack.
Texas said:
Bin Laden slipped trough the net but he can no longer operate freely anywhere but he can effectivly hide out since to find a single individual with that terrain and support he gets from others is next to impossible. There is no hope of changing Afghanistan into a functioning state so we are wasting resources there and should be shifting them to Iraq.
Click to expand...
false. it was a logical theater for helping establish a country better than it was. We are in an ideological war and we had world support in afghanistan. We could have maintained that effort to help improve the nation. to destroy and leave, we would have helped generate more terrorists.

Texas said:
If Bin Laden is still alive he is far away from Afghanistan and we could put a million boots on the ground there and accomplish nothing. The truth is that Afghanistan is a smokescreen for the left to get us out of Iraq, a place that can be salvaged.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Afghanistan wasn't purely about bin laden, but attacking states which sponser terrorism. Iraq wasn't that. We went there for wrong reasons.
Texas said:
Afghanistan has Benn proven throughout history to be ungovernable. The moment we cut and run from Iraq then the cry will be lifted to leave Afghanistan as well. I have spent all the time I intend to on this issue. So please spare me the red herring of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Taliban seemed to do well there. It can be done.

Iraq was a terrible terrible terrible mistake.
It wasn't a danger.
It had no direct relationship to our war on terror.
 
BPSCG said:
Then the only uses for [yellowcake] are illegitimate ones. Let's have a look at some possible illegitimate uses for yellowcake:
  • Donating it to Cynthia McKinney's presidential campaign.
Which do you think is most plausible?
Click to expand...
I like the above one.

----------------
To: C. McKinney
Fr: S. Hussein
Re: Campaign Donation

Your grate! I want to help you're campaign by donating 550 lbs of yellowcake. You can use it to build a bomb to shove up McSame's arse. But I want some capitalist pig to match my donation as a smoke screen or I'll give it to my new found buddy, Chavez.

Yores in the Jihad,

S.
----------------
To: S. Hussein
Fr: Ms. McKinney
Re: Campaign Donation

Great news! The most notorious pig I know is some jerkweed known as BPSCG. He'll be Great Cover. I'll fake a contact with him.

Your for the downfall of Amerika,

MS. McKinney.
----------------
To: BPSCG
Fr: Zell Miller
Re: Campaign Donation

Dear Mr. BPSCG (and wife and kids and in-laws and ancestors and others):
Please donate to Mr. C. McKinney to help further the takeover of america. Yur contribution will be matched by another grate 'merican.

Your mist sincere and steadfast democrat republican,

Zell or-they-can-go-to-hell Miller
----------------
To: My Most Honorable Representative Miller
Fr: Your friend Beeps
Re: Campaign Donation

I am so sorry to report that I have already max'ed out my donations to the campaign of the Most Honorable Ms. McKinney since I support her positions based on all the evidence.

Your Favorite Capitalist,

Mr. BPSCG
----------------
To: Rev. Hussein
Fr: MS. (note the emphasis) McKinney
Re: Flake

mr. BPSCG cannot match yur donation. But I still hope to get that orange-trending-to-blue-cake from you as it will be vital to my explosive campaign.
----------------
To: Feminist McKinney
Fr: His Royal, Lifetime Emperor
Re: Capitalist Pig BPSCG.

Do you have an e-mail contact for His Honor Ralph Nadar?
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
Putting them under a seal does not render them harmless. North Korea's weapons development was put under a seal, too. Then one fine day, NK announced they were tired of not belonging to the nuclear club and were going to resume their weapons development and they simply broke the seals, rendering their previously harmless nuclear program un-harmless.

Putting a seal on something doesn't render it harmless. It simply lets you know if what's under it has been tampered with.
Click to expand...
I've no quibble with all of that but I do have a major objection to the implied analogy with Iraq because the two situations were (are?) so different. A very limited inspection team was in NK while Iraq was swimming in them. Iraq did not break the seals. We had a LOT of on-site military presence in Iraq that could deliver some serious consequences if the seals were broken; not so in NK.

In short, the analogy does not offer any useful analyses or conclusions.
 
Texas said:
From Resolution 684
Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above;
Click to expand...

Yellowcake is material that is required to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I think it is clear that a material required to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons is NOT the same thing as a nuclear-weapons-usable material.

If you disagree, please explain why the two are equivalent.
 
Texas said:
Why? If you look at the issue strategically the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was to find a single man.
Click to expand...
That is clearly not true. You remember the deck of cards identifying all the AQ people we were after? That is clear evidence we were after the AQ organization, not OBL. You remember all the times that Bush announced that we had killed/captured AQ #2, or AQ #3, or whatever? If we were ONLY after OBL why did all these other clowns merit a press release, a White House/Pentagon press briefing and so much blowhard from the right-wing chattering class?
 
Texas said:
Yellowcake is material that is required to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

You consider it nuclear weapons useable material, you have not shown that anyone else did.

A great many raw materials can be proccessed in such a way so that they can be used in nuclear weapons, so there needs to be some cut off that says how close to being useable in a nuclear weapon "nuclear weapon useable material" must be.

So as I can see uses of that phrase that include of exclude yellowcake, I am asking you to show that it was interpreted to include yellowcake by those actualy enforcing the resolution.
 
Texas said:
So for it to mean yellowcake it had to say yellowcake. I saw no mention of centrifuges, raw uranium, or any other specific component either. You are now reduced to finding loopholes, much like Saddam did, and that means the debate has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

It needs to be clear how close to useable something needs to be for it to be covered.

This was known about as inspectors put seals on it. So this is not newer than the inspections, so your claims that we have no idea when he aquired it are just silly.

All we want is somewhere that clearly indicates what the status of raw uranium was under their guidelines.

You keep going to ambiguous statements that could be interpreted in many different ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom