Tale of the Yellowcake
 

Is there anyone that carries the opinion that credabilty was sacrificed for the sole purpose of security. I'm hearing this more and more: the President withdrew his stance that Sadam had WMDs and admitted the it was an intelligence blunder to keep the Canadian purchase secure. I only know what I have briefly read about yellowcake, but from what I gather the process to convert it to weapon grade material was beyond Iraq's program. Still, it was purchased for a reason. The evolution of the story from five years ago to now is interesting.


July 8, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562312.shtml





July. 5, 2008

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/


The bit of information I have not been able to find is if there were any pieces of evidence the Sadam had recently imported material just prior to the second invasion. I have read mixed reports that the yellowcake is material obtained in the late 80s and is nothing more than left over materials from an already destroyed nuclear weapons program. If that is the case they were left after Desert Storm.

it means Saddam wanted nukes but his program was less far along than people thought, at least less far along toward making a nuclear bomb. I may be wrong about this - if other people know they can enlighten me - but I can't think of any innocent reason for keeping yellowcake around. There might be, I just don't know.

Once again, the facts turn out to be more complicated than either side of the political divide is acknowledging. Subject to further information, I find this fact neither conclusive nor dismissible.

I don't think it's in dispute whether or not Saddam at one point had a functioning nuclear program. Therefore this revelation by itself doesn't do terribly much to bolster the original case for war.

Is there any evidence that this is the African yellowcake in question? I feel as if it would be trumpeted all over the airwaves if it were. Let me know if there is any.

More broadly, is it evidence of a nuclear program that was active in 2003 when we invaded? This is the question that bears most directly on whether or not the idea of any kind of 'imminent threat' warranting 'preemption' is even remotely plausible in the context of 2003.

If it is old yellowcake, then it merely echoes what we already knew - that Saddam had several defunct illicit weapons programs, that he violated scores of international commitments in order to keep them concealed rather than destroying or surrendering them, and that some people thought this was sufficient grounds for a war and others did not.

well yeah, but why was he keeping yellowcake around? IIRC when South Africa under the new majority govt gave up its nukes it also gave up all its nuke ingredients as well. Same for Ukraine. There may be logical reasons for Saddam to have kept that stuff around, I just don't know. But as I said, it's not the sort of thing you can just wave the back of your hand and dismiss. On the other hand, there isn't much you can do with just plain yellowcake, as I understand the process. (Again, if others know more about the physics involved, please enlighten us.)

Oh, of course. Pre-invasion Iraq is not comparable to South Africa or Brazil - those cases bear more resemblance to Libya. I would not wave my hands at the nuclear material - it has some significance. It is merely one piece of evidence (among many) that Saddam was deliberately confounding the inspections regime, a fact which is not in serious dispute. Most likely he wanted what any leader in his position would want, which is to keep the stuff around either to restart the program at a later date, or to bargain it away for something more valuable in future negotiations, or to sell it, or simply to satisfy his own ego.

This has some bearing on any evaluation of the original decision to go to war, but I fail to see why it is earth-shattering, unless we learn something that indicates that a nuclear program was active in 2003.

And even then, it wouldn't a priori make the course we took the best possible course.

well sure, but it takes you down several stages of analysis. All I'm saying is that the decisional flowchart does get rearranged a bit based on this nugget. It may or may not change the evaulation of the decision what to do.

Not to post shameless, self serving hype in this thread....but I sincerely wish more folks would read the "PTB" OP that I posted in this forum last night, and comment on it....sometimes, I feel like I might be losing my mind, because of my disappointment about the general level of distraction, disinterest, and superficiality exhibited in the posts and in the interests I perceive of so many of my fellow "TFPers", because the apathy and disinterest is EXACTLY WHAT ENABLES SHIT LIKE THE FOLLOWING, and what I detailed in the "PTB" thread, to happen to the US, and by extension, to the rest of the world, over and over, all the way back to the turn of the last century, and probably long before.....

People!!!! This is your country, your lives, and the lives of your children we are talking about, here. Can we poke our collective heads up from the distractions of everyday living, even just once and a while, to examine and consider who is running "the show", and what they are doing, and why they are doing it?

The "colleagues" of this Mr. Bush and of his father's and grandfather's generation, either are themselves, or serve at the pleasure and on the approval of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country (and thus, in the world....). These are people, as I documented in the "Robert A. Lovett" segment in the PTB thread, who were so zealous in their prosecution of war, that they built and studied a top secret weapons "proving ground" in Utah during WWII, models of German and Japanese "villages"...duplicated clusters of civilian residential buildings in order to bomb them with chemical, biological, explosive, and incendiary aerial bombs, for the purpose of learning which weapons would be most effective in killing civilian populations in residential districts.....

I further documented how, beginning in the 1930's these "people", purchased residences next to each other on a small, private Florida island, an island purchased with weapons sales profits, from sales to all sides, during WWI.

In contrast, the most recent US foray into "ginned up" rationale for unnecessary war, seems almost routine, for this group of ruling class Americans:

The "16 words"....they came on the background of events and decisions documented below:

Leaving uranium in Iraq is our standard practice....it's what our leadership does:
See the sentences in expanded sized lettering, below, and the yellow highlighted sentences? Mr. Bush knew, and or certainly his staff and advisors knew....all of that "stuff" in those sentences, BEFORE he delivered the "16 words", in his January, 2003 SOTU address, accusing Iraq of attempting recent (irrelevant and unfounded....) purchases of uranium:

Host,

Forgive me, but I am trying to understand your posts. I am not clear on what your view is regarding yellow cake, Saddam, and his possible nuclear weapons program. Do you think he had a nuclear weapons program? Do you think he was waiting to reinstitute his nuclear weapons program? Do you think he never had a nuclear weapon program? Do you think he never had any intent of having a nuclear weapon program? Do you think that even if he had a nuclear weapon he would not have been a threat? What do you think Sadaam was doing with all the "oil for fod" money he was stealing? And, do you think that regardless of the answers to the previous questions, that Bush just lied and manipulated intelligence simply to go to war with Iraq?

ace, I posted material that supports what I think, I highlighted it, and I included an explanation from a Kos diarist who explained it better than I could. I also referenced Robert Lovett and his "background"....these are very bad men, "leading" us, ace!

Saddam may have wanted a nuclear program, but it's the same thing as me wanting to marry supermodel Gisele Bündchen. It was completely infeasible.

You can call it a nuclear program, but without the necessary funds, connections, and capability to produce any kind of nuclear weapon you might as well call it an "I wish" program.
He was going to die of old age before the UN stopped inspecting Iraq.
infeasible.
In the 80s, yes, but it was stopped and (as host posted) the nuclear material was stored and checked once a year.
Do any of these questions strike you as a bit redundant?
Anyone with a nuclear weapon is a threat. He didn't have the military infrastructure to develop a delivery system to hit even Europe, let alone the US. Israel? I dunno.
Several things. First off, it's extremely expensive to maintain dictatorial control of a country. Second, his lifestyle and the lifestyles of his close family and friends was quite extravagant and required vast amounts of wealth to maintain. Third, the regular attempts on his life required very complex security measures from doubles to well trained personal guard.

If your argument is "he had lots of money therefore he was not only seeking but could probably get nuclear weapons" you've skipped a few steps.
That depends on one's definition of a lie. My definition includes lies of omission, which Bush is clearly guilty of.

You think he had or was motivated to have a nuclear weapons program, but even if he did, he was incapable or would not have been in power long enough to use any nuclear weapon he developed, and was therefore not a threat.

Is that a summation of you view?

Or would you start off by saying - He did not have and was not motivated to have...?

I guess that is where I get confused, by your position and the position of Host on this issue.

I didnt know about the substance. I won't attribute it to at least not trying to keep up date during the "shock and awe" show on everyone's television. Is there anyone here that knew about it at that time? The records show sales going back to the 80s. Regardless of what Saddam's intentions were with the stuff it would have been something to focus aside from "this is what our intel told us". Does this give foundation to eveything Bush was saying from the start.

I admit, I was waiting to hear some kind of "I told you so" from the administration. Or some way to use this as advantage or manner of regaining international "face". The quiet manner this seems to be easing in and out is strange.

He probably was motivated. Desert Storm basically took away all the power he thought he had. He went from a regional power to a toothless dictator who was really only able to terrorize his own people. So I'm sure he was motivated to try and get his power back. But. He had neither the finances nor the infrastructure to wage conventional war, let alone nuclear war. At the very most (and this is stretching the realm of what's reasonably possible), he might have gotten some very low yield uranium but wouldn't have been able to enrich it enough for power (3% enrichment), let alone nuclear weapons (90+% enrichment).

He may have been a minor threat to Israel in that he could help to fund and supply small and medium arms to Palestinian or Lebanese extremist organizations, but he really didn't even do that. All he did was pay a few families of suicide bombers in order to try and rebuild his popularity among Arab neighbors. And it didn't work to do that.

Thanks. It seems we only differ in regards to perhaps how motivated he was and how quickly or if he would he would have been capable of producing a "deliverable" nuclear weapon. As you know I think he was very motivated, I think he would have used the billions from the oil for food program to fund his goals. I think he also was close to securing the support of Russia and France and could have soon persuaded the UN to back down. I think our actions prevented the potential for a much more costly war. I understand your disagreement.

You have to actually support these assertions, though. The billions from oil for food were tied up in the fronts which he was trying to use to launder it. He was still in the process of laundering the money when the US and "coalition" invaded in 2003. As for getting Russian and French back up? It wouldn't have mattered one bit. Putin had essentially done a 180 from Yeltsin's pro-Iraq policies, and France would have faced a lot of trouble from it's fellow EU buddies from the UK to Germany. That means, in no uncertain terms, that Iraq stood virtually alone. On top of all that, the UN inspectors were 100% clear on exactly how many WMDs Iraq had, and they were absolutely right.

The cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq will soon reach the trillions. The collective (every country involved) cost off WW2 is estimated at about $288b total (which translates to less than $5T in current money). Currently, Iraq is at about $500b. If we stay as long as McCain believes we will, $5t will look like pocket change compared to what we'll pay and the US government will implode.

Yellowcake is the first product made from uranium ore after it's mined. It's stable and easy to transport. It can then be enriched for use in nuclear power plants or enriched further for nuclear weapons. In other words, it has other uses than weapons.

OTOH, I'm sure Saddam would've loved to have a nuclear warhead or three. Can't really blame him. If you're a country we don't like, and you have nukes, we negotiate with you. If you don't, we invade. Pretty simple math, even for a dictator.

No, I don't. If I think someone or something is a threat, I will act and answer questions later. I have no problem with being held accountable for my actions. But I don't have an obligation to wait until there is 100% certainty. My "support" may never pass your test and it may be unwise for me to wait for it. In the case of the Iraq war, we had imperfect information. Everyone knew the information was imperfect. Bush made his case. People knew Bush was a "hawk". He got the needed support, and he acted. If you never supported the war, I doubt there would be any "support" that could change your view at this point. Given the the imperfect information, and trying to interpret someone's intent we will never know what might have been. To me the threat is gone. To you the threat was never there. I can clearly see why this Iraq question never can be resolved.

A fundamental question for the future is how do we elect people who share our views on how we would individually respond to a real or perceived threat. I voted for Bush, we are in sync in that regard. Democrats voted for people who supported and did not support the war at the same time. Democrats voted for people who failed to do their due diligence before voting to commit our military to war. Democrats voted for people who continually funded the war, etc.,etc. It seems when I point this out, Democrats get offended, I don't understand why.

This is the very model of the same narcissism that is directly responsible for 1.2m Iraqi lives and thousands of US troops' lives.
I think you're a threat, therefore I have the right to attack you? That's absurd and you don't even believe this.
I'm not talking about "imperfect" information (the word you're looking for is incorrect, not imperfect). I'm talking about the removal of reasonable doubt, which never occurred. And guess what? Bushco was totally wrong. The UN tried to warn them, most of Europe and our other allies tried to warn them. Shit most people in the US who weren't sheep tried to warn them: the intel is bad, don't do this.

Like I wrote, I doubt any "support" would meet your standard, and we don't have the benefit of knowing what would have happened if other actions were taken.

You certainly can take my position to an absurd extreme. However, there are legal standards for people to use to determine if a response to threat is reasonable. For example in my state, legally I would be justified in using deadly force if:

I believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
And, the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to hold that belief.
And, I am not the instigator or initial aggressor
And, the force is not excessive - greater than reasonable needed to overcome the threat.

That standard as it would apply to my wife may be different than it would apply to me because of my size and strength compared to my wife's size and strength.

So, on an individual basis, you could take an absurd action but legally you would be held accountable for it. On the other hand if you responded to a threat in a reasonable manner within legal parameters you may save your life or the life of another.

No. The word I chose was imperfect because it encompasses not only the possibility of information being incorrect it also encompasses the possibility of the information being incomplete. Was it Rumsfeld who said: "There are known , knowns; known, unknowns; unknown, knowns; and unknown, unknowns. Or, it may have just been the voice of Samuel Jackson from an episode of the Boondocks. Either way information available can be "imperfect".

I asked you to support all of the arguments you made, and you said that you didn't have to. That's not how life works, Ace. People are held accountable not only after they've made decisions, but as they're making them and even when they're proposing them.
Absurd? You said:
I essentially said the same thing back to you and you called it absurd. I agree, it's a completely unreasonable and absurd ideal.
None of those were met in the case of Iraq. Not by a mile, even.
1) As I've stated, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way shape or form.
2) No reasonable person could look at all the information available in 2003 (and I can post it if you'd like) and come to the conclusion that the US was in any danger.
3) We were the instigator.
4) Excessive? 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and many still don't have water and power 5 years later.

It seems, actually, that WE were the danger, and that Iraq had a right to defend itself... only it didn't have the means. Now they can in a way because the US military has trouble with guerrilla tactics, but they've already lost.
The problem is that the US sits in a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which means that we can't be held accountable by the legal body under which we fall. It was absurd, and not only most of the world, but finally most of the US thinks so.
Imperfect means that it's not perfect. That can still mean it's correct. Incorrect would be a perfect description for the intelligence that Iraq had WMDs. Not imperfect, incorrect; and the difference therein is gross, not subtle.

Here is my bottom line. If Bush acted incorrectly or illegally, those who have that belief need to address the issue. Bush made his case for war, he got approval. Bush ran for re-election on "staying the course" and won. Bush repeatedly asked for funding for the war and the funding was given. Bush appointed Sec. of Defense on the basis of his war strategy, Congress approved. Bush appointed a general on the basis of a surge strategy, Congress approved. If Congress felt Bush lacked support for the war, how do you explain their actions? If you want more support than what has already been provided, I can't give it to you, because there is nothing new I can add.

On the issue of a personal response to a threat, I accept being held accountable. I never said I had a "right to attack" you or anyone. Even when the threat is real there are legal standards which would be used to determine if the threat was in fact real and if the response to the threat was reasonable. Your example ignored these key factors and implied that I would just capriciously say someone was a threat and use that to justify an attack. I would not do that.

Should I post a link to TFPolitics? Because a lot of us have done that, repeatedly; even in this thread, actually.
Most of the Democrats in the House and Senate are complete and utter cowards. They knew it was wrong, just like many Republicans, but they were more concerned with reelection than putting their career at risk by standing against a "war-time" president and a powerful executive who seem to still have at least some control over the media.
None of that is support, though. You simply gave a brief time line.

How about this? I can make a list of every single pre-war claim made by Bush or anyone under Bush, and then debunk it using information available at the time the claim was made. Would that convince you of anything? It'd really only require me to click on Host's profile and then go back a few years in his posts.
Yes, saying someone is a threat is not the same as that individual actually being a threat, and therein lies the issue. Iraq was said to have been a threat, but wasn't a threat. At all. Do you see the distinction? Using the philosophy you just posted, you would have to agree that the Bush administration was wrong.

Ace, I'm reading your posts and it sounds as if you are trying to demonstrate that the use of force can sometimes be justified. Rest assured that you don't have to make that point - most of those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq are not pacifists.

What willravel is getting at is the question of Iraq in particular and not self-defense or self-interest in general. Here he explains why the war was unjustified based on the criteria that you yourself laid out.

You keep saying that you are comfortable with people acting as they see fit so long as they are willing to be held accountable, and that is a completely fair point. But holding the administration accountable is precisely what will is doing now. How else would you like him to do it, if not by speaking out as he and others do? Will criticizes the way the decision to go to war was made and you shrug it off by saying that the administration can do what it likes and 'ask questions later'. Well, when is 'later', exactly?

In the items 1 through 4 there is disagreement.

Items 1 and 2 - The UN, Congress, and other nations saw Saddam as a threat. Former President Clinton saw him as a threat. Credible people like Colin Powell saw him as a threat and many others in the military, CIA, and members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I think reasonable people can disagree on how big of a threat he was and what would have been the appropriate course of action. Parsing the language regarding him being a threat but not a threat to the US because he could not deliver a nuclear bomb is problematic to me. Also, I believe real economic sanctions target innocent civilians more than it targets those in political power and the military. Also in my view real economic sanctions, being enforced using force if needed, is defacto - a declaration of war. I would not have supported economic sanctions. To me military force was the only real option to deal with the Saddam threat.

Item 3 - I live in an area where we have hornets, In my view saying we were the instigator is like saying I am the instigator in removing a hornets nest from my back porch so my family won't be at risk. Certainly preemptive, but also the right thing to do.

Item 4 - Our initial primary military objective was to remove Saddam from power, the force used was not excessive to accomplish that mission. Our second military objective, to bring stability to the country for political progress was impeded by insurgents. I would argue that the insurgents were primarily responsible for the Iraqi deaths.

So, again we come to the basic question was Saddam a threat. Those who don't think he was will think any action taken was inappropriate. Those who think he was a threat to others but not to the US, will think our actions were excessive. Nothing at this point can be said to change those views, just as there is nothing that can be said to change my view, because we will never know what might have been.

The data has been reviewed and investigated, if we acted inappropriate now is the time to address the issue. Those who have the power to address the issue either agreed with Bush or all their rhetoric was b.s.

President Clinton and the UN didn't see Saddam as a threat in the same way you seem to suggest. The UN was concerned, so they sent in inspectors, and Bill Clinton supported that (unless there was a certain intern in the news, and then he'd inexplicably bomb Iraq). Neither of them wanted to invade Iraq. Why? I think that's obvious now. Moreover, Bill and the UN knew that so long as Saddam was declawed, he was only a danger to his own country (like hundreds of other dictators around the world), and that didn't require the US or UN to intervene.
I'll keep saying it until you get it: Iraq had no WMDs. There's no evidence Iraq was even seeking them out. Iraq could not have hurt the US in any way. We were totally safe from Saddam. Hornets can sting. Saddam had no stinger.
The aggressors/instigators are responsible. Were they killing each other by the thousand before we invaded? Saddam was killing some, but no one in their right mind could compare that to what's happening today.
All their rhetoric was BS.

I don't do well with shades of gray. I don't understand when a concern becomes a threat in your view or even what the real difference is. In my view a concern requires action just as a threat requires action. If the issue is what strategy to employ in addressing a concern/threat, I get it. Reasonable people can disagree on strategy, but that does not seem to be what our disagreement is.

That's unfortunate, because we don't live in a world of black and white. Everything is a shade of gray, and as such it's something people should become accustomed to.
If Iraq had ANY weapons that could reach the US, I'd have considered them a threat. If there was any verifiable evidence that they were seeking out any such weapons, I'd probably consider them a threat. If they had the ability to seriously put our allies in danger, I'd have considered them a threat. None of these were met, therefore Iraq was not a threat.
Every time you explain why you thought Iraq was a threat, you use incorrect information. How, now knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had no WMDs and that they weren't even seeking out WMDs, was Iraq a threat?

Like the fact that you can use a military to impose your will or that you can use some other means. In my way of looking at it, you are imposing your will. In the world of gray, you get to rationalize it. Unfortunately, the grayness can lead to long-term pain and suffering and no clarity. I say if you are going to impose your will, do it, do it big, do it decisively. One of the problems with our occupation (the part after removing Saddam) is that we lacked real comitment and conviction to do the job.

I am not going to get accustomed to the gray, and I have no interest in it.

What do you want from me? The prewar intel was incorrect. We now know that. Even without that intel, I saw Saddam as a threat. My belief dates back to the first Gulf War. I stated several times, Saddam should have been removed from power then, I was in the minority then thinking we should have marched into Baghdad. I supported Bush in his first election in-part because I felt he would not tolerate Saddam's defiance and would not hesitate to use military force. I felt we needed to act when we did, or we would have had a bigger mess at some future date. You and I disagree. However, more people agreed with me than with you - including the Democrats in Congress who voted for the use of military force and our ongoing occupation. Perhaps, before debating with me (I am as far to the extreme as you can reasonably get on this issue), perhaps you would be better having an exchange with those who marginally could have gone either way, find out what caused them to swing Bush's way. Find out why they don't want to hold Bush accountable, if they now think he lied or whatever..

You can use your military to impose your will if you're willing to ignore the law and morality, sure. The biggest problem with our occupation was it was impossible. The US doesn't do "occupations" anymore (at least doesn't win them) , because we can't maintain law and order in a country where the occupants don't want us there. The problem with our occupation? It was impossible. Short of having 25 million American troops on the ground, it was unreasonable from day one.
Had we marched on Baghdad in 1991, we'd be in year 17 of the occupation (as the UN wouldn't have backed us then, either) and we'd still be losing. Or Clinton would have pulled out and been considered a hero for it. George H. W. Bush would go down in history as a war criminal and W. Bush likely never would have been elected.

How was Saddam a threat, Ace?

One way of a nation imposing its will on another country is by using its military. There are other methods. We can impose our will through cultural means, which is one reason Muslim extremists dislike the West. Another method is economic, many countries have evolved strictly based on their ability to trade with economically powerful countries. Some would argue that the use of a beautiful woman (i.e.-Nefertiti) was enough to impose one nation's will upon another, at least for a brief time. Missionaries have been used to tame the "savages" in other nations as a mean of imposing one nation's will on another. The UN uses guilt to try to impose its will on the US. So, I am not sure why you would think one form of "imposing will" is better or worse than another. It is what it is. And by the way, using the military does not have to result in in more or less death than other methods. The cold war between the US and USSR was clearly military without blood. Sometimes all you need is a show of force.

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Ask the people he had killed. Ask the Kuwait, the country he attacked. Ask Israel, the country he bombed. Ask the UN, the international body that subjected him to inspections and monitoring for some reason. Ask Clinton. Ask Congress. Ask the countries who assisted us. Ask our jet pilots who were fired upon as they flew their missions. Ask the victims of suicide bombers, suicide bombers who were told they would be given money for their families. Asking me is pointless, I have already stated what I would have done and why. Everyone who ever talked to me on the subject prior to our invasion of Iraq knew my opinion. People knew Bush's opinion too, long before he made his formal case for war.

More people are being killed in Iran now than Hussein killed. It's just not him doing the killing.

The U.S. was quite happy with Hussein from 1979 to 1991.

How do we know what might have been?

things change

Fantastic job in dodging the question. Why don't you give me numbers and statistics, because it seems like you don't know what was going on in Iraq before the invasion. How many Iraqi people were killed by Saddam between 1992 and 2003? What's the yearly distribution of those deaths? Was he a danger at all to Kuwait after Desert Storm, and if yes, can you provide any evidence? Did the UN think he was a threat as each year after Desert Storm they found no weapons?

What I'm subtly getting at is that you're blowing smoke. You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think Saddam was a threat, which has been demonstrated time and again.

Considering he had his country arranged by ethnicity just the way he liked it, probably not much more killing was likely to happen. Just a general sort of oppression. Now, the Sunnis and Ba'athists are killing the Christians and Kurds and each other.

I don't blow smoke, but you made your point. You don't think I had reason to believe Saddam was a threat. You used your judgment to conclude that, given the known information, it was not reasonable to conclude that Saddam was a threat. Based on your judgment, the use of the military was excessive and not needed. I disagree. Our nation acted based on my beliefs. Now, which was my point much earlier, what are "we" going to do about it?

Why? If you can't provide me with any reason that you think Saddam was a threat, how can you be so sure?
Lose or leave. If McCain wins, we'll lose. If Obama wins, we'll leave. There is no victory.

You don't accept my reasons. After every attempt to offer my reasons - You have considered them baseless and without merit.. In your view I have no legitimate reasons, and I have over reacted to what was not a real threat. To you my reasons don't exist. To you, there is nothing, nada, zippo. So, what do you want? You have read what I have submitted on this subject, I have nothing else to give you.

Basically, I wanted Saddam out of power. He is out of power, mission accomplished. The occupation is another story. I have mixed feelings about it.

I demonstrate that they are baseless and without merrit. You're acting like this is simply opinion. I'll break it down again:
Who were they? How many were there? Do you have any idea who they are or how many there were, or are you just guessing? Was it more or less than 1000? Was it more or less than the victims of the UN economic sanctions? If less, why didn't we invade the UN?
Demonstrate that Kuwait was in any danger after Desert Storm.
Okay, after that I'll ask Iraq, the country Israel bombed first
We did ask them, remember? Powell appeared before the UN and said "
these guys are dangerous!" The UN replied "bullshit, prove it." We backed down and invaded without their consent.
He opposed the war from day one.
The ones who the Bush Administration had to lie to (and by lie, I mean a lie of omission)? Yeah.
You men the other countries that weren't in any danger? Yes, several countries assisted us, but does that demonstrate that Iraq/Saddam was dangerous?
Bombing missions? Why would they fire on spy planes violating their space or bombers which were about to take out a hospital and call it collateral damage?
Oh yeah, that was very bad. Saddam was wrong to do that. Here's a question, have we invaded Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, or Syria, where the suicide bombers get most of their weapons and funding? Saddam only paid out a few times, really.

What is going on in Iran now? Chemical agents being dispersed?

It's was the Saudis that really did it in bad taste with the telethons. But they stood fast as a member of OPEC not threatening to switch to the euro, so they seemed to be overlooked about a great many things.


Although, I am not entirely clear on this, I believe that Saddams action of switching from the dollar standard over to the euro was another contributing factor.

That's true. Add Saudi Arabia to the list.
Maybe we should invade Europe for having a more stable currency. :thumbsup:

"Maybe we should invade Europe for having a more stable currency."

oh, that'll work...

You have demonstrated nothing.

Let us be clear on one issue. You are wired different than I am. I have come to a clearer understanding of this since participating on this forum. Some people see the world in different ways than I do, than you do. I make an effort to understand how you and some others think, how you see issues and how you come to your conclusions. I accept that there are differences. And in the end, I ask how do we best manage those differences? I often state that people need to be true to their convictions, and that is why I get so bent out of shape over the empty rhetoric from Democrats. Say what you mean and mean what you say - and back it up with your actions. No grayness.

It is interesting, but if you ever owned tropical fish as a hobby, you know not to mix African Tropical fish with South American tropical fish. They are all fish that can live under the same general conditions, but the way they are wired and communicate are different. The signals they would send to each other would cause chaos. On one end of our human spectrum we have people like me and others who understand the communication of conflict, on the other end there are people like you who don't seem to understand it. I am not being judgmental, it is just a difference. Every day Saddam was in power he was communicating information, I read it one way you read it another. The question is who understood?

I don't speak for "conservatives", "right wingers", "Republicans" or anyone else. I know on this issue the way I see it is not the norm. That is why I suggest you question those more in the norm. That is why I point to "mainstream" thinkers and organizations for the reasons they believed Saddam was a threat.

The only way for you to understand my reasons for thinking Saddam was a threat is to accept and understand the concept of "alpha".

I know the immediate reaction is "we are humans, not animals", "we are not cavemen", or whatever, which to me means the person who responds that way won't understand. There is some truth in the quote from the movie A Few Good Men - "...people like you, need people like me...". Your current comfort and security is grounded in the concept of "alpha", even if you don't know it or accept it. Saddam's defiance was a threat and was not acceptable. His defiance needed to be dealt with. The world is safer and more secure without him.

So what are we going to do about the United States, then?

Or is it wrong to take "alpha" to its logical conclusion in this context?

You still can't provide any evidence that Saddam was dangerous. You've tried, but I took each of your attempts apart in a way that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to. Can you respond? Or will we get more "oh well we're fundamentally different" arguments? Are you a person who uses evidence or proof to support an argument? No? Then we're not different.

Starting with his invasion of Kuwait. The world requested that he not do that, he did. Defiance.

When he clearly had no world support and a coalition against him and he was sure to be defeated, he attempts to destroy Kuwaitis oil infrastructure. Defiance.

When he refused to surrender peacefully, he started lobbing bomb into Isreal in attempt to start WWIII. Defiance.

When he was subject to weapons inspections and was requested to destroy his nuclear weapons resources, he gave the world a big F.U. Defiance.

It goes on, you don't see the pattern, I do.

There is a right and a wrong. If the government of the United States is wrong, we, the people need to act. It is our obligation.

No.

I can take these apart quickly, too.
Again with the black and white? The UN may have said no, but the US gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. He was under the false impression that the US was trustworthy. Big mistake.
After the US back stabbed Iraq, Saddam realized that the US was trying to weaken Iraq so that the US could move in and steal the oil that Saddam thought he was going to get FROM Kuwait. He was understandably pissed and decided that his back stabbling ally wasn't going to best him. It was a move of ego and desperation, sure, but does that mean he was dangerous in 2003? Of course not. Not even a little.
Can you link this?

Do you have anything more recent than 1992, the time I said Saddam was last dangerous?
.... by letting UN weapons inspectors in his country. A few times Saddam "didn't fully cooperate" (which resulted in Desert Fox, on the same day as a huge Lewinsky story was breaking), but allowing them it was a huge act of good faith. The UN was clear before Iraqi Freedom that Iraq had no WMDs. Defiance? No, compliance.

the biggest problem (among many) with the Bush (and ace) cowboy approach to foreign policy in general, and overthrowing Saddam in particular, was that they completely ignored the likely consequences.

sectarian violence at a level never seen before in Iraq...and by some measures, more civilian deaths in 5 years than the 20+ years under Saddam.

massive numbers (millions) of displaced persons, mostly the Iraqi middle class

the worst public health crisis in Iraq in 50+ years

a new "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment

a stronger and more influential Iran in the region

All of these outcomes were predicted and ignored in pursuit of a rigid ideological goal or personal vendetta.

To what end?

The point is not "taking apart" the pattern I recognized or using hindsight to say I or we ignored likely consequences of acting on the pattern, but asking the questions - is the pattern acceptable and what would be the consequences on a larger scale if the level of Saddam's defiance went unanswered? My view is different than yours, why do you keep trying to prove I am some how wrong?

People like you and DC have a responsibility to make your case to the people on the margins, my mind regarding Saddam was made up as soon as he attacked Kuwait. When I am open to changing my views I generally let people know, when I am not I let them know that too. In this case there was nothing that was going to change my mind, there is nothing you can present now that would make me think taking Saddam out of power was the wrong thing to do.

In 2000 and 2004 supported a Presidential candidate who did what I expected him to do, can you say the same thing? I argue that anyone paying attention could have predicted what Bush was going to do given the circumstances, that is one reason I am surprised about the degree which people say Bush "lied". And to this day I still have no clear understanding who in the Democratic Party really supported the war or who was really against the war (accept for Kucinich and a few others who have been consistent with their words and actions). I repeat, this is and was a problem, I think an important lesson from this is we need to have clarity on issues involving war.

You're acting like this is a discussion about opinions. It's really not. It's about conclusions drawn from facts. I've provided many arguments about why Saddam/Iraq was not a thread in 2003. You have provided arguments but I've either demonstrated that they are wrong or they're referring to Iraq in the early 90s which is an entirely different situation than the one we had in 2003.
I expected Gore to fight a lot harder for what he had earned. I voted for Cobb in 2004, so that doesn't really matter.
A lie of omission is still a lie, Ace. He omitted all the evidence that didn't support the picture he wanted to paint both to the American people and to Congress. I don't know why you'd be surprised that people were and are pretty fucking pissed about that.
I'm not a Democrat, I'm Green. DC will have to explain his support of the Democrats in Congress to you. All I can do is tell you how much I don't like Cynthia McKinney and how I wish Kucinich would join my party.

I stated that Saddam continually acted in a defiant manner. Here is a definition of defiance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiance

I saw his acts of defiance as a threat (fact). He did what he did (fact). I interpreted what he did as acts of defiance (fact). Your facts are different. You did not see Saddam's acts as defiance (fact). I understand how those who did not see his actions as acts of defiance, and therefore did not see the threat. However, that does not mean the threat was not real. Assume you agreed that Saddam was acting in a defiant manner. Would you have done anything about it, why or why not? If so, what?

I think the standard you set here is unrealistic. I think based on your standard I could find that everyone would qualify as a lier on virtually every issue they communicate to others on. Are you one of the people who are the cause of ladders needing a sticker saying that using a ladder may result in a fall?

I addressed that already.
You have to demonstrate he was being "defiant" first.
My conclusions are different because I'm using all of the facts.
He was striking back against the US, but the UN situation was a lot different. I can't be defiant against you because you're not an authority. Likewise, the US is not an authority over Iraq therefore Iraq cannot be defiant agains the US any more than we can against them. If you really want to suggest that Iraq was being defiant, then you have to equally say that the US was being defiant. Which I doubt you're prepared to do.
You have yet to demonstrate how Saddam could have hurt the US or our allies. Should I post the dictionary definition of "threat"?

Was Bush a threat to you (your well being, your way of life, etc)?

He's a threat in several ways. First off, his policies after 9/11 have clearly caused global terrorism to shoot up in frequency. I'm not afraid of a terrorist attack, but they're more likely now. Second, his domestic spying has breached the 4th Amendment and has laid to waste privacy of many innocent Americans (considering my politics, they'd be remiss if I wasn't being bugged). Did I mention I'm no a no fly watch list (I can fly, but my name is flagged)? Aside from all of that his anti-free speech policies are paving the way for microwave crowd control weapons, which if used on me could potentially melt the Dacron tube which is in the place of my aorta (google "coarctation of the aorta" for my medical condition). My asthma is effected by the Clean Air Act. My posterity is victimized by No Child Left Behind. This could be a very long list, leave us say that Bush is a threat to me personally as well as the nation and the world.

Do you see that some one could "take apart" your points the way you think you took apart mine?

Given that you can see a threat in a manner that does not include the delivery of a nuclear weapon, you don't see the irony in seeing Bush as a threat (who is checked by the other branches of government) and not a guy who attempted to start WWIII? Oh, I know you think you need a "link" for that, but you really don't, and you never gave your explanation of why he was sending bombs to Israel when his cause was a lost one.

Not even a little. I cited evidence for most of them and if pressed could cite evidence for all of them.
This is an extreme case of apple and oranges and you're getting so far off topic it's silly. Saddam Hussein and by extension Iraq was not a threat to the US or our allies in 2003. Demonstrate otherwise with verifiable evidence or concede.
He wasn't as far as I know. This is why I asked you for a link. I'd like to research your claim. If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, you've got a really powerful argument coming your way.

Why not answer a question? Why do you think Saddam engaged Israel in the 1991 Persian Gulf war? Israel was not a part of the coalition, nor did Israel have anything to do with Saddam's alleged dispute with Kuwait. I believe his intent was to get Israel involved in the conflict to then develop an anti-Israel coalition of his own, which could have tripped the region into chaos leading to world war. People who are willing to act in such a manner are a threat to every peace loving human on the planet, including you. Here is a link, for what good it will do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War


After ignoring the above point, you can ignore this one:

When Saddam was faced with certain defeat, why do you think he employed a slash and burn strategy of Kuwait's oil infrastructure? Wouldn't a reasonable peaceful leader under the circumstances he faced, simply accept defeat and accept the determination of the UN and the "world" consensus against his act of aggression?

You would trust a guy displaying these forms of defiance, and accept him as nonthreatening to peace and stability?

You mean the link in which Iraq didn't launch any missiles? The link to a wiki page that quotes an Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister in essentially saying "yeah, we'd attack Israel if anything happened" and when it did happen Iraq launched no missiles at Israel? Wow that's really defiant! It's also very much a bark being much louder than a bite.
Don't act like a child.
Don't you read my posts?
There is no such thing as a peaceful leader in war. Any illusions otherwise are naive. Do you think Bush was peaceful in invading Iraq? Do you even think Reagen was peaceful when he ordered the invasion of Grenada?
Trust has nothing at all to do with it. Why fear an angry dog with no teeth and no claws?

Here is another link for you, I used the previous one to show intent not to try to prove that Iraq actually bombed Israel:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm

This link will show you that Iraq actually bombed Israel and also their threat to use WMD.

This is interesting going through this with you, very informative on your point of view, I think your point of view is common.

It likely is common for people who weren't even 10 years old at the time.

The Scud-B (the missile used by Iraq) has a range of 300km. Maybe you can explain how missiles fired from Iraq (which is east north east of Israel) managed to fly 500km to Southern Israel. Maybe you can also explain why Iraq didn't attack any of the major towns or cities that were within 300km of Iraq. Maybe it's because they weren't trying to kill anyone but rather trigger a response from Israel that would call all Arab countries to arms to defend Iraq, which was getting it's ass handed to it.

But again, for the millionth time, how was Saddam a threat in 2003?

will, those of us who werne't 10 y.o at the time remember that Saddam lobbed quite a number of scuds at Israel. And they werne't aimed at southern Israel, which is desert - they were aimed at Tel Aviv and its suburbs. There were newsreels of people driving out of Tel Aviv and up to Jerusalem every evening, on the theory that Saddam wouldn't lob scuds into a Muslim holy city. And Pres Bush gave Israel Patriot missile batteries to try to intercept the incoming scuds.

and no, I'm not giving you a link. This is my memory. I have a pretty good one.

Iraq was trying to draw Israel into the war so the other Arab states would step in and Iraq wouldn't be on it's own. Aside from that Israel had been attacking Iraq through the 80s, most notably in hitting a nuclear reactor in Baghdad. They said, despite evidence to the contrary, that it was for nuclear weapons and not power. Sounds familiar....

This conversation has gone... interesting places ... but in the interest of fact-checking, loquitur is correct about the scuds. They are a fairly significant component of the history of that conflict, and it took a lot of diplomatic footwork to keep the Israelis from retaliating on their own - which would have achieved exactly what Saddam had hoped by taking a contest over Kuwaiti national sovereignty and the rules of the world order and dragging it into a West-vs-Islam or Arab-vs-Israeli framework. The Gulf states didn't want that to happen either. This features prominently in any diplomatic history of the Gulf conflict.

Here is a link from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4588486.stm

For the last time, I considered Saddam a threat when he invaded Kuwait. His actions afterward further enforced my beliefs. I thought it was a mistake not to remove him from power in 1991. His attempt to start WWIII after his cause was lost and his continued acts of defiance were unacceptable in my opinion. Diplomacy, sanctions and threats had run their course, Saddam was buy ing time and redirecting billions of dollars from the oil for food program (He was not doing it to build palaces). The attacks on 9/11, in my view, created an urgent need to address the Saddam threat, leaving him unchecked under the conditions after 9/11 would have been a mistake in my opinion. I can not separate Saddam of 2003 from the Saddam of 1991. In my opinion he never changed, the threat he posed never changed.

Yes, but he had no means to attack. How was he a threat without the means to be a threat?

ace, Rumsfeld told congress, a month before Iraq was invaded, that it was about saving money:
I've posted the quotes (at least 10 times....)from Tenet, Powell, and Rice, from Jan. to July, 2001, all declaring that Iraq was weakened militarily, no threat to it's neighbors, and that the no fly zones and sanctions had worked to contain Saddam's ambitions. They all recommended "closely watching him", not invading Iraq.

Wars can be about more than one thing. Also, the motivations of "leaders" can be different than the motivations of the people fighting the war or the public support of a war. I gave the reasons why I supported the war, what Rumsfeld thought was not relevant to me. But the question for you and others is what motivated the people who are against the war to vote for it. You should be grilling them, making them accountable. Rumsfeld is out of the picture.

Aside from being against or for initiating military action to take out the Baath Party, what about the immediate upcoming future? The next Presidential candidates seem to have differents views about how the future of Iraq and America's involvement are going to transpire.

If we pick up and leave now, what does Iraq look like in six years? If we stay will we ever solve the issues that are present now; even if it takes "a hundred years" as McCain puts it? McCain maintains that we must "win" this war. Can the ideals that motivate hatred for Israel and the US be overcome in the region? Even our "arab allies" almost seem to be tolerating the US while if you are Israeli or even have that you have been there on your passport you are not admitted into Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. So with a best case scenerio, lets say with a gradual withdraw American troops are out over a five year period. Maybe 2 or 3 bases with a total of 4000 troops stationed there (which I think would be a mistake). Lets say Iran is bombed and the nuclear capabilities are destroyed. Who will it be after them? Does the US continue attempt to hammer down any attempts for countries that dislike the US and Israel forever? Would other countries stand for it? IMO the ideas behind what is causing the hatred must be considered and addressed. The founding fathers showed that as long as ideas fuel intentions- actions are present. Perhaps goals being met may never transpire, but as long as hatred exsists the "successful" actions in the eyes of terrorists will bring damage.

So if we have success in Iraq, whatever that means- will it last? Will Syria be next? Pakistan? Its been brought up here before, but the end question is what is the reason for the agression? Either facing that issue or accept the fact that miltary action will continue to be a part of the US exsistence in the region until one ideal is destroyed- is a reality.