The Inspections Are Working

[BPSCG]

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.

Are you saying it was not clear that Saddam was supposed to destroy or dispose of his nuclear toys? Have a look at paragraphs 12 and 13.

It was the IAEA's job to decide what the course of actions were to be.

No, it was the IAEA's job to carry out the resolution of the UN, which directed Saddam to hand over his toys or destroy them.

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.

That's an odd use of the word "compliance." If he was complying, why did he still have 550 tons of yellowcake that he was supposed to have destroyed or surrendered?

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

I am suggesting that just because someone isn't building nuclear weapons today, it doesn't mean he won't try to do it again the minute the political climate changes and he thinks he can get away with it. That's what NK did, and that's what leaving Saddam with some of the stuff he needed to build nuclear weapons would have done.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Yes.

Evidence?

 

[joobz]

Are you saying it was not clear that Saddam was supposed to destroy or dispose of his nuclear toys? Have a look at paragraphs 12 and 13.

Are you cliaming to know what the IAEA defined as harmless? Sorry, but you seem to have a reading comprehension problem on this one.

...urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above

As I said, if the IAEA implemented protocols demanded the destruction/removal of the yellowcake, you are correct. If they didn't, you are incorrect.

No, it was the IAEA's job to carry out the resolution of the UN, which directed Saddam to hand over his toys or destroy them.

Or render them harmless. You seem to forget that one.

That's an odd use of the word "compliance." If he was complying, why did he still have 550 tons of yellowcake that he was supposed to have destroyed or surrendered?

Or rendered harmless. Do you have a textual blind spot to the words rendered and harmless?

I am suggesting that just because someone isn't building nuclear weapons today, it doesn't mean he won't try to do it again the minute the political climate changes and he thinks he can get away with it. That's what NK did, and that's what leaving Saddam with some of the stuff he needed to build nuclear weapons would have done.

So your view is to invade all countries which may at some point in the indeterminant future want to start developing a nuclear weapons program? Shall we invade Iran now?

Please note that I am not at all foolish to believe that saddam would have never attempted to continue the weapons program. But it is clear that for the 10 years between the 1st and 2nd Iraq wars, he was unable to. That means, by definition, that the inspections were working. Funny thing, ain't it.

 

[godless dave]

You were talking about depleted uranium.

What use does yellowcake have?

Making depleted uranium.

And why was Saddam still trying to get more?

There's no evidence he was.

 

[godless dave]

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.

Then we had no reason to invade. Bush ignored his own speech, I guess.

 

[BPSCG]

Or render them harmless. You seem to forget that one.

Nope. Was hoping you'd jump on that. Thanks.

Or rendered harmless. Do you have a textual blind spot to the words rendered and harmless?

Nope. Was hoping you'd jump on that. Thanks.

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.

If you believe putting something under seal "renders it harmless," you'd probably also have believed that Neville Chamberlain's famous piece of paper that he'd gotten Hitler to sign was going to bring the world "peace in our time."

So your view is to invade all countries which may at some point in the indeterminant future want to start developing a nuclear weapons program? Shall we invade Iran now?

That's the second time you've ascribed that position to me. I'd like you to pretty please point out where I suggested that.

 

[joobz]

Nope. Was hoping you'd jump on that. Thanks.

Nope. Was hoping you'd jump on that. Thanks.

Well, that's a rather silly hope, seeing as it destroys point. Why do you do that?

Putting them under a seal does not render them harmless.

Are you critiqung IAEA's methods? Perhaps you should ask them why they felt that was "good enough". Or maybe they didn't. I don't know, because I do not have thier action lists available. Perhaps you should see if 1.) Sadam was indeed non-compliant with IAEA's requirements or 2.) was compliant by having them under seals.

Option 1 would support your point, option 2 means you disagree with IAEA's methods. In either case, I don't care, as Saddam's lack of nuclear power proves the sanctions and inspections were working.

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.

Well yes, so it seems. But then your complaint isn't with Saddam having them, but with IAEA considering that sealing material is good enough. This is a rather different issue, don't you think?

If you believe putting something under seal "renders it harmless," you'd probably also have believed that Neville Chamberlain's famous piece of paper that he'd gotten Hitler to sign was going to bring the world "peace in our time."

Again, it's not about what I believe, but what the IAEA felt was appropriate. You made an insinuation at the beginning of this thread that the weapons inspectors failed because saddam was non-compliant by evidence of the yellowcake. However, the IAEA seemed to allow him to continue possessing it (having sealed them and all). As such, Saddam wasn't in non-compliance with that issue and therefore doesn't represent evidence of inspection failure.

What would demonstrate a failure would be any indication on an enrichment process under development (non-existant), having obtained more yellowcake (didn't happen), and actually having ANY WMD, not just nuclear, (Again, non-existant).

So, we can see that by all markers of logic, the weapons inspectors were successful in their job.

That's the second time you've ascribed that position to me. I'd like you to pretty please point out where I suggested that.

It's a logical extrapolation of your argument.
1.) You claim (or at least insinuate) weapons inpsections was a failed strategy
2.) You claim that desire atany time for nuclear power is indication of that nation's threat to our country.
3.) You site NK as an example of a failure to prevent nuclear attainment.
4.) You, thereby, insinuate that the Iraq war was a logical move to prevent the nuclear power.

So, based upon those points, I'm left to believe that you support the invasion of any country which may at any time attempt to start a nuclear program. And that invasion is a preferable strategy over weapons inspections.

ETA: And, if I am missinterpreting your point, then please explain what other conclusion can be drawn regarding your opinion as to what an effective policy to prevent nuclear poliferation would be.

 

[Texas]

It's a logical extrapolation of your argument.
1.) You claim (or at least insinuate) weapons inpsections was a failed strategy
So, based upon those points, I'm left to believe that you support the invasion .

This caught my eye. Can you name a single instance in which the IAEA has prevented the production of Nuclear weapons?

 

[joobz]

This caught my eye. Can you name a single instance in which the IAEA has prevented the production of Nuclear weapons?

Iraq comes to mind.

 

[Texas]

Iraq comes to mind.

No the Israelis took care of that one.

 

[joobz]

No the Israelis took care of that one.

You have a confused timeline. Osirak strikes occured well before inspections started. The inspections started after Iraq war 1. Between Iraq war 1 and iraq war 2, it is clear that Saddam couldn't develop his nuclear program. Despite his desire to do so.
This is a simple, plain proof that the inspections worked*.

*Actually, it is likely that it was a combination of the sanctions and inspections which greatly hindered Saddam's ability to develop weapons.

 

[Texas]

*Actually, it is likely that it was a combination of the sanctions and inspections which greatly hindered Saddam's ability to develop weapons.

The Sanctions were under fire from day one by the French and Russians and were well on their way to being lifted. All the sanctions did was put money in the pockets of Saddam and the corrupt UN officials in charge of the oil for food scam. Resolution 687 specifically stated that Iraq was to have nothing nuclear related and if found it was to be removed or destroyed. Yellowcake cannot be rendered harmless and is a vital ingredient in the enrichment process that does not degrade. It is also very valuable at about 60 bucks a pound that would have been available to Saddam when the inevitable lifting of sanctions came to pass. Here is an ABC news report from 1999 that reports on Iraq's willingness to make deals with terrorists including Bin Laden. The first few seconds addresses the nuclear issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFW...news-connects-saddam-and-bin-laden-—-in-1999/

 

[joobz]

The Sanctions were under fire from day one by the French and Russians and were well on their way to being lifted. All the sanctions did was put money in the pockets of Saddam and the corrupt UN officials in charge of the oil for food scam.

Yes, the oil for food program failed and Saddam didn't distribute wealth to his nation. But it also didn't help him get WMDs.

Resolution 687 specifically stated that Iraq was to have nothing nuclear related and if found it was to be removed or destroyed. Yellowcake cannot be rendered harmless and is a vital ingredient in the enrichment process that does not degrade.

So your claim is that the IAEA didn't abide by Res 687. This may be true, but it seems they felt that sealing containers was an acceptable action.

It is also very valuable at about 60 bucks a pound that would have been available to Saddam when the inevitable lifting of sanctions came to pass.

Which is exactly the reason why I believe he was allowed to keep it. I was under the impression that the UN and the US were not trying to steal from Iraq.

Here is an ABC news report from 1999 that reports on Iraq's willingness to make deals with terrorists including Bin Laden. The first few seconds addresses the nuclear issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFW...news-connects-saddam-and-bin-laden-—-in-1999/

Yup. Saddam was a bad guy. But amazingly, he didn't have WMD or a nuclear program. does that mean.
1.) Sanctions/inspections worked.
or
2.) Sanctions/inspections didn't work.

Remember, that the outcome of the sanctions/inspections were to prevent Saddam from obtaining WMDs.

If a program acheives its outcome, that program (by definition) is successful.

 

[Texas]

Yes, the oil for food program failed and Saddam didn't distribute wealth to his nation. But it also didn't help him get WMDs.

So your claim is that the IAEA didn't abide by Res 687. This may be true, but it seems they felt that sealing containers was an acceptable action.
Which is exactly the reason why I believe he was allowed to keep it. I was under the impression that the UN and the US were not trying to steal from Iraq.


Remember, that the outcome of the sanctions/inspections were to prevent Saddam from obtaining WMDs.

If a program acheives its outcome, that program (by definition) is successful.

They only work up to the time they are lifted. the only item that the IAEA did not remove or destroy was the yellowcake. It was the single item Saddam could not manufacture on his own since he had no domestic uranium supply. You tell me, why allow a critical component of uranium enrichment remain in Iraq and one he would have the most problem in regaining after the sanctions were lifted?

 

[joobz]

They only work up to the time they are lifted. the only item that the IAEA did not remove or destroy was the yellowcake. It was the single item Saddam could not manufacture on his own since he had no domestic uranium supply.

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.

You tell me, why allow a critical component of uranium enrichment remain in Iraq and one he would have the most problem in regaining after the sanctions were lifted?

I've mentioned this several times. It was, as you admitted, a valuable commodity that Iraq owned. It would be a fairly onerous policy change to take over other nation's resources like that. This is, at least, my opinion why it wasn't removed. However, I really do not know what the IAEA's reason for simply sealing them were.

I must go back to the beginning of this thread. It is clear that there was no nuclear program in Iraq. No actual accumulation of new material was evidenced. No development of enrichment technologies. No development in reactor technologies. No WMDs. That's, by definition, successful.


BTW, Texas and BPSCG, I've been enjoying this discussion. I've learned a bunch from you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They only work up to the time they are lifted.

Yes, and?

the only item that the IAEA did not remove or destroy was the yellowcake. It was the single item Saddam could not manufacture on his own since he had no domestic uranium supply. You tell me, why allow a critical component of uranium enrichment remain in Iraq and one he would have the most problem in regaining after the sanctions were lifted?

Can yellowcake be used to manufacture WMD's?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And the reason that this thread was started

"That 350 tons of yellowcake constitue a nuclear program and justify invading, even though we knew about it before hand and never demanded it be turned over"

Talk about post hock rationalization.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

If there was so much to fear why didn't Bush demand he turn it over before the war?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Yep no indication of any threat in that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bush justified his war with the notion that Iraq had an active WMD program, and now sealed yellowcake is being cited as evidence of that. How is it that neocons can convince themselves that evidence of an inactive and dead program is evidence of an active program? This reminds me of when these same people said "ah ha! Bush was right!" when those expired and harmless chemicals for chemical weapons were found.