France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why is that people assume that MAD doesn't apply with pisspot dictators? If Saddam could threaten a suitcase nuke attack, we could threaten a full-on ICBM response.

-Arrian

MAD is based on the idea that we would definitely retaliate with an overwhelming and unstoppable attack. The threat that Sadie poses is not just via a direct attack on the USA or its allies (ie Britain) (although that would lead to our retaliation in kind). For example, what do we do Sadie builds a few bombs and threatens to irradiate the worlds oil if we intervene in some action he's taking? What if he, or one of his subordinates, starts hearing voices and decides to take out part of Israel? Our choices for retaliation become severely limited in those kinds of scenarios.

[TCO]

I misread your comment about amounts. I'm not sure what the concentration was. I saw numbers 45 and 25 and just did a ratio. But I don't know the concentration of the original 45.

Do you doubt that Saddam had a covert effort prior to 1991 to develop nuclear weapons, though? I think there were some really good articles from the guy who used to run it, who is out of Iraq now, confirming that he had such a program. i haven't read them though. [/lazy]

Here is an excerpt and an article about the allegations of Blix being a dupe in the past. Obviously the article has a bias and so do those who indict Blix as weak. But I'd sure have felt better with a stronger inspector in there.

For example, Iraq possessed more than 45 kilograms of highly enriched uranium before the Gulf War, far more than the 25 kilograms that the IAEA officially said was enough to make an atomic bomb. Iraq had imported the uranium from Russia and France as reactor fuel, but it would work in a bomb just as well. Now, when a country like Iraq has more than a bomb's worth of weapon-usable uranium, the IAEA is supposed to inspect it every three weeks, because that is all the time it is supposed to take to fashion it into a warhead. Under Mr. Blix, however, the IAEA was inspecting it only every six months. Why? Because the uranium was stored in a number of separate "material balance areas" (where the inspectors went to measure it) and there was less than a bomb's worth in each!

The areas were only a mile or so apart, so the whole thing was absurd. The stuff could be assembled in days, if not hours. But rather than annoy the Iraqis with frequent inspections, Mr. Blix chose the head-in-the-sand approach--which the Iraqis were quick to exploit. Immediately after the last six-month inspection before the Gulf War, they diverted the uranium to a crash nuclear weapon effort, which only the war prevented from succeeding.

Mr. Blix maintained this user-friendly stance even after the war. In May 1991, at the close of the first U.N. inspection, Iraq had accounted for the 45 kilograms of uranium it had imported, so Mr. Blix wanted to issue a report saying that everything was fine. But a minority of the inspection team wouldn't go along. They just couldn't understand why the Iraqis had torn out the foundations of bombed-out buildings as far as several meters down, while leaving other buildings untouched. They suspected that by removing the floors, Iraq had concealed evidence that the buildings had been used to process uranium domestically. Mr. Blix had no sympathy for such suspicions; he was determined to issue the report anyway. The minority (two American weapon experts) nevertheless held the report up until an Iraqi defector revealed a vast home-grown uranium processing program--saving Mr. Blix from humiliation.

Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002685

Sorry...that was all the facts I read. Don't know if there is something that is more a fact rather than opinion piece. I saw another opinion peice recently from the former Swedish deputy PM who had worked with Blix, who claimed he was a dupe as well.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

You misunderstand the point. Back in 1989, when the soviets left Afghanistan, the theory was :"well, the invaders who started the war are gone, now peace can return", just like today the theory is "Saddam is the sole cause of evil in Iraq, and ocne he leaves, everything is fine". But that is not specifically true. There was a reason why Iraq was th most coup-prone state in the world before Saddam took over: cause Iraq is a devided place, thanks to history. Just as thinkking that once the soviets left, all would return to normal in afgnaistan was a mistake, thinking that all will be fine in Baghdada cause Saddam the man is gone is equally wrong.

You do better with these types of arguments with respect to what needs to be done in addition to removing Sadie than the argument that we should do nothing.

[Ned]

GePap, do you favor of ignoring or enforcing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty solely based upon whether or not the signatory nation that is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States?

[Arrian]

Duncan,

What GePap said. I'd prefer there were no nukes, but they're here, and MAD seems to be the only check on their use.

what do we do Sadie builds a few bombs and threatens to irradiate the worlds oil if we intervene in some action he's taking? What if he, or one of his subordinates, starts hearing voices and decides to take out part of Israel? Our choices for retaliation become severely limited in those kinds of scenarios.

The assumption here is that Saddam is either stupid, insane, or both. I hear that a lot, but I'm not so sure about it. He's definitely a cold-blooded sonufa*****. But a moron or a nutcase? I don't think so, actually.

Nuking the oil fields is akin to ****ting where you eat. That's irradiating his own backyard. Stupid, insane, or both.

Nuking Israel, while I'll admit it might gain him some points in the Arab world, would also be stupid, insane or both, because Israel can retaliate in kind, and it is also close enough have the radiation blow back over Iraq. But the main point is Israeli retaliation... and frankly, I think the US might just consider nuking someone over Israel. I'll bet most Arabs (including Saddie) do!

-Arrian

[TCO]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nuking the oil fields is akin to ****ting where you eat. That's irradiating his own backyard. Stupid, insane, or both.

Notice what he did to the Kuwait oilfields before pulling out. That act gained him nothing. Was destrcutive and petulant. Don't you think? Maybe we should use that to predict how rationally he will follow your little thoughts...

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP
My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

My beef with this that the response took so long. How long can you sit on your casus belli without using it? If Bush dropped the war and the status quo continued, could some future US president pick up this same line?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


I'll track it down. I've seen it reported a couple times.

God I hope so. Otherwise that would be a DOH!

I posted the details myself a few responses down. It wasn't pure nuke material but was instead mixed with other chemicals. Needed to be transformed to metallic state through chemical separation process first, even if the Iraqis had gotten it out from under the eyes of the IAEA (which they didn't).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jaakko


My beef with this that the response took so long. How long can you sit on your casus belli without using it? If Bush dropped the war and the status quo continued, could some future US president pick up this same line?

Jaakko, you do recall that Clinton and Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq following the expulsion of the inspectors. They both warned Saddam that he must come into compliance "or else."

However, the Clinton administration judged that there would be no support for a ground war in United States. He then chose to simply do nothing for the rest of his administration.

I have no idea whether George Bush would have continued to do nothing had 9/11 not occurred; but 911 changed everything with the U.S. people. We are now willing to back war a against people like Saddam.

[Ned]

GePap, Are you going to answer my question?

"GePap, do you favor of ignoring or enforcing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty solely based upon whether or not the signatory nation that is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States?"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


What is UNH?

I think it is actual chemical symbol (Is that a possible combination oh chemist?)

That was the only way the article I googled up referred to it. Definitely stated that material wasn't suitable for bomb-making as is.

[KrazyHorse]

Remember that anything less than 80% pure U235 can't make a bomb (and at anything less than 95% you need a prohibitively large amounts of stuff)...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ned


Jaakko, you do recall that Clinton and Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq following the expulsion of the inspectors. They both warned Saddam that he must come into compliance "or else."

However, the Clinton administration judged that there would be no support for a ground war in United States. He then chose to simply do nothing for the rest of his administration.

I have no idea whether George Bush would have continued to do nothing had 9/11 not occurred; but 911 changed everything with the U.S. people. We are now willing to back war a against people like Saddam.

It wasn't solely Clinton.
Remember, there is a U.N.; of which, in theory, the U.S. is merely a member.
So don't leave all the other countries blameless.

The big mistake by the U.S. was listening to the United Nations in regard to withdrawl in the first place.
Half-stepping is never the answer.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


I think it is actual chemical symbol (Is that a possible combination oh chemist?)

That was the only way the article I googled up referred to it. Definitely stated that material wasn't suitable for bomb-making as is.

U is the chemical symbol. Not sure what UNH means. Do you have that article? Or did you post a link and I missed it?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Jaakko


My beef with this that the response took so long. How long can you sit on your casus belli without using it? If Bush dropped the war and the status quo continued, could some future US president pick up this same line?

It hasn't been that long. Plus we've been scrapping with him most of the 90s.