Finally, the worst danger (nukes) became moot when my country blew up Saddam’s breeder nuclear facility that got moved to the Beqaa Valley in Syria.
(Your welcome, BTW. All part of the services we provide for that military aid you complain about.)
[/quote]Well don’t I feel like the fucking asshole now! Hey, if that’s the deal that is going on, then I’m going to shut the fuck up about that topic from here on out. I hope you can forgive my ignorance. For the record, I’ve always been pro-Israel about most things. I’m just sensitive about how the US government spends our tax dollars on things that don’t bring us benefit (and the MEDIA has portrayed some things about Israel that pissed me off, but I’m beginning to see through that bullshit). I was probably hasty in my judgement about the arrangement with Israel, so I’m sorry about that. Consider my position changed on the matter.[quote]
[quote]
I was just trying to be funny.
I, too, am sensitive to the topic of US aid, and it irks me when tax money is squandered.
That said, in the scale of “squandering” US/Israeli military cooperation and spending is way down the list of things on which money is wasted, and I say that not as an Israeli, but as a US taxpayer.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]
This is the Catch-22 right here, and the worst case but improbable outcome is generally weighed as it presents the most risk.
The problem comes when you go all in to prevent this worst-case/“well shit” outcome and it leads to bigger problems down the road, i.e. blowback.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]
This is the Catch-22 right here, and the worst case but improbable outcome is generally weighed as it presents the most risk.
The problem comes when you go all in to prevent this worst-case/“well shit” outcome and it leads to bigger problems down the road, i.e. blowback. [/quote]
What do you mean by this? The CHOICE to invade Iraq was by no means a damned if you do damned if you don’t calculus. Finding an insignificant number of derelict chemical weapons (Which are not weapons of mass destruction) does not change this.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]
This is the Catch-22 right here, and the worst case but improbable outcome is generally weighed as it presents the most risk.
The problem comes when you go all in to prevent this worst-case/“well shit” outcome and it leads to bigger problems down the road, i.e. blowback. [/quote]
What do you mean by this? The CHOICE to invade Iraq was by no means a damned if you do damned if you don’t calculus. Finding an insignificant number of derelict chemical weapons (Which are not weapons of mass destruction) does not change this.
[/quote]
The chemicals weapons they found were left over from the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s.
Our friends, who like to toe the party line, as of yet haven’t figured out that the decrepit, rusted, and leaking chemical weapons in question were there in part due to export licenses to Iraq approved by the US in order to prevent the Iranian Revolution from spreading from Iran to the Middle East in general.
My comments were based on my still developing understanding of Cold War policies, that were 100% focused on destroying the Soviet Union by any means possible.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
Push, if you would be so gracious, would you please give us a simple run down on the reasons for the Iraq War?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
Push, if you would be so gracious, would you please give us a simple run down on the reasons for the Iraq War?
[/quote]
I always thought that the main reason was the fact that the Iraqis would not allow the U.N weapons inspectors access to any of their facilities. One of the conditions that was laid out by the coalition to Saddam for non intervention.
Now why do you suppose the Iraqis would not allow the inspections of any of their facilities if they had nothing to hid?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And “Well shit, turns out this weapons program was abandoned, and it wasn’t the particular threat our intelligence suggested. AT least we prevented any programs that might be currently running” is infinitely better than “well shit.”[/quote]
This is the Catch-22 right here, and the worst case but improbable outcome is generally weighed as it presents the most risk.
The problem comes when you go all in to prevent this worst-case/“well shit” outcome and it leads to bigger problems down the road, i.e. blowback. [/quote]
What do you mean by this? The CHOICE to invade Iraq was by no means a damned if you do damned if you don’t calculus. Finding an insignificant number of derelict chemical weapons (Which are not weapons of mass destruction) does not change this.
[/quote]
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
You claim to be steeped in the history of the Iraq War yet haven’t evidently studied (or have actively ignored) any of the prominent works in the literature. Iraqi recalcitrance in the face of societal pressure from its peer states played a role, sure. It’s interesting that someone who disparages the institutions of international society falls back on them in this instance. The main justification for the invasion, however, was Iraq’s supposedly robust and offensively oriented CBRN programs which posed an existential threat to the U.S. This was not the case. War was not the only modality to address Iraq’s behavior. Post-Gulf War containment and deterrence were more than effective to keep a weak despot’s tantrums from threatening vital U.S. interests. You know, the only ones that justify going to war. The invasion was not the only form of American recourse, and was neither necessary nor prudent.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
Ok.
What is a WMD then? [/quote]
I don’t subscribe to the term, period. It’s inaccurate and hysteric. CBRN provides more analytical utility and less room for emotive and imprudent security policy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
Push, if you would be so gracious, would you please give us a simple run down on the reasons for the Iraq War?
[/quote]
I always thought that the main reason was the fact that the Iraqis would not allow the U.N weapons inspectors access to any of their facilities. One of the conditions that was laid out by the coalition to Saddam for non intervention.
Now why do you suppose the Iraqis would not allow the inspections of any of their facilities if they had nothing to hid?
Seems a little odd, no?[/quote]
They did allow access, although not unfettered.
Deterrence. Iraq’s conventional forces were decimated in the aftermath of the Gulf War. It could not hope to establish conventional deterrence. Becoming a nuclear weapons state would have established nuclear deterrence. Leaving its CBRN capabilities vague would have maintained ambiguous deterrence.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
Ok.
What is a WMD then? [/quote]
According to liberals, WMD includes Willie Peat we used all over fucking Afghanistan (WP being an incendiary), but not Saddam’s mustard gas is not.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
Ok.
What is a WMD then? [/quote]
I don’t subscribe to the term, period. It’s inaccurate and hysteric. CBRN provides more analytical utility and less room for emotive and imprudent security policy.[/quote]
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
According to liberals, WMD includes Willie Peat we used all over fucking Afghanistan (WP being an incendiary), but not Saddam’s mustard gas is not.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
Push, if you would be so gracious, would you please give us a simple run down on the reasons for the Iraq War?
[/quote]
I always thought that the main reason was the fact that the Iraqis would not allow the U.N weapons inspectors access to any of their facilities. One of the conditions that was laid out by the coalition to Saddam for non intervention.
Now why do you suppose the Iraqis would not allow the inspections of any of their facilities if they had nothing to hid?
Seems a little odd, no?[/quote]
They did allow access, although not unfettered.
Deterrence. Iraq’s conventional forces were decimated in the aftermath of the Gulf War. It could not hope to establish conventional deterrence. Becoming a nuclear weapons state would have established nuclear deterrence. Leaving its CBRN capabilities vague would have maintained ambiguous deterrence.[/quote]
Seriously? That is quite the bit of academic doublespeak…The U.N. inspectors said their minders would not allow them access to all areas of the facilities they were to FUCKING INSPECT.
The agreement reached was that, NO INSPECTION = INVASION/OCCUPATION.
