France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[SlowwHand]

Give up. GePap won't answer questions.
He only slightly rewords his previous statements.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Actually, he's a rotten debater, he ignores your argument and makes things up as he goes, but that's besides the point.

His best quality is no matter what, he will never alter his postion one iota.

Do you have extensive debating experience? Actually listening to the other side has never been a critical debating tool, which si why so little ever gets agreed to during debates.

Defiant:

Uncle Joe invaded Finland, he invaded all three baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithusnia) he invaded Poland, he sent troops into Iran (with the Brits), and that of course, is if you don't count as invasions going into Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. As for Mao, many people (though not me) would say he invaded Tibet. China did attack India in 1962.

Azazel:
I will try to get to your questyion next.

[Defiant]

Alright GEP, I stand informed, I don't understand the joint Brit and Russian into Iran as an invasion but will cede to the point. Stalin should not have had Nukes and we should have stopped him.

I believe Tibet to be just a lawless territory. The difference between Saddam vs. Mao or Stalin is I believe Saddam thinks he is destined to rule the Middle East and a way to unite all Arabs is a attack on Israel and if given the opportunity will do so.

If it was Stalin in Iraq I would say the same, and Russia played from a superior military position conventionally against those much weaker nations whereas Saddam has to play from a inferior role to Israel's military, agreed?

[Az]

aww, God, Not the Stalin debate.


ok, ok, I am sorry, carry on..

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

why is it so?

for the record:
I personally believe that the status quo in Iraq is the worst possible thing. there are 3 options:
a) Iraq is left alone. People in Iraq start to live better. I expect a war in the gulf in 5-7 years tops.
b) Status quo continues. The autonomous regions in the north continue to live well. The territory under Saddam's contol continues to suffer, and the sanctions do play a role.
c) Iraq is invaded by X. Saddam is driven out of the country, people live better, new puppet government doesn't open war on anyone, there is a chance that under certain circumstances it might have small tendencies that resemble democracy.

so... which one do you choose?

I would have to say, none of the above. These arent the only three possible choices. First of all, I would say that any future war in the gulf region, as Saddam is now, is highly unlikely. As long as the US remains steadfast in its whish to keep the world oil supply spread around, it won't allow any one state to control too much of it, so Saddam's abilities to go south, the only worthwhile direction of expansionm is blocked, and Saddam knows now he can't win a war with the US. So even if the sanciotns regime was dropped, Iraq would have no chance to go to war, as i said, even with nukes.

I don't really care about the people of Iraq: this is a question of the system as is. A US attack on Iraq is not simply about making Iraq better: the people pushing for the attack think so as well. This is about creating a new example of how US power should be used to remake the world in the future. Its possible consequences are world-wide and span decades. They are more than immidate and limited to Iraq.

You know, and invasion might make Iraq a nicer place, it might not. The problem i have with this policy is that those pushing it think that the only possible outcome that can possibly come from this is good. Well, when the soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, most people assumed the lives of Afghanis would become all of a sudden better, now that war was over. Instead, the lives of common Afghanis went through even worst hells and back. Living in poverty under a dictator is still better than living in anarchy. So I do not make bets about what the lives of Iraqis will be in 5 years. I have no clues. But I can argue that trying to undermine the entire world system to place a new neo-con. derived idea of what American power should be sued for as a replacement is not what I want to see in the future. "Saving Iraq", and then Damming the world, is not the prefered outcome.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Not to hit this to hard, but rational people don't put their picture everywhere, give continous coverage of everything they do, and think that gassing and killing is the best way to hold power.

Sounds like Mao, Lenin, Stalin.....and whatever nutbar is
running N. Korea along with every Asian/mideast ruler since the building of the Sphinx.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


I would trust you, but I have never heard that before. And I'd be interested to know where he acquired it...

I'm assuming that was all accounted for after Gulf I?

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

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

[Az]

whoa, that post above really took my opinion of you a step lower, GEP.

I would have to say, none of the above. These arent the only three possible choices.

what are the other options?

But I can argue that trying to undermine the entire world system to place a new neo-con. derived idea of what American power should be sued for as a replacement is not what I want to see in the future. "Saving Iraq", and then Damming the world, is not the prefered outcome.

"undermine the entire world system to place a neo-colon derived idea? " .What world system are you talking about? where did you see rule of international "law" work in the world in the last... well, at all times, without it being in the direct interests of one of the big boys?!

Well, when the soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, most people assumed the lives of Afghanis would become all of a sudden better, now that war was over. Instead, the lives of common Afghanis went through even worst hells and back. Living in poverty under a dictator is still better than living in anarchy. So I do not make bets about what the lives of Iraqis will be in 5 years.

I still believe that if anyone, the soviet union was the good guys there. One could say that it is due to the fact that I was born in the USSR during the war, but in all seriousness, I hardly remember it being mentioned, at all. The thing is that the Mujahedeen and the US are forces almost opposite in nature. Mujahedeen- in two words, a bunch of warlords.
US- An enormous state with almost limitless financial resources, and the strongest army on the planet.

To add to this, the goals of the mujahedeen and the US govt. are opposite.

I don't really care about the people of Iraq:

No Comment.

this is a question of the system as is. A US attack on Iraq is not simply about making Iraq better: the people pushing for the attack think so as well. This is about creating a new example of how US power should be used to remake the world in the future. Its possible consequences are world-wide and span decades. They are more than immidate and limited to Iraq.

let's all remind ourselves the US can't do anything it wants. It cannot attack nuclear nations, it has conflicting interests, and sometimes hesitates to act, and the evilest government it can sport is still moderated by it's people. about "setting a new system instead of the existing one in the world" read my answer above.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Saddam knows now he can't win a war with the US. So even if the sanciotns regime was dropped, Iraq would have no chance to go to war, as i said, even with nukes."

It becomes a lot harder if Saddam gets nukes. What is stop him from invading Kuwait and threatening to nuke US with suitcase bombs if we try to stop him?

[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

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger
GP, what they had was in UNH form, in which was contained 41kgs of U235. What they had to do was:

a) Divert the fuel
b) Build the processing facility
c) Run the facility long enough to produce some 25 kgs of U235 (so efficiency is important, since fuel is non-renewable)
d) Cast and build a bomb

18 months is very optimistic for this, never mind that the Taiwatha facility where the UNH fuel was held was among the first targets bombed by the US, and was under constant IAEA monitoring until the moment the Gulf War started.

Native processes (U235 separation and neutron bombardment on laboratory scale) had managed to produce, over the course of 10 years (1982-1991), something under 1 kg of weapons-grade material. Which tells me that without the UNH fuel (imported from France and Russia) the Iraqis don't have a hope in hell of building a bomb.

What is UNH?

If they only needed to refine it another concentration power of 2, than it seems pretty concentrated to start with. U-235 is .7% abundance in ore. Let me go look for the articles. My understanding is that its not just Bush-meisters who disagreed with his stance in the 80's. And obviously the crash effort by the Iraqis in 1990 shows they were interested in making a bomb.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger
18 months is very optimistic for this, never mind that the Taiwatha facility where the UNH fuel was held was among the first targets bombed by the US, and was under constant IAEA monitoring until the moment the Gulf War started.

The point of the article that I read was that the monitoring was not continuous. It was every 6 months. And that Saddam used that time very adroitly. Basically moving the stuff right after an insepection...which gave him 6 months before he even had to refuse an inspection.

WRT to our bombing of the facility, I wasn;t trying to claim that this material presented a present danger. My point was about Blix's poor record and about how last go round concerns about WOMD (which even i worried might be made up) were found to be correct.

Let me dig it up. The WSJ reference won't work...since I have a hardcopy subscription only.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
whoa, that post above really took my opinion of you a step lower, GEP. :

Sorry to hear it.

what are the other options?

They are always unlimited, which is why i won't try to specualte on the infinite.

"undermine the entire world system to place a neo-colon derived idea? " .What world system are you talking about? where did you see rule of international "law" work in the world in the last... well, at all times, without it being in the direct interests of one of the big boys?!

The last 50 years have been incredibly peaceful. The percentage of human being living under war and revolutions has been relatively small, given the enterity of the worlds' pop. Law can only work when enforced, and the only ones who can enforce it are "the big boys". Can you frankly think of a time more peaceful than this, whitout the "big Powers" making sure it was so peaceful? When the big powers are relatively content, the world continues its imperfect romp around the sun. When the "big Boys" decide to start throwing their weight around for some reason, that's when all falls to hell.

I still believe that if anyone, the soviet union was the good guys there. One could say that it is due to the fact that I was born in the USSR during the war, but in all seriousness, I hardly remember it being mentioned, at all. The thing is that the Mujahedeen and the US are forces almost opposite in nature. Mujahedeen- in two words, a bunch of warlords.

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.

US- An enormous state with almost limitless financial resources, and the strongest army on the planet.

The same could have been said of the Brits in 1900 when they went to S. Africa. Look how far it got them with the Boers. Or look how effective Israel's great power has been at ending its conflict with the Pal's.

let's all remind ourselves the US can't do anything it wants. It cannot attack nuclear nations, it has conflicting interests, and sometimes hesitates to act, and the evilest government it can sport is still moderated by it's people. about "setting a new system instead of the existing one in the world" read my answer above.

BUt that is the thing: the US is trying to change the world system, using the "war on terror" as the perfect excuse. Just see how much US opposition there will be if the UN does not agree to the war but Bush goes through anyway (very possible). Anti-War protestors will crowd into the streets, perhaps, but then the fighting is done is a few months (at least, the fighting to be doen by US forces),and everyone in the US retrns to their previous concerns.

[DuncanK]

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

No one that I ever met cared for MAD

EDIT: until now?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DuncanK


No one that I ever met cared for MAD

EDIT: until now?

MAD works, even if it is a hideous notion. Go with what works.

Well, so much for me today. I will try to be back tommorrow, but I can't promise anything.

[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 shitting 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 shitting 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.