Does This Count As WMD???

[GRUNHERZ]

Well Russia is allowed to have WMD, they were not beaten in a war and did not agree to a cease fire requiring toatal WMD disarmament.  So again we have the wholly irrelevant argument sating that somehow Iraq can have WMD baecause other countries do...  

NK is a more sensitive case than Iraq because their violations of the nucler weapons restriction are not as legaly binding as were Saddams violations of the cease fire and UN resolutions.  There was also no  UN resolution that threatened military action if NK violated - however there were both UN and Military consequences written both into the ceasfire and sunsequent  UN rsolutions dealing with non-compliance consequences for iraq.

Second we took out Saddam because it also suits our Mid-East interests as he was a proven threat to stability by recently inavding his neighbors and a nuisance by his belligerance and open financial support of terrorists, like paying families of suicide bombers $25,000.

[Duedel]

Look guys. We need a new world order. IMHO an order where (as stated before in another thread) we can make preemtive wars to prevent millions of people to get slaughtered. But this world order is not only accomblished by the US. Its achieved by most western democratic countries.
If one country thinks (regardless how big and important) it can accomplish it on its own it will fail!
Its a long way and it will cost many many years!

[GRUNHERZ]

Duedel:

Who cares why we sold them to him, really its totally irrelevant. The point is he betrayed us and he became the threat.  Thats another really weak argument, the idea that somehow we cannot deal with saddam now because in the past he was our ally and we helped him. Take care to remember that fallacious this argument was
also used by opponents of the Afghan war who said we are responsible for 911 because in the first Afghan war Bin Laden was our ally vs the Soviets and that somehow this made it wrong for us to now try and attack him  after he betrayed us.

Nash:

I pointed out Blitz just for that reason - his views are so extreme and inflexible that its totally pointless to argue with him - and then it's just as good to be sarcastic about the whole subject baecuse one cnat make a difference in any way.  However I do go too far in extending the same attitude to others - sometimes.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Duedel
Look guys. We need a new world order. IMHO an order where (as stated before in another thread) we can make preemtive wars to prevent millions of people to get slaughtered. But this world order is not only accomblished by the US. Its achieved by most western democratic countries.
If one country thinks (regardless how big and important) it can accomplish it on its own it will fail!
Its a long way and it will cost many many years!

Well that was suposed to be the UN but France and Russia put the nail in coffin by first Russia opposing the Kosovo war to prevent another developing Milisevic genocide and now with France's outright refusal to agree to ANY use of force to support UNSC 1441 under any circumastances.  So just like in Kosovo where NATO indepenadbtly took care of the problem a seperate coalition of like minded states took are of the Iraq issue independantly of the UN.

[Nilsen]

and your views are not extreme and inflexible grunherz?

[GRUNHERZ]

Sometimes yes, of course - but not as much as you think. People I argue with are often surprised by how much we agree on, however my arguing style and saracsm gets people pissed off and they are likely to interpret it as extremism and inflexibility. Nonetheless I seek out argument as an oportunity to learn and integrate others ideas into my viewpoint. Belive it or not I like when people are patient with me and put up with my loudmouth style but keep challenging my argument, this is a good opportunity for them to influence mt thinking and change my views.

Much where I am very extreme is in my hatred of communism and racially divisive politics. I come from the former Yugoslavia so I hope you understand how I can be a bit sensitive, explosove or extreme on those two issues in particular.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
and your views are not extreme and inflexible grunherz?

Yeah but it's funny to watch the rantings.

[emodin]

From CNN

All countries that have nuclear reactors are routinely inspected by the IAEA to make sure that they are disposing of their spent fuel rods and other radiated materials, and not making bombs out of them.  One of the ways they do this (as I understand it) is by cataloguing and sealing the material.

Every country that has a nuclear reactor has this material produced as a by-product, and has it inspected (if they are abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-NPT), and this material is NOT considered to be a weapon.  The only case where this material would be considered a weapon (WMD or otherwise) is if the government or an individual broke the seals, took the radiological material, and made it into a weapon.  Since there is no evidence as of yet that this was the case in Iraq (remember, the inspectors KNEW about this material, and were keeping tabs on it), then you cannot say that the materials in question are weapons of any kind.

Bottom line: there is a difference between something having the POTENTIAL to be made into a weapon, and something that is DESIGNED to be a weapon.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by ra
No this doesn't count.  This is just the remnant of Iraq's old nuclear power program which Israel put an end to in the 80's.

Iraq really needed a nuclear powerplant, what with their severe shortage of fuel.    

Even if you're standing on oil, it doesn't mean it'd be cheap to build and operate fossil fuel electricity plants for the effectiveness.

How do we know US isn't using it's nuclear plants to make mass destruction weapons... oh wait, they've been doing it all along.
Let's force US to disactivate their nuclear plants and disassemble all of their WMD!


Always when some non-western country is thinking about building a nuclear plant, westerners without a doubt considers it as an attempt to make nukes.


Why nobody cared about india and pakistan building nukes and even missiles dedicated just to deliver nukes to the targets?!
For some reason nobodys telling them thats bad.. in fact US is in good relationship with them...  erm.. as long as they "work against the terrorism"
(and yet pakistan is claimed to protect terrorists etc. etc., but US couldn't care less.. after all, they've been able to conduct operations into afganistan from pakistan)

[capt. apathy]

At what point do we stop ignoring items that are only the "components" of a WMD, since as you suggest having the components is different from having the WMDs?

Just asking!  

my concern is just the opposite.

if we decide that they have the resources to make a wmd, and we decide that that is proof enough.  then where does this 'logic' end.  we could carry this line of thought into our own courts.

I'm a fairly big guy,  I have the resources at hand to make an excellent mugger.  but having the capacity to commit a crime doesn't make me a criminal.

are all gun owners killers?

and since all women posses the resources, should they all be charged as potatos.

this stuff is nuclear waste at of all places a former nuclear power plant.  AFAIK it has not been reported to have been modified or packaged to facilitate it's use as a weapon.  it hasn't been transported to an area containing other components that could be used with it to make bombs.

or to return to the house analogy-  the bleach is in the laundry room and the ammonia is under the sink with the floor wax.  it's not like we found huge amounts of both, together in a room with a delivery system and a gas-mask.

at worst all we have is proof of sloppy containment in their nuclear waste.

[GRUNHERZ]

But apathy to do that is to ignore Saddms history of past behavior. If we just let him keep WMD components and WMD personell is there really any sensible individual in the world who does not think that that Saddam would restart WMD producion once sanctions were lifted and UN inspectors gone.   And remember we allready know WMD are more important to him than loss of oil revenues as he has given the UN 12 years of cause to maintain sanctions, so the consequences of lost oil revenue down the road if he restarted his WMD probram are inconsequential.

Basically what I'm saying is that, sadly , as was the case with Hitler, containment of Saddam would be ineffective without indefinite sanctions and indefinite inspections both of which are are unsaustainable over the long run due to the regions particularites. Those being in no particular order, the unstable (non) peace process in Israel/Palestine made worse by Saddam support of suicide bombers, yes of course Oil, general regional instability, the genaeral war on terror, muslim opinions about US opression of Iraqi civilians by sustained sanctions and a few others I dont have time to write about.   So IMHO the USA decided the best thing possible was to oust saddam, and try to foster a democratic government in the area in an attempt to deal with those issues and not face an indefinite standoff with a Saddam family led Iraq.

So the real reasons are complex and specific to Iraq, WMD violation was the simplest one top communicate so it was brought to the forefront and it did provide an expedient basic legal justification. We have allready started finding WMD equpipment as outlined by Powell, captured Iraqi WMD scients under allied interrogation are said to be failing polygraphs left and right -they are lying,  and we have yet to seach literally hundered of suspected WMD sites and lets not forget Iraq was able to hide large numbers of MIG25s in short order from allied surveilance  in the recent war so I suspect that unkown WMD  
sites will also pup up as well.  

And for the UN devotees out there  the UN declared that Iraq still possesed illegal WMD when the inspectors were forced out in 1998 and we know that some of these weapons  materials were still ounacounted for as of late 2002/2003 in Iraqs final decleration. So, in fact , by UN accounting Iraq possed illegal WMD as late as the start of this year.  Obviously this was a breach of 1441, but we all witnessed Frances defiance wrt to use of force in case of 1441 non compliance - so effectively the  UN was neutralized in this case. And as so happened with Russian UNSC intransigence wrt to intervention in Kosovo, where NATO acted alone, an independant military alliance took action in Iraq.

[Dowding]

The key argument is that according to Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, i.e material that was weaponized ready to go. Tony Blair said Iraqi forces had such access to WMD that it was ready to go at 45 minutes notice. Barrels of pesticide is not WMD. Barrels of low level radioactive waste (that is probably less harmful than the radon gas naturally emitted by granite) is not WMD.

The search goes on IMO. I'll be satisfied when they find warheads ready to fire containing chemical or biological agents (I seriously doubt they ever got hold of any kind of nuclear precursor nevermind a nuke). The threat as was portrayed by Bush and Blair was one of the utmost urgency - the 45 minute preparedness quote underlines that.

Did Iraq have any WMD? I don't know. I'm prepared to wait until the autumn at the latest - that's the amount of time I wanted the inspectors to be given. In truth, it should be earlier given that the coalition forces have free reign over the entire country. But I'm patient.

[Nash]

It works both ways, no?

Syz:"So, I ask the question, do not barrels and barrels of radioactive material, which could easily be placed into an explosive disperal device, constitute a WMD?"

Grun:"Of course you forget our claim that he could supply suitable mqaterial to terrorists."

What does it tell you that this stuff has been sitting at this destroyed and basically abandoned site for ages and has not been weaponized and has not been supplied to any terrorists?

It works both ways, no?

[GRUNHERZ]

How do YOU know its just been sitting there unsupervised?  You cant go agound blasting us for supposedly making asumptions and then try to speak aouthoritativley about the same thing yourself when you have noo better information.

Anyway even the UN and Hans Blix himself in his latest report admit that that there ase still large amounts of unacounted WMD materials in Iraq that the Saddam government lied about destroying but failed to show evidence for. So frankly even the UN thinks Iraq posesed illegal WMD material  of some sort right up to the start of the war.

[ra]

Even if you're standing on oil, it doesn't mean it'd be cheap to build and operate fossil fuel electricity plants for the effectiveness.

Actually, it does.

How do we know US isn't using it's nuclear plants to make mass destruction weapons... oh wait, they've been doing it all along.

The US obeys international laws and treaties regarding WMD and nuclear power plants.

Always when some non-western country is thinking about building a nuclear plant, westerners without a doubt considers it as an attempt to make nukes.

It must be racism, no other possible explaination.

Why nobody cared about india and pakistan building nukes and even missiles dedicated just to deliver nukes to the targets?!

People cared very much about these 2 countries getting nukes, where have you been hiding?  What can be done about it?

For some reason nobodys telling them thats bad.. in fact US is in good relationship with them... erm.. as long as they "work against the terrorism"

The US had a "good relationship" with the USSR in 1941-1945.  Geopolitics is not neat and orderly.

ra