Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on October 17, 2014, 08:39:05 am
-
There actually were chemical weapons in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0). It had to be kept secret 'cuz drawing attention to dangerous weapons in an politically unstable country is not a good idea.
The bad news is off course that IS is now in control of chemical weaponry.
-
We always knew he had some chemical weapons. He used them, at first against Iran with our support.
-
Indeed. Once again, the US was hoist by it's own petard. I think that's why they kept it secret, someone would inevitably point out that not only they did know about them, they were very happy to see Iran getting hit by them... When they talked about "WMDs", most people (including me, at the time) thought "Nukes". Chemical weapons can be just as bad, though, and Iraq had a lot of them.
-
Well, the casus belli that the US-led coalition presented prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not just that they had weapons of mass destruction (existing stockpiles leftover from Iraq-Iran war were more or less a fact), but that Saddam Hussein was actively running a programme to develop and produce new WMD's. The phrase "mobile weapons laboratory" was being thrown around a lot, as I recall. In particular, "Mobile Production Facilities" for biological agents, rather than chemical.
To my knowledge, no such weapons development programme was found, no mobile weapons laboratories were found, the intelligence reports that the whole thing was based have pretty much been shown to have been either inaccurate or outright falsified in order to generate a suitable justification for the war, and to top it all, the informant himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)) has openly admitted that he basically made up the whole thing.
In my opinion the only one who regained at least some dignity after the fiasco of Iraq war was Colin Powell, and that's because he had at least high enough ethical standards to resign and step off from daily politics. :blah:
-
Ironically enough, this intervention is in a very large part responsible for the emergence of IS and causing those leftover WMDs to fall into the hands of dangerous terrorists... Go figure. Sometimes, I miss the times when nations went to war not to bring "freedom" (people need to be free after all, whether they want it or not...), "democracy" (everyone can vote! We'll likely soon find someone worth voting on) and "Western morality" (well, it's Western for sure, but that's about it...), but to simply annex each other. It wasn't really different from now, but at least it was more honest and less convoluted. It seems like we really didn't change or "evolve" much since 19th century, it's just that now, we've taken to convincing ourselves that we did.
-
There actually were chemical weapons in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0). It had to be kept secret 'cuz drawing attention to dangerous weapons in an politically unstable country is not a good idea.
The bad news is off course that IS is now in control of chemical weaponry.
... yikes.
-
I have an internet friend who does CBRN stuff for the Air Force. Not a field person herself, but told me way back when this was actually going on she personally knew people who had taken away stockpiles of chemical weapons. Someone going off on the "WMDs are a lie" rhetoric back then really pissed her off. I wonder if she's got a long list of I told you sos to dish out.
-
A good example of why, even when the stakes are nuclear level - going to war and causing widespread political destabilization of a state isn't always the best option.
-
I think the dual invasions were a mistake, but even so once we committed that we half-assed it. Neither government that we propped up in Iraq or Afghanistan was ready or effective at doing their job.
-
Indeed. The worst thing is, I don't think US was quite prepared to go all the way through even when they started. In fact, the very idea was badly conceived, and to actually subvert the region would likely require a lot more than the US will ever be willing to do. They essentially pulled in, ousted dictators and pulled out, hoping that "power of democracy" or something will make a stable, US-friendly government. It turned out Middle Eastern people don't quite work the same way as US people (same problem as with US and Russia - their way of thinking is different on a fundamental level), and the place reverted to what it was before the invasion, then quickly got worse because there was no single, strong leadership.
The US seems to be neither capable of playing by the local rules nor imposing their own with any degree of efficiency. The people in charge (nor the public, for that matter) either did not grasp what it'd take to truly "win" that war, or were not willing to go through with it (because that'd require doing some very "un-American" things). In a way, the situation was similar to what happened in Vietnam - "Let us declare victory and get the hell out". Only this time, the fallout is considerably worse.
-
Someone going off on the "WMDs are a lie" rhetoric back then really pissed her off.
yeah, how ****ing dare the public get angry when the military lie to them
-
Well, the casus belli that the US-led coalition presented prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not just that they had weapons of mass destruction (existing stockpiles leftover from Iraq-Iran war were more or less a fact), but that Saddam Hussein was actively running a programme to develop and produce new WMD's. The phrase "mobile weapons laboratory" was being thrown around a lot, as I recall. In particular, "Mobile Production Facilities" for biological agents, rather than chemical.
To my knowledge, no such weapons development programme was found, no mobile weapons laboratories were found, the intelligence reports that the whole thing was based have pretty much been shown to have been either inaccurate or outright falsified in order to generate a suitable justification for the war, and to top it all, the informant himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)) has openly admitted that he basically made up the whole thing.
+ the stuff about the aluminum tubes
-
Someone going off on the "WMDs are a lie" rhetoric back then really pissed her off.
yeah, how ****ing dare the public get angry when the military lie to them
:rolleyes:
the point being, they were wrong, and she knew it. but let no opportunity for a snide remark pass.
-
Is it really wrong, though? "Chemical weapons" do not necessarily equal WMDs. What sort of scale are we talking about?
Edit: article says artillery shells for delivering mustard gas, x thousands.
A nuke is a WMD. A [whatever unit] of anthrax is a WMD.
An artillery shell of mustard gas is not a WMD. Even if they were all detonated as one, I don't think it's anywhere on the scale of the others.
-
I think the dual invasions were a mistake, but even so once we committed that we half-assed it. Neither government that we propped up in Iraq or Afghanistan was ready or effective at doing their job.
I agree that we half-assed it. If you're going to do it, right or wrong, don't half-ass it, cause half-assing an invasion is always more wrong, even moreso than wrongly invading full force. If you're going to kick some ass, then kick it to the curb until it pleads for mercy, don't play with it... because, unlike person vs person combat, in a war, innocent people always get hurt, and prolonging the fight means more casualties of war.
IMHO.
We did this already with Vietnam. (Well, then we compounded that error by ditching the S Vietnamese instead of supporting them like we promised we would.) Of course, back then we were afraid of provoking the Soviets.
-
Is it really wrong, though? "Chemical weapons" do not necessarily equal WMDs. What sort of scale are we talking about?
Edit: article says artillery shells for delivering mustard gas, x thousands.
A nuke is a WMD. A [whatever unit] of anthrax is a WMD.
An artillery shell of mustard gas is not a WMD. Even if they were all detonated as one, I don't think it's anywhere on the scale of the others.
Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear. Those are the categories of WMDs. They are called such because they are utterly indiscriminate regarding who is affected. The actual size of the payload is absolutely, totally irrelevent.
And before you get cheeky with technicalities regarding hazardous common household items and components, the key phrase here is weapons. This equipment is constructed for the sole purpose of rendering uninhabitable an area by violent means.
-
. . . aren't bombs are utterly indiscriminate of who they kill, unless you're counting advanced guidance techniques? In which case, can't chemical agents have those too?
-
Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear. Those are the categories of WMDs. They are called such because they are utterly indiscriminate regarding who is affected. The actual size of the payload is absolutely, totally irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant; it is the defining property that makes a weapon into a WMD. Ask anybody which of these two definitions for WMD is more correct:
1. any weapon which causes destruction on a massive scale
2. a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon, regardless of the scale of destruction it causes
-
Iraq and Syria, the gift that just keeps giving and giving...
-
. . . aren't bombs are utterly indiscriminate of who they kill, unless you're counting advanced guidance techniques? In which case, can't chemical agents have those too?
Compared to WMDs, no. You'll notice that all of the listed types are either devastation on a massive scale (nuclear), or are capable of spreading beyond ground zero with few it no methods of direction. Chemical, biological, and radiological threats are all hugely dangerous because a stiff breeze contaminates a massive area. That's why they're classed as WMDs to begin with.
Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear. Those are the categories of WMDs. They are called such because they are utterly indiscriminate regarding who is affected. The actual size of the payload is absolutely, totally irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant; it is the defining property that makes a weapon into a WMD. Ask anybody which of these two definitions for WMD is more correct:
1. any weapon which causes destruction on a massive scale
2. a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon, regardless of the scale of destruction it causes
I'm going to be blunt on this one because otherwise I don't think you'll realize how serious I'm being:
You are flat out, unequivocally, utterly wrong. Most people not familiar with the field are wrong too. Public perception is not a factor in the classification of WMDs.
-
I think I'm going to have to make it a rule that if you argue someone is wrong and haven't bothered to check Wikipedia first you get a humiliating title / name change for a week. :p
For the general purposes of national defense,[27] the U.S. Code[28] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[29]
For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[30] the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons."[31]
Criminal (civilian)
For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[32] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[33]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[34]
-
What kind of stupid definition is that? I don't care if it's the official definition, it's stupid.
Not only is your definition obscure, unintuitive, and not true to the literal meaning of the words it combines; it's also less useful.
Which is more useful to know, for all purposes except "actually being the guy whose job it is to disarm the thing"?
1. The enemy has a weapon. It is capable of wiping out the entire population of a city.
2. The enemy has a weapon. It could be a nuke; it could be a vial full of anthrax; it could be a single artillery shell full of mustard gas.
I will continue to use "WMD" to mean what the vast majority of people think it means, which also happens to be intuitive, true to the literal meaning of the words it combines, and more useful.
But thank you for pointing out that some idiot has seen fit to formally redefine it in such a stupid way.
p.s. if you don't bother answering "which is more useful to know", i'm going to interpret that as a concession
p.p.s. someone please change the thread title; it's not "presidents", it's just Bush II; he wasn't conservative; and really it's just an "i told you so" over something that was never really in contention
-
I was also surprised by what actually falls under WMD officially as compared to the way most people use the term and think of what the term actually means. My reaction was kind of WMDs are actually pretty weaksauce then... (comparatively speaking.)
But what really matters to this topic is not what defines a WMD, but what type of WMDs we thought they had or were working their way towards having to make us feel the need to go to war with them at all, and if they indeed had or were working towards those particular WMDs. The impression I got back then was the belief was he had or was working towards having WMDs which were a threat to us and that's why we went to war.
Check this out:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf
You just need to search the word nuclear. It appears in that dossier 78 times. The concern was Saddam getting nuclear weapons and increasing the range of the missiles which could carry those nuclear weapons. And that is the definition of WMD that has spread to the people, and the definition of WMD we thought was the reason behind this war.
-
Seriously Aardwolf? That's where you're going to draw your line in the sand?
There's the infinitely more sensible position of how the term may have been abused to make a weapon seem much more dangerous than it actually is to the common public but that's what you've decided to argue instead.
-
@karajorma: :confused: I didn't say that's the definition of a WMD, just that it'd be more useful to know. Pick any scale you feel is suitably massive.
-
Except that you are wrong.
Which is more useful to know, for all purposes except "actually being the guy whose job it is to disarm the thing"?
1. The enemy has a weapon. It is capable of wiping out the entire population of a city.
2. The enemy has a weapon. It could be a nuke; it could be a vial full of anthrax; it could be a single artillery shell full of mustard gas.
Given that all three weapons mentioned in 2 are illegal, 2 is a very useful definition. 1 is in fact rather useless. A dirty bomb for instance might not even kill anyone or at best cause a fairly low number of casualties but quite a few definitions of WMD include it.
Basically, go read Wikipedia then come back once you've learned enough to make some useful comments.
-
What kind of stupid definition is that? I don't care if it's the official definition, it's stupid.
Not only is your definition obscure, unintuitive, and not true to the literal meaning of the words it combines; it's also less useful.
Which is more useful to know, for all purposes except "actually being the guy whose job it is to disarm the thing"?
1. The enemy has a weapon. It is capable of wiping out the entire population of a city.
2. The enemy has a weapon. It could be a nuke; it could be a vial full of anthrax; it could be a single artillery shell full of mustard gas.
I will continue to use "WMD" to mean what the vast majority of people think it means, which also happens to be intuitive, true to the literal meaning of the words it combines, and more useful.
But thank you for pointing out that some idiot has seen fit to formally redefine it in such a stupid way.
p.s. if you don't bother answering "which is more useful to know", i'm going to interpret that as a concession
p.p.s. someone please change the thread title; it's not "presidents", it's just Bush II; he wasn't conservative; and really it's just an "i told you so" over something that was never really in contention
Just because you, a completely uninvolved lay-person, think that a definition is stupid and counter-intuitive is about as useful as you, a completely uninvolved lay-person, trying to tell a cellular biologist that it's stupid and counter-intuitive to say that heterotrophs predate autotrophs. In both cases you're still unequivocally wrong, and everyone who actually knows what they're talking about will just roll their eyes and ignore you.
Chemical weapons of any stripe are still WMDs for the reasons that I've laid out. We found a ****ton of chemical weapons in Iraq. The dots really connect themselves after that.
-
What technically counts as a WMD seems like a very moot point, when the actual WMD pretext for the war was a lie regardless. The pretext was never about there being some decades-old barrels of stuff sitting around somewhere.
-
Indeed. That much is true. Pretty much anyone with half a brain could have figured out that there was a chance at least some old WMDs were still lying around unused from the previous war. The claim made by the Bush administration was that Saddam was manufacturing new weapons. Which no has proved to this day.
-
@Scotty: Fine, lets make up our own phrase to describe "a weapon which causes destruction on a massive scale". What should we call it?
@karajorma:
me: "which of these two pieces of intelligence would be more useful to have about an enemy?"
you: "the definition definitely isn't 'a whole city?' "
me: "not definition, pieces of intelligence!"
you: "definition 1 is useless"
Le sigh.
-
That, or you could accept that you're just wrong and stop being so petulant about it.
-
Well, as I understood it the concern wasn't so much the existence of the weapons, since we still had the receipt, as it were. The problem was the 45 minute deployment claim.
-
That, or you could accept that you're just wrong and stop being so petulant about it.
If I tell someone "they found WMDs in Iraq", they'll ask what kind, I'll tell them "mustard gas", and they'll tell me to go **** myself.
No thanks, I'll stick with being "wrong".
-
That, or you could accept that you're just wrong and stop being so petulant about it.
If I tell someone "they found WMDs in Iraq", they'll ask what kind, I'll tell them "mustard gas", and they'll tell me to go **** myself.
No thanks, I'll stick with being "wrong".
You should talk to someone who has a clue what the hell they're talking about. If you're so deadset on being wrong because you're concerned about what other people think there's a little bit of a problem there.
-
What technically counts as a WMD seems like a very moot point, when the actual WMD pretext for the war was a lie regardless. The pretext was never about there being some decades-old barrels of stuff sitting around somewhere.
I'd prefer if this kind of thing was discussed rather than Aardwolf's futile auto-strawmanning. This 'revelation' excuses nothing.
-
I don't really know what the dispute is. We went to war with Iraq, and the past tense reasons for doing so are outlined here (http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/24172.pdf)
"Defeated a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world. "
It turns out that every one of the components of those sentences are true. Iraq did have weapons that are classified as WMDs, Saddam did harbor and support terrorists, he definitely did commit human rights abuses, and he definitely wasn't a fan of the UN.
That doesn't mean that what the US government did was a Good Idea. It doesn't mean that they didn't use fear mongering and stretches of the truth to build support for an ill-advised war, and I believe (but am not entirely sure) they also used outright lies. This just isn't one of them.
I don't think anyone is really arguing anything other than that, but we seem to be stuck on the really fairly small point that this specific thing isn't a full-out lie. Or it would be a small point anyway if IS were not now in possession of chemical weapons.
-
@Scotty: Where do you think the meaning of words comes from? Which way does it go, mutual understanding --> written definition, or written definition --> mutual understanding?
@Mars: Harbored and supported terrorists? Who, when, and how?
-
Iraq did have weapons that are classified as WMDs
Did you not read the part about how the West actually gave him the shells he then filled?
-
@Scotty: Where do you think the meaning of words comes from? Which way does it go, mutual understanding --> written definition, or written definition --> mutual understanding?
Just stop, Aardwolf. I get that it's hard to admit that you were wrong, but for ****'s sake stop trying to be right about it. Just because thousands of under-informed physics students think centrifugal force is an actual thing doesn't make it so. Just because thousands of under-informed people think WMDs are related solely to their raw killing power doesn't make it so.
Stop.
-
@Scotty: Where do you think the meaning of words comes from? Which way does it go, mutual understanding --> written definition, or written definition --> mutual understanding?
Just stop, Aardwolf. I get that it's hard to admit that you were wrong, but for ****'s sake stop trying to be right about it. Just because thousands of under-informed physics students think centrifugal force is an actual thing doesn't make it so. Just because thousands of under-informed people think WMDs are related solely to their raw killing power doesn't make it so.
Stop.
You're missing the point. He's not disputing the "true" definition of WMD, he's saying that's not the one people are familiar with, and he's going to stick with the one people are familiar with. And criticising the true definition. The masses have been taught a different definition of what WMD means.
And :wtf: on Centrifugal Force. I'm calling bull**** on that. I've seen the term used all over the place including extensively by NASA scientists on Astronaut training in a documentary.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GPM/news/gpm-spin.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/techtransfer/technology/MSC-22863-1-cent-adsorp-sys.html
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/centrifugal-force.html
So are NASA talking bull****?
-
Centrifugal force simply does not exist. It's a shorthand for conservation of circular momentum. It's not a real force. Once again, read ****ing wikipedia before you tell people that they are wrong! And don't make the same mistake Aardwolf did. Learn from your mistake rather than claiming you are right when confronted by people who know the subject much better than you do.
You're missing the point. He's not disputing the "true" definition of WMD, he's saying that's not the one people are familiar with, and he's going to stick with the one people are familiar with. And criticising the true definition. The masses have been taught a different definition of what WMD means.
Except that we've pointed out why that definition makes no sense. Many people would consider a dirty bomb to be a WMD but it wouldn't actually kill many people. Furthermore if you read the wikipedia entry you'll soon realise that using WMDs to not describe the exact kind of chemical weapon it was originally created to describe is a rather stupid thing to do.
If the majority of people have learned incorrectly what the term means, then we should be arguing about why that happened. About how the Bush government deliberately used the WMD term so that people would conflate the chemical weapons Saddam did have with the nuclear weapons they were scared of.
-
If the majority of people have learned incorrectly what the term means, then we should be arguing about why that happened. About how the Bush government deliberately used the WMD term so that people would conflate the chemical weapons Saddam did have with the nuclear weapons they were scared of.
Yeah, about that... (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uranium-shipped-to-montreal-from-iraq-in-top-secret-mission-1.742303)
(pssst, take a look at the date on that article. That news is over six years old, but conveniently coincides with the US election year)
-
I'm just pointing out Aardwolf isn't saying Scotty's wrong. The very fact that he acknowledges the existence of two definitions testifies to that. As for me, I accept the true definition.
On Centrifugal Force, I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong, especially when coming on so strongly, but there's a possibility neither of us were wrong, but both right in our own way. He said it's not a thing. I skimmed the wiki at the time, but my brain was really going on the documentary I mentioned. So I was more interested in searching the NASA website to see, and that's what you see I posted. I'll try and do some research. Like this for instance:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109500/does-centrifugal-force-exist
-
@karajorma:
Obligatory xkcd link http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png ; it exists in that it's a real phenomenon; it's just not a "force" in the traditional sense.
Furthermore if you read the wikipedia entry you'll soon realise that using WMDs to not describe the exact kind of chemical weapon it was originally created to describe is a rather stupid thing to do.
You know, when you excerpted part of that article for me, I assumed that that was supposed to be the interesting bit, and thus I had no inclination to look at the rest of the article.
I now know that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" was coined in 1937 in reference to the the aerial bombardment of Guernica.
Well, I was almost going to concede that maybe "weapons of mass destruction" can just be classes of weapon, rather than a plural which must necessarily have a singular form... and I was going to be like "TIL Guernica was chemical weapons"... but then I fact-checked myself, and found out it wasn't (or at least it's disputed). So either we add "conventional ordinance, x a lot" as a type of WMD, or we remove chemical from the list (unless, say, it were the same kind of artillery shells but with sarin instead of mustard gas).
Iraq did have weapons that are classified as WMDs
Did you not read the part about how the West actually gave him the shells he then filled?
I think you need to check that you aren't subconsciously reading a "not" that isn't actually in Mars' post.
@Scotty: You are being an authoritarian. Authoritarianism is bad. You have repeatedly endorsed the authority of one particular definition, the one used by the United States government. That is just one definition, and it is imperfect. I have attempted to formulate a more useful one; you have no business preventing me from doing so, nor especially do you have any business telling me my formulations are "wrong" because they aren't the one you endorse.
I get that it's hard to admit that you were wrong
I can interpret this one of two ways.
- You presumed to know what I was thinking... you reckoned I believed myself to be in error, but was too stubborn to admit it. In which case you were wrong. Do not attempt to argue with me about what I was thinking; to tell me my motives or my thoughts were not what I claim they were is to accuse me of lying, and I will not stand for that.
- You didn't actually think I believed myself to be in error, but you wanted to call me a "sore loser" anyway to demoralize me.
So which is it, were you wrong, or were you being a dick?
On topic (moreso, at least):
As I remember things, these are the two big selling points Bush II and co. used to push the invasion of Iraq:
- The aluminum tubes, supposedly for centrifuges to enrich uranium. This was either an outright lie on their part, or gross incompetence, because within the next few weeks (iirc? maybe sooner) The Washington Post discovered that "hey these aluminum tubes which you said were too fancy for any kind of missile? Yeah, we found out they exactly match the parts uses in this kind of missile".
- Some satellite photos of trucks that they claimed were "mobile weapon facilities". I don't remember what precisely the claim was, whether it was supposed to be chemical or bio or nuclear or what, but the evidence was ****. Somehow one photo shows the vehicles, and another of the same place without the vehicles (or did they show up somewhere else?), and it's like "trucks move therefore <plural noun>"
And maybe
- "They have missiles capable of hitting Israel". I don't know if that was true, but there wasn't any indication that Saddam had any interest in doing so.
-
@Scotty: You are being an authoritarian. Authoritarianism is bad. You have repeatedly endorsed the authority of one particular definition, the one used by the United States government. That is just one definition, and it is imperfect. I have attempted to formulate a more useful one; you have no business preventing me from doing so, nor especially do you have any business telling me my formulations are "wrong" because they aren't the one you endorse.
I get that it's hard to admit that you were wrong
I can interpret this one of two ways.
- You presumed to know what I was thinking... you reckoned I believed myself to be in error, but was too stubborn to admit it. In which case you were wrong. Do not attempt to argue with me about what I was thinking; to tell me my motives or my thoughts were not what I claim they were is to accuse me of lying, and I will not stand for that.
- You didn't actually think I believed myself to be in error, but you wanted to call me a "sore loser" anyway to demoralize me.
So which is it, were you wrong, or were you being a dick?
Cut the bull****, Aardwolf. This is at the very least the second time you've used that utterly contemptible attempt to reframe the discussion in terms of personal attacks instead of what's actually going on. This time I'm going to call your bluff on it: you're lying. Not because of either of those two options, both of which are wrong, but because this is by far the most egregious example of discussional dishonesty in GenDisc in the last week, and that's saying something. If you are fundamentally incapable of understanding that the world does not revolve around you, or what you want it to be, then you have no business discussing real world issues on this forum. You were wrong. I didn't use the term "unequivocally" earlier in the discussion without giving it some thought. There is not an eventuality in which your definition will be preferential while discussing this subject, because it is wrong.
You're acting like the worst kind of lay-person. The kind that disagrees with people who have real experience in the field because it "sounds wrong", and then have the gall to be indignant when you're corrected.
I am fully aware that what follows is not appropriate moderator language, nor do I particularly care. I'll handle the consequences graciously, which you seem incapable of doing.
Grow the **** up.
-
Centrifugal force definitely does 'exist' in a meaningful sense; I thought this had been hammered into the internet's collective consciousness by that xkcd comic.
-
You know, when you excerpted part of that article for me, I assumed that that was supposed to be the interesting bit, and thus I had no inclination to look at the rest of the article.
That you should have looked at the article before starting this nonsense was my entire point. If you wanted to keep arguing you definitely should have looked at it then.
Well, I was almost going to concede that maybe "weapons of mass destruction" can just be classes of weapon, rather than a plural which must necessarily have a singular form... and I was going to be like "TIL Guernica was chemical weapons"... but then I fact-checked myself, and found out it wasn't (or at least it's disputed). So either we add "conventional ordinance, x a lot" as a type of WMD, or we remove chemical from the list (unless, say, it were the same kind of artillery shells but with sarin instead of mustard gas).
Or you stop dragging this entire thread off topic with your attempts to redefine something so that you can win an argument on the internet. No one else cares about your definition. It's not germane to the discussion. I've repeatedly told you what is more important but you continue to attempt to win the discussion by proving you were correct to redefine what WMD meant. You really aren't.
Iraq did have weapons that are classified as WMDs
Did you not read the part about how the West actually gave him the shells he then filled?
I think you need to check that you aren't subconsciously reading a "not" that isn't actually in Mars' post.
I read it just fine.
Mars attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq with the claim that Saddam had chemical weapons. I point out that the same countries that supported the invasion were also heavily involved in giving him those weapons in the first place.
-
You know what, fine, I don't know what you were thinking when you posted this:
I get that it's hard to admit that you were wrong
What effect could you possibly expect that to have other than pissing me off?
attempts to redefine something so that you can win an argument on the internet
You've got it backwards: saying the phrase should be defined a certain way is not a tool to win an argument, it's the argument I'm trying to win.
No one else cares about your definition. It's not germane to the discussion. I've repeatedly told you what is more important
You're right, perhaps my revised definition is not relevant here. But my original one is, because that's (partly) how the invasion was sold to the American public.
but you continue to attempt to win the discussion by proving you were correct to redefine what WMD meant. You really aren't.
Subjective, but I'm done with this.
I read it just fine.
Mars attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq with the claim that Saddam had chemical weapons. I point out that the same countries that supported the invasion were also heavily involved in giving him those weapons in the first place.
I see. But that wasn't Mars' point at all. Mars was saying "Some of Bush II and co.'s claims were lies, but this one wasn't, on a technicality".
-
I point out that the same countries that supported the invasion were also heavily involved in giving him those weapons in the first place.
...and then also proceeded to use things like white phosphorus and depleted uranium themselves, too. :rolleyes:
-
Arguing "We need to shoot him because he has a gun locked away in a gun safe that I sold him illegally" should get both of you in trouble. The big lie was that Saddam was making WMDs. Because Bush et al weren't willing to shout out quite as loud that the weapons they actually knew he had were ones they gave him in the first place.
-
Oh I'm sure these were those, you know, "unknown unknowns" that everyone knew about anyway...
-
Arguing "We need to shoot him because he has a gun locked away in a gun safe that I sold him illegally" should get both of you in trouble. The big lie was that Saddam was making WMDs. Because Bush et al weren't willing to shout out quite as loud that the weapons they actually knew he had were ones they gave him in the first place.
Did you read the article I posted in direct response to this earlier? It very much sounds like you didn't.
-
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. The fact that Iraq had uranium was an established fact well before the first gulf war. Given that you can't even make a dirty bomb from yellowcake I don't see where you're going with this.
-
You can, however, enrich said yellow cake to produce fissile material and with over five hundred tons of it even at very low percent yield that's a lot of material. Facilities for exactly that refinement did exist in Iraq. If that doesn't fit the bill of "WMD development" then nothing does.
-
And yet since 1991 there wasn't a single gram of it converted into fissile material (at least as far as I've ever heard of). What explanation do you have for that apart from "Saddam wasn't actually trying to make a bomb"?
-
Did you forget why this thread exists? The entire reason this is only news now instead of 10 years ago or more is because the Bush administration deliberately hushed it up to keep said weapons secure. If you'll recall, 2003 was also right about when Iran stated getting serious about their nuclear program. News of weapons quality or even the *potential* for weapons quality uranium stores would have been Very Bad.
-
...and then also proceeded to use things like white phosphorus and depleted uranium themselves, too. :rolleyes:
The latter actually isn't bad at all - it's a lot like tungsten, in that it's dense, hard to melt and really hard. DU shells are hardly WMDs, quite the opposite, in fact (they're used as high velocity anti-tank ammunition). As for WP, it was supposedly for illumination. I suppose you can do that, Captain Walker got an entire Army camp mighty well illuminated in SpecOps: The Line... Apparently, chemical weapons special-purpose shells are OK to use as long as they horribly kill people in addition to doing something else.
-
@Scotty: This thread exists because some people weren't paying enough attention. I distinctly remember seeing a TV news story about our soldiers finding drums of the stuff.
@Dragon: It's also pyrophoric!
Now can someone please change the thread title? Because it's not good news, it's not news, he wasn't conservative, and he wasn't presidents.
-
You have a lot of issues with the definition of words, don't you?
-
Because it's not good news, it's not news, he wasn't conservative, and he wasn't presidents.
Bush wasn't conservative? First time I have ever heard of it.
Otherwise: Sarcasm yo.
-
IIRC, there's no conclusive evidence that DU is more harmful than any other heavy metal is. People hear the word uranium and get irrational.
-
whoops
-
Did you forget why this thread exists? The entire reason this is only news now instead of 10 years ago or more is because the Bush administration deliberately hushed it up to keep said weapons secure. If you'll recall, 2003 was also right about when Iran stated getting serious about their nuclear program. News of weapons quality or even the *potential* for weapons quality uranium stores would have been Very Bad.
I'm going to have to ask you to explain it from the start cause I still don't have a clue what you're on about.
-
The discussion is over my level of discourse, but I would like to say I was not "attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq." I was saying that one can easily concede that Iraq had WMDs but
"That doesn't mean that what the US government did was a Good Idea. It doesn't mean that they didn't use fear mongering and stretches of the truth to build support for an ill-advised war, and I believe (but am not entirely sure) they also used outright lies. This just isn't one of them."
Re summation: The Iraq war can still be a terrible idea even if Iraq did (and of course it did) have WMDs. So I don't see, really, what the dispute is about.
-
I'll start from just after the invasion.
1) Troops on the ground discover stores of chemical weapons and processed uranium ore (yellowcake)
2) Troops on the ground immediately secure these stores
3) Troops are deliberately instructed to declare they have not found any such stores
a) The reasoning for this cover-up is to avoid letting the entire region know that there are thousands of tons of these stores in what is essentially a lawless, government-less country.
b) Iraq has previously demonstrated knowledge of advanced uranium metallurgy as early as (http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm) 1988. (http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/iaea/gc40-13.html)
i) Significant stores of enriched uranium were removed from Iraq (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm?csp=34) in the aftermath of the Gulf War. This indicates that they possessed the infrastructure to enrich uranium.
ii) Related to 3a, Iraq's stores of processed uranium ore and uranium enrichment infrastructure are likewise at rise from the destabilization of the region.
4) The US removes over 500 tonnes of processed uranium ore from Iraq. No one particularly notices or cares.
a) This happens during an election year.
i) Democrat party line cannot mention the facade because it means Bush was right.
ii) Republic party line cannot mention the facade because the area is still unstable (and Bush wasn't up for re-election that year).
5) The current news breaks.
Iraq was in full possession of the infrastructure, means, and materials to manufacture fissile materials and weapons-grade uranium. This infrastructure had been in place since the late '80s, and the presence of so much yellowcake indicated a clear intent to continue development and manufacture (in the same way 500 tons of meth indicates intent to sell meth). US military planners underestimated either the quantity and widespread status of this equipment (and the chemical stuff) and the instability toppling a decades-'stable' dictatorship produces and then collectively **** their pants. Then the cover-up happens.
That covers most of it, I think?
Before the post EDIT: I'm not condoning, supporting, or giving my retroactive approval to the US invasion of Iraq. The point I'm making here is that Bush jumped on a ****ing huge political grenade and we all gave him **** for it for a decade and change when he was actually not wrong.
-
Okay, I get the point you're making but the question I have to ask is when was the enriched uranium made? Was any made after 1991?
There is an enormous difference between jumping on a live political grenade and throwing a grenade sitting in a cupboard on the ground, pulling the pin out and then expecting people to think you saved us all when the grenade goes off.
-
That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up. All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into. I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.
-
Then what was the news story I saw on TV about our soldiers finding drums of the stuff?
-
That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up. All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into. I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.
In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.
-
That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up. All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into. I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.
In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.
You mean where it ultimately ended up? Not a clue. Your second question, I'm not sure I follow. Given the state of Iraq in late 2003, or hell, clear through 2006 or 2007, even an armory full of chemical artillery shells that anybody with the agency to do anything knew about was a dangerous proposition. A dangerous chunk of Iraq's neighbors would have leaped at the chance to get their hands on it. Right now the reason this news is getting so much attention is that ISIS is in position to lay claim to a good portion of the storage sites. Fissile material would be even worse. If a few dozen mustard gas shells is worth hushing up over, a couple dozen kilos of enriched uranium is orders of magnitude beyond that.
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant why the **** would we care about ISIS having chemical weapons if they now have enriched uranium.
That said, I'm somewhat dubious about the presence of said uranium. Given how badly the intelligence community ****ed up over the manufacture of chemical weapons, it's reasonably likely that nothing at all was made post 1991. The international atomic inspectors certainly didn't find any proof of it.
-
Ah, that's a much more poignant question. I would be shocked if said enriched uranium remained in Iraq any longer than it takes the US Government to decide and do something about it. Considering the threat level and sensitivity of the substance in question, that process could be as low as a matter of a few weeks, or as long as a couple years; I highly, highly doubt ISIS has it. If they do, it's an intelligence failure of proportions larger than it's possible to suggest without hyperbole.
-
That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up. All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into. I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.
In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.
I guess any idiot can use even the components for chemical weapons to devastating effect without much difficulty, whereas even turning enriched uranium into a bomb is an incredible undertaking.
-
That question I can't answer with any certainty one way or the other in terms of hard evidence to back it up. All I've got on that end is anecdotal (my dad was MI for 20 years and was a defense contractor for eight after that; he knows a lot of people) but that I'm more than willing to put stock into. I obviously can't force you to believe me, but I'm as certain as certain comes that Iraq under Hussein was producing enriched uranium post-1992.
In which case then, what the **** happened to it? Cause why the **** would we care about them having old chemical weapons if they might have enriched uranium.
I guess any idiot can use even the components for chemical weapons to devastating effect without much difficulty, whereas even turning enriched uranium into a bomb is an incredible undertaking.
And, ironically, we invented the atomic bomb before the electronic calculator.
-
I guess any idiot can use even the components for chemical weapons to devastating effect without much difficulty, whereas even turning enriched uranium into a bomb is an incredible undertaking.
Well the danger is not so much them having it as them selling it to someone who does have the capabilities to make it.
-
I would be shocked and appalled (for multiple reasons) if any sort of nuclear infrastructure or materials was in Iraq. The US has had over a decade to dismantle, move, and disappear anything that could possibly have been used for such nefarious purposes, and doing so would be a very high priority (even leaving aside the stated reason for invading).
-
To be honest, I'd be very surprised if there was any enriched uranium at all. Sure the "we don't want terrorists to get hold of it" excuse might work while it was still in Iraq but unless they've done something massively illegal with it, the Bush administration had 5 years to get the damn stuff back to the West and you'd have thought they might have said something about it once it was safely disposed of.
-
Sure, sure, but would you want to be stuck holding the bag if there actually was some enriched uranium left, you came out and said there wasn't, and now there is, and terrorist group xyz got their hands on it? Easier to just keep it quiet. Iraq isn't exactly a small country, and Sadaam had how long to hide his already clandestine operations before we invaded?