posted
I do have some reservations about the reliability and potential bias of the source here ... can any of our resident physicists shed some light on the whole DU business? Why do we use it? Are its side effects as dramatic as the article claims?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
By the way, on the site you initially point to: that second picture definitely looks "doctored." (not to belittle the possible seriousness of DU, which certainly makes "common sense" that there could be a hazard, but just trying to recognize propaganda on both sides when it comes up).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DU *is* toxic like any other heavy metal, but that is not why it's used.
The rounds it is used for are anti-tank rounds. Depleted uranium is one of the densest materials on the planet which makes it a great penetrator.
What depleted uranium should *not* be is significantly radioactive. That's what the "depleted" means.
edit: I mean, perhaps I've been misinformed about something because they seem pretty sure about this, but they also describe uranium as "weakly radioactive" and it's obviously not that weak, is it?
posted
Didn't someone post something here a month or so ago about the dirty bomb plot being a hoax because it used Uranium, which wouldn't be dangerous if dispersed by bomb?
posted
from what I have read the people who complain about DU are not really using science. They are just making guesses...and want something to blame. Besides, DU is no longer radioactive.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, things labeled as "safe" at one point in time, may be found years later not to have been safe.
Early in the 20th century, radiation was deemed to be safe. People were exposed to it all the time--has anyone heard of the "Radiation Girls" of Orange, NJ, back in the 30s?
I'm not saying this is true with the DU weapons causing disease and such, but I'm not saying it's untrue. Only time will tell, and even so, we may never hear about it.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
again, it's heavy metal toxic, like lead. People are just latching onto ignorance and the word "uranium" to scare up nuclear hysteria and make things seem worse than they are.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:People are just latching onto ignorance and the word "uranium" to scare up nuclear hysteria and make things seem worse than they are.
Actually, Jim-Me, DU is a danger as a radioactive substance, even according to the US military (pdf).
quote:Depleted unranium aerosols are one of the many potentially hazardous substances that personnel may encounter during deployment and combat operations. There are two potential hazards associated with exposure to large amounts od DU aerosols—heavy metal toxicity and low-level radioactivity. Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium. There is still theoretical risk for radiation-induced health effects from inhaling DU particulate aerosols.
This was finally put together in May of 2003 by our military, partially due to the lack of procedure for handling DU exposure, and because of the fact that so very many ex-Gulf-War vets are claiming this as a cause. One can dismiss the material from spurious sources, but when the military has developed exposure protocols for soldiers regarding the substance, serious thought should be applied to the claims of its toxicity.
The problem with DU is that while it is toxic in the same sense that lead is (though far more so), its physical make-up causes particles to slough off of it in very dangerous quantities. There were similar reports to this one coming from Kosovo, near and around the areas where battles were fought using a great deal of DU rounds.
quote:Physicist Snezana Pavlovic holds a few scrapings in a sealed dish from a DU bullet found at Bujanovac. The meter on the hand-held German radiation detector - which can be calibrated for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation - surges across the scale when the probe nears the dish.
"That's high activity," Mrs. Pavlovic says. To handle this substance requires a specialist laboratory, with ventilation, for dealing with "hot" radioactive substances.
Also mentioned in the article is the fact that DU dust can travel in the air over 26 miles, and the interesting tidbit that the US' stockpiles of tonnes of nuclear waste are what are being used to make these weapons. If the waste is so harmless, why do we go to such lengths in this country to keep it sealed off from the general population? Putting it into bullets and firing it at the enemy makes it no safer after having been used.
By the way, the half-life of DU is not 4000 years, but 4.5 billion years
A few rounds are generally considered not harmful, but when whole fields are littered with thousands to hundreds of thousands of these rounds, the danger to the surrounding population is a growing concern. Not simply because some of the particles can get into the air, but because the particles slowly seep down into the water underground.
Trevor:
quote:Or another pr campaign.
It must have been a PR campaign that started 6 years ago:
quote:Is there a continuing health risk from DU fragments and particles for civilians in Iraq and Kuwait? And if the degree of danger to human health can't be nailed down, how should future use of DU be dealt with?
Several official bodies already take serious precautions. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for example, requires a license to handle or test-fire DU munitions. The US Army has 14 separate NRC licenses related to the substance. The Navy and Air Force each have one NRC "master materials" license.
Workers handling DU in the US must treat it as low-level radioactive waste. Disposal typically means the substance is locked into a 30-gallon canister, sealed with plastic, then sealed again inside a 55-gallon drum and, by law, buried in licensed underground dumps. Fine particles are mixed into concrete and locked into drums.
If it were simple histrionics, Trevor, so many separate international bodies wouldn't be so adamant about restricting physical access to the material. From the earlier-mentioned article:
quote:American nuclear physicists have found that DU dust can travel at least 26 miles. Scientists of the National Institute for Health Protection in Macedonia, south of Kosovo, detected eight times higher than normal levels of alpha radiation - the primary type emitted by DU - in the air in April, during the conflict.
That is not just some PR campaign. The danger with the massive amounts of DU in Iraq are due to the particles entering people's bodies through water, air, and food. Read here for a brief explanation and a link to another pdf with more details. Here is a WHO breakdown of the dangers and exposure thresholds for DU. The most curious thing about finding medical sources for info on DU is that the most prominent studies, especially those done in the US, were funded by the US, which provides quite a bit of skepticism about conflict of interests regarding the resulting data, none of which has been tested outside of laboratory theoretical conditions, mostly because DU had never been used in combat before 1991.
So, do us all a favor here, fellas, and let's not accuse others of ignorance when displaying ignorance ourselves, okay? You sound like you are simply looking for an excuse to dismiss the claim rather than even look into the actual hazards therein.
[ July 29, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Didn't someone post something here a month or so ago about the dirty bomb plot being a hoax because it used Uranium, which wouldn't be dangerous if dispersed by bomb?
I don't know about that, but the thing that would make the threat a hoax wouldn't be the dispersal capabilities. See the above mention of its ability to cover more than 26 miles in particle form. It could definitely become dangerous if dispersed through a bomb. The most likely reason it would not be any kind of likelihood would be the fact that getting hold of even low amounts of DU requires restricted access at many levels, and that kind of thing just couldn't be smuggled into the US in an easy manner. It could theoretically be done, and would be highly dangerous, but the likelihood of all the pieces falling together in such a plan would be statistically astronomical.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really need to find this thread now, because my recollection is that the plotters had figured out how to acquire DU, and the gist of the article was an accusation that the administration was either playing up the threat knowing DU wouldn't be harmful or didn't know DU wouldn't be harmful and therefore couldn't protect us.
I'm not citing this to contradict the dangers of DU munitions; I'm citing it to figure out which one is accurate. Your stuff makes me think the critics of the Padilla detention are grasping at straws on this issue.
There is a huge difference between having "low-level radioactivity" and the claims in the first couple of articles that we have effectively nuked Iraq.
Lots of things are radioactive and I have personally seen geiger counters go nuts over all kinds of random objects. That one shell has significant emissions is hardly an excuse to go claiming that "[the] resulting radiation is no less damaging to those exposed to it than the fallout of a 'conventional' atomic bomb" and discussing the new "Atomic War".
My point is not that there isn't a danger here, but that the articles cited are using the word "nuclear" and atomic to scare people.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, the problem with that link is that it intentionally dodges the dangers of DU's tendancy to spread particles very quickly and very far. It takes a poor method to dispel worry over a dirty bomb attack. The likelihood is, as I said, too statistically high to take seriously for the most part. Still, the dangers of DU should not be ignored because of this. Replace the acronym "DU" with "nuclear waste" if you want a good idea why, because the US government, international organizations, private contractors, and the scientific community all treat the two (DU munitions and nuclear waste) the same in terms of collection, removal, and storage.
Jim-Me
quote:There is a huge difference between having "low-level radioactivity" and the claims in the first couple of articles that we have effectively nuked Iraq.
They are not saying that the radioactivity is the only problem, and they are not saying we have nuked them. You are oversimplifying and inflating the meaning (of their words), just the same thing you claim they are doing. The lower level of radiation in DU is still very dangerous to humans if inhaled or ingested. Not just dangerous as a heavy metal, but dangerous as radiation. The biggest thing with the DU radiation, which is why it is so easy to dismiss DU radiation as a threat, is that it needs direct contact to affect a person. This a great excuse to dismiss the dangers if you also ignore the tendancy of DU to slough off particles, which can travel in the air for miles. Add to this the tonnes strewn across many fields, and you effectively have an open-air nuclear waste dump.
quote:Lots of things are radioactive and I have personally seen geiger counters go nuts over all kinds of random objects. That one shell has significant emissions is hardly an excuse to go claiming that "[the] resulting radiation is no less damaging to those exposed to it than the fallout of a 'conventional' atomic bomb" and discussing the new "Atomic War".
Read the US military pdf I linked.
quote:My point is not that there isn't a danger here, but that the articles cited are using the word "nuclear" and atomic to scare people.
Hmm, and you edited the post where you essentially said there was no danger to begin with, so I can't really show otherwise. Also, since the material comes from nuclear waste, using the term is not incorrect or excessive. Suffice to say, the impression you were (and still are, IMO) giving is that you don't think the danger is as severe as the articles claim. I am arguing that something like that is easy for we Americans, who will never come close to even the fraction of exposure places like Iraq and Kosovo have experienced with this material (outside of Three-Mile Island), hence we will see no threat from it. We have a nasty habit of ignoring ramifications of something until it turns up in our backyard when it comes to things like this.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, the problem with that link is that it intentionally dodges the dangers of DU's tendancy to spread particles very quickly and very far. It takes a poor method to dispel worry over a dirty bomb attack.
posted
Additionally, Jim-Me, I sincerely hope you are not claiming that there is no fallout from DU, because that's exactly what fallout is: the contamination of the soil, water, and air due to particles from nuclear material. Someone can claim that there is less fallout than from a nuclear warhead and be totally correct, but to claim there is none form the use of DU would be contradictory to what nuclear physicists as well as military and other governmental organizations in first world countries are saying.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I edited the post within ten minutes of posting, long before anything you wrote, and didn't undo anything I wrote, so why throw that out there as if I've been disingenuous?
I said it wasn't "significantly radioactive" and I'll stand by that and I don't think I exaggerated the sense of hysteria in the other articles. If you do, sorry.
Don't have time to go back and forth so I'm just going to have to let my statements stand. Nothing you've said or linked to really makes me regret or want to withdraw anything I've said.
posted
I'm not saying you've been disingenuous. I'm saying you already edited the parts where you initially completely disregarded the issue. I also maintain that you are still disregarding the issue, even in the face of evidence from more than one source that their claims have significant merit.
Are you saying that there is no fallout from DU? If you are, you are wrong.
Are you saying the radioactivity from DU is harmless? If you are, you are wrong.
Are you saying the radioactivity from DU cannot reach people? If you are, you are wrong.
The only real thing you can argue is whether there are direct correlations with cancer cases and DU, since there has been very little real information to study as of yet, and all lab test results range from inconclusive to the US government-sponsored "negligible" test results. Yet we still have vets from 12 years ago who are suffering from lung cancer and similar unidentified syndromes, while in Iraq and Kosovo there are similar cases as those with the American Gulf War vets. With this argument, you're going to have trouble making any real case, because none of even the official studies have been outside of a laboratory, and both sides have vested interests. It would all come down to an argument of who do you believe, who agrees with your opinion more, and who you want to trust.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Not significantly radioactive" in that the sacrificial top skin layer is sufficient to protect still reproducing replacement cells from being damaged by DUs relatively weak ionizing radiation. Unfortunately, the inside of ones body doesn't have sacrificial cells which can deal with ionizing radiation. Result: cell damage, chromosome damage, cancer, birth defects, etc.
Then there is the chemical damage. DU is usually fired at a sufficiently high speed that impact fragments&powderizes a significant portion of the DU slug. Uranium powder explosively burns upon contact with oxygen in the air. But there are two major combustion products. One is an inert oxide which will be passed out of the body fairly quickly (except the lungs, so one would still have to worry about radiation damage there). The other is only partially oxidized, and will react with body chemistry to become absorbed into the body itself. And the human body ain't particularly well equipped to handle heavy metals. So ya end up with both ionizing radiation damage and heavy metal poisoning.
posted
From what I understand of depleted uranium weaponry, the military only uses it in anti-tank rounds where typical high-explosive shells won't do the trick (most modern tanks are almost immune to a single non-DU shell). In 1991, Saddam had a good number of modern or nearly-modern tanks, so DU rounds were most-likely used. I don't think they'd be used in a significant-enough quantity to make an easily-measurable effect. The vast majority of our military's weapons don't use depleted uranium ammunition, it's not practical.
The first article is unclear as to whether or not there is conclusive proof that radiation is causing the cancer spike. It says "depleted uranium" and "birth defects" and the connection is assumed. These people aren't getting radiation sickness, which has some very specific symptoms (hair falling out, inability to digest food, etc...). I don't have any idea if that has anything to do with it.
I would wonder if a real study of Iraq's environment would find that a significant amount of these problems were caused by Saddam's own chemical weapons which were used to kill his own people and stored in unassuming werehouses for us to blow up in the 1991 quasi-invasion.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the way, the half-life of DU is not 4000 years, but 4.5 billion years
This just means that it is even safer, since longer half-life = less radiation emitted.
Edit: while it continues to emit radiation for a very long time, the levels of decay are infinitesimally small. And according to your link, even undepleted uranium has a half life of 245,000 years... still indicating a very small dose of ionizing radiation emitted. The elements with extremely short half-lives (Polonium and Proactinium) are the ones that would cause the most radiation damage.
posted
Maui babe, you are still misunderstanding. While those lowered levels of radiation are notable, the affect it has once it enters the body cannot be disregarded simply because the rate and type of radiation is lower. It is, in fact, still radioactive. It is, in fact, dangerous if it enters the body. It does, in fact, let loose particles off very easily and spread quickly. This is why it is treated as a hazardous material in the first place. Yet we fire this hazardous material at enemy vehicles, then leave the spent rounds sitting in the empty battlefields. This is when they become far more dangerous to the surrounding population, just as if a company were dumping thousands of pounds of chemical pollutants behind a city.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For any of you who are skeptical, ask yourselves this: would you or would you not worry about your health or contamination if you learned that someone had dumped a thousand pounds of depleted urianium within 30 miles of your home? More than this has been collected in Kosovo and Iraq so far, and there is still much to be cleaned up.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you or would you not trust information from an article that describes the armies that invaded Kuwait as "desperately retreating":
quote: The unprecedented US-led aerial bombardment and DU armor-piercing shells forced the Iraqi troops to desperately retreat from Kuwait on February 27.
How desperate do you have to be to surrender to a radio controlled model plane? [contempt for Saddam Hussein's army and not necessarily every Iraqi citizen]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I believe the U.S. is to blame for the epidemic, because we hung around riding the tech stocks and having sex scandals for 10 years instead of getting rid of Saddam and letting him starve his people that whole time.
Ooops, soory for the double post.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you show too much contempt for the Iraqi army - a lot of soldiers were poorly trained conscripts who had no interest in fighting and dying for Hussein.
Although I imagine since we left him in power, the former soldiers weren't treated terribly well after the fact. Just a guess on my part.
posted
I agree about propagating the problem by not following through a decade ago, pooka. However, Iraq is not the only place with this problem now. Nor do I believe it will be the last.
Saddam's troops back in the first Gulf War were often retreating against orders, which resulted in their surrender. At least, that's what the friends of mine who were there and saw men surrendering told me they were claiming. That would make a lot more sense as to why so many surrendered, since Saddam wasn't very forgiving.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How exactly would you have gotten rid of Saddam in Gulf War I?
Don't get me wrong, clearly it would have been better if we had. But look back to the international-political situation at the time, and tell me just how we would have managed it, someone?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about the 'should've gotten rid of Saddam last time' argument.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would have been political suicide for Bush Sr, but it would have been the right thing to do.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should we instead come up with varying degrees of good and bad what-ifs that are not going to be verifiable in any realistic sense, except to back up our political ideology that we have already decided on?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should we instead come up with varying degrees of good and bad what-ifs that are not going to be verifiable in any realistic sense, except to back up our political ideology that we have already decided on?
Oh, the what-if question I'm asking has a pretty reliable answer-as for my political ideology and decision, you don't know mine.
Among other things, if we had pursued the first Persian Gulf War beyond our original stated goal-the protection of Kuwait and neighboring countries, and removal of Iraqi forces from there-we would have greatly alienated most if not all of the Arab nations with which we had an alliance. We would not have been permitted to use their territory for our military purposes. They would have gone from military allies-an unheard of situation-to belligerent people feeling betrayed. The conditional support the first Coalition had would have dried up at once.
Now I can say that, and still say (in retrospect) that we should have gone ahead and done so anyway. But the question you're dodging is this: would such an action have been reasonable at the time? Would you have supported it? Is it reasonable to have expected Bush Sr. to go along with it, knowing with a degree of certainty beyond 'what-if' what would have happened?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, the what-if question I'm asking has a pretty reliable answer-as for my political ideology and decision, you don't know mine.
I don't have to know yours. Just like everyone, any what-if scenarios are going to agree with your political ideology.
Yes, I would have supported it. It was only a few years after he had gassed thousands of Kurds, and he had already become too big for his britches. Hell, in the world court, we could have used his gassing of the Kurds as the excuse for going in, instead of Bush Jr's excuses that were, to date, without merit. It would have been far more successful politically since the proof and weapons were there. Also, considering that Iraq was a secular state that the Shiite Muslims in the Middle East disliked, many other Arab nations would have supported the removal of Hussein.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have to know yours. Just like everyone, any what-if scenarios are going to agree with your political ideology.
But my 'what-if' scenario-and it was not really a 'what-if scenario'doesn't agree with my own political ideology. What I think would have happened makes it more difficult for what I think should have been done to be accomplished. Your accusations of political ideology are just a means of ignoring what was obvious to everyone in 1991.
quote:Yes, I would have supported it. It was only a few years after he had gassed thousands of Kurds, and he had already become too big for his britches. Hell, in the world court, we could have used his gassing of the Kurds as the excuse for going in, instead of Bush Jr's excuses that were, to date, without merit. It would have been far more successful politically since the proof and weapons were there. Also, considering that Iraq was a secular state that the Shiite Muslims in the Middle East disliked, many other Arab nations would have supported the removal of Hussein.
I think it should have been done for the reasons you mention, but I don't think everything would have lined up as neatly as you say-you go a great deal further than I do in your 'what-ifs'. Neighboring Arab nations and the World Court would've supported an invasion and occupation of Iraq because of the Kurds? You forget the Kurds have been getting crapped on by the Middle-East since time out of mind. So that doesn't fly. The World Court is susceptible to political biases and pressure, and would be susceptible to that as well.
We would almost certainly not have had permission to use neighboring territory for a military mission you describe.
Just because we have not found WMD yet does not mean Dubya's excuses were 'without merit'. Not all of them, anyway-I have long since admitted that it appears intelligence was overstated and distorted; this does not change my support for this war, though.
What did the presence of WMD in 1991 have to do with political success? You'll recall, there WERE no sanctions at that time. The presence of WMD would not have added much, if anything, to international-legal support for an invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Neighboring Arab nations disliked Saddam Hussein, but that does not mean that they would have supported an *American* removal of Saddam-and the ensuing installment of an American-friendly regime. They don't support that to this day. Tell me why they would have supported it if we slipped it in by lying to them about how we would be using their military territory?
You know, it's pretty audacious of you to make these sorts of statements about what would have happened-statements that defy the understanding of relations between the groups involved at the time-and then fault me for bending my statements to a political ideology.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't go a whole lot further. Surrounding nations have been against Saddam's secularist state for longer than we have.
quote:You know, it's pretty audacious of you to make these sorts of statements about what would have happened-statements that defy the understanding of relations between the groups involved at the time-and then fault me for bending my statements to a political ideology.
And it's pretty disingenuous of you to bait me into such a "what-if" debate when I already said it was pointless from the start. Do you feel better about yourself now?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't go a whole lot further. Surrounding nations have been against Saddam's secularist state for longer than we have.
I know that. I never denied it. But they've been against US longer still, remember? By your reasoning, Arab nations should support the occupation and the Coalition right now.
quote:And it's pretty disingenuous of you to bait me into such a "what-if" debate when I already said it was pointless from the start. Do you feel better about yourself now?
Disingenuous? I didn't force you to get into such a debate; I never said there was anything wrong with what-ifs. On the contrary, I proved the point I was making: despite your dismissal of my thinking (and you have yet to dispute any of it, btw, except with your 'they oppose his secular state argument which is faulty) on the basis that it's 'what-if', you've got your own what-if beliefs.
Unlike mine, though, they twist to suit your own political ideology. As I have twice explained in this thread, I think Bush Sr. should have continued with the Persian Gulf War to the point of ousting Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party, and installed something new. I just don't think neighboring nations would have gone along with it, among other things.
Why don't I think they would? Because they said so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that. I never denied it. But they've been against US longer still, remember? By your reasoning, Arab nations should support the occupation and the Coalition right now.
No, what you just did is a huge leap from logic. I said they would support deposing Saddam. There is no occupational force I know of, in any situation, that would receive glowing acceptance. That's just the way it is.
quote:Disingenuous? I didn't force you to get into such a debate; I never said there was anything wrong with what-ifs.
And I pointed out the what-weres, which you are ignoring.
quote:On the contrary, I proved the point I was making: despite your dismissal of my thinking (and you have yet to dispute any of it, btw, except with your 'they oppose his secular state argument which is faulty) on the basis that it's 'what-if', you've got your own what-if beliefs.
That would all be true, as long as everyone agreed to your political ideology.
I'm not going to dispute it because it's still in the hypothetical "what-if" realm. You can enjoy the fantasy all you like, but don't expect me to.
quote:Unlike mine, though, they twist to suit your own political ideology.
Because your views aren't skewing your outlook.
That is why this conversation is over. You have no intention of even considering any other position but your own. You are preaching, not discussing.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said they would support deposing Saddam. There is no occupational force I know of, in any situation, that would receive glowing acceptance. That's just the way it is.
Yes, but there is also context. You said that we should have elimated Saddam Hussein and installed a new government (well, you didn't say that part, but the one follows the other) in Persian Gulf War I. I said that I agreed, but I asked what you think would have happened if we did that.
Argument ensues, and then you say, "But neighboring Arab nations have opposed him for longer than we have." Which is accurate, but irrelevant. So they've opposed him for longer than we have. Does that mean that they would have permitted us to use their territory and resources and intelligence assets to remove massively invade Iraq, oust Saddam, and install a new government?
If the answer to that question is 'no', then your point about neighboring nations is irrelevant.
I'm not at all ignoring the 'what-weres' you're mentioning, I'm disagreeing with them. In fact, I've addressed each one of them! Hardly the same as ignoring.
quote:That would all be true, as long as everyone agreed to your political ideology.
I'm not going to dispute it because it's still in the hypothetical "what-if" realm. You can enjoy the fantasy all you like, but don't expect me to.
You don't even know what my political ideology is, so how can you say that my guesses are twisted by it? I've made statements about many things, yes-but they are things that at least have some proof of history.
That neighboring nations would not support ousting Saddam, despite their opposition to him? That's been demonstrated-we've done it, and not gotten support.
That brutality against the Kurds would not have swayed them? Ask anyone how much the Middle-East in general cares about the Kurds. Remember how hard they've been trying to establish Kurdistan, and how worried Turkey-not to mention other nations-were about that?
That the WC could be swayed by politics, which in your ideal situation-removing Saddam in PG1-clearly favored Saddam? I have never heard anyone argue that the UN or the WC are politically vulnerable, and not really unbiased at all.
That the undeniable presence of WMD in Iraq in 1991 was insuffient reason for the neighboring countries to support Saddam's removal to the point of letting us use their territory, intelligence, etc.? That would not have mattered to them or to the international community, since there were no sanctions.
quote:Because your views aren't skewing your outlook.
What my 'ideology' is is quite different from what my outlook is. My belief is that Bush Sr. should have gone ahead and 'finished the job' in PG1, simply as a matter of prudence and because sanctions would hurt in the long run the Iraqis more than a protracted war would. Also because we had not managed to elimate all of his military power-though we nabbed a huge hunk of it. And we had not really harmed his internal political power, virtually guaranteeing-as we have seen-a future war with Iraq that would likely prove more difficult than the first-and we've seen that, too.
My belief also includes an understanding of the difficulties involved in doing that. The neighbors, the international community, the lengthy war, the lack of a mandate to do so.
Preaching? That's preaching? I've listened to and disagreed with each of your stances, Justa Nother Name. So far, your primary response is accusations of dishonesty and saying that it's no use talking to me, since clearly I'm so warped by my own view.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, you have said that neighboring Arab nations would have supported (to some extent) the USA continuing PG1 to the point of ousting Saddam, etc.
You are aware, aren't you, that they *specifically* signed up for the Coalition because the Coalition's mission was ousting Saddam from Kuwait? That there was never, on their part, an intent to help the USA invade Iraq?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Justa, you have said that neighboring Arab nations would have supported (to some extent) the USA continuing PG1 to the point of ousting Saddam, etc.
No, that is not what I said. I said that the surrounding nations wanted Saddamn removed. The occupation, on the other hand, would have still been met with resistance, if judging by their stances at the time. It would have taken a more joint occupation, including the whole of the UN, for it to have been feasable.
This is why I don't wish to explore what-ifs with you, Rakeesh. You are twisting what I say to support your already-arrived-at conclusion, whatever it may be.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You made that point in reference to a discussion about how Bush Sr. should have continued with PG1. Well, that point is totally irrelevant! That they wanted him removed has nothing to do with how easy or difficult it would have been for Bush Sr. to remove him.
Since you mentioned it in that context-and didn't elaborate-it was reasonble to assume that you were saying that since they supported removing Saddam, that would have made it easier for Bush Sr. to do it.
Now you start talking about the UN, though. Fair enough. So Bush Sr. should have enlisted UN support for continuing PG1, and the UN should have been the basis for occupying Iraq.
Well, violence against Kurds doesn't make a difference on that score. It had been going on for many years. WMD wouldn't make a difference, since there weren't the decades-long UN sanctions against them in Iraq at the time.
You know, I think it's quite unreasonable of you to say, "I don't want to get into 'what-if' statements" on the heels of making a criticism of someone for not doing something.
In order to decide or argue that someone should or should not have done something, we have to ask, "What would have happened?" or at least, "What did he THINK would happen?"
Unless you just want to make criticisms of the man, and that's it. Not reasoned criticisms, just criticisms. "He should have done this, period." That's too simplistic.
I think the same way about Bill Clinton. "He should not have lied under oath. etc. etc. etc." I don't just say, "He shouldn't have lied, end of discussion." I know there are many reasons he DID lie, I try to consider those, and I try to reach a decision based on those considerations.
So stick to your 'your argument is tainted by your ideology' or 'you're just preaching' defense, if you like. I know those two things are not true-I've specifically responded to each of your points in this discussion, which you have yet to do-and so I'm fine with you making that accusation. What's more, I think you're making that accusation because you don't want to admit that continuing the PG1 would have been extremely difficult and damaging to American standing in the international community, and therefore your unbased criticism of Bush Sr. is unreasonable.
posted
I didn't bait you last time. You just wanted to make unsubstantiated criticisms of Bush Sr., and didn't want to go into detail.
Your main defense is still not a point-by-point refuting, but a blanket, "I don't argue with ideologues."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't criticise a damn thing about Bush Sr. I said it would have been political suicide for him. Why do you keep twisting what I say? I'm not saying that I don't want to argue with idealogues, I'm saying I don't want to argue about what-ifs with someone who is blatantly twisting my words. It's ridiculous and insulting.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said he should have 'finished the job' in PG1. That's a criticism. If I say about your work-performance, "It would have been better if you did that," that's a criticism. If I'm twisting your words, it's because you keep making half-statements and irrelevancies.
Oh, and by the way: it was YOU who dismissed someone else with, "You're just letting your ideology taint your thinking," not me. You started the insulting, Justa. It wasn't me.
You didn't want to talk about the criticism you made from the start. "Bush Sr. should have taken out Saddam before." "Why?" "Well, obviously it would have been better."
But if I start saying whey he DIDN'T do that, what things stood in his way, then it's "I don't like talking about what-ifs." What you really wanted was to state your opinion and not have any argue with it. You could've saved us both some trouble by getting that in the open earlier.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
