Ummm, no. Appeasing was allowing 12 years of refusing to comply with UN mandates continue to be unenforced as if that 13th year was going to make a difference.
As to all of the other countries that you listed, it’s totally immaterial to the discussion at hand. Each different situation requires different methods. I said in a previous post that I wouldn’t support an invasion of Iran, I said the same of Syria a few weeks back ( and BTW America bashers, we didn’t invade Syria like the bloodthirsty Imperialists that you say we are and now nobody’s mentioning that anymore, what’s the matter, can you only get appoplectic about one imagined war at a time?) and I am not prepared to declare the aftermath of this war a failure because everyone in Iraq didn’t join hands and sing “God Bless the USA” five minutes after the tanks arrived. It going to take a lot of time and effort before we know which way it’s going to play out, declairing it an abject failure one month removed from the shooting war is ludicrous. You might be right, but you might not be, I, for one, am going to wait and see what happens. In the months following the fall of Berlin, 2 million Germans were raped by Russian troops, millions more were deported to Russia for slave labor or killed. Today Germany is a pretty nice place. This didn’t happen overnight and any expectation that Iraq was going to be prosperous and peaceful immediately following the fall of the old regime is hopelessly unrealistic.
Well, there’s making the world safe for Israel, which seems to be a major US function in the world.
There’s having our soldiers play war-games in a far-off land (and this time, guys, try to kill fewer of your allies than the enemy did).
But I think most of all, there’s the benefit that we’re going to go on threatening and invading countries until we (collectively) don’t feel terrified any more. The “Home of the Brave, Land of the Free” died on September 11th, 2001 when Americans realised that “Fortress America” was not safe any more.
Like a bully who got sucker-punched in a bar-fight, we (in the form of their elected leaders) are out to make sure that the world is still scared of us. And we’re going to keep settling old scores until we’re not scared any longer.
And I don’t know what the end-game is, and that’s worrying; the end-game is probably when the current administration has been voted out of office, and the various appointees have gone back to whatever they were doing beforehand (you know, plotting world domination).
But hey, our noble armed forces will have won lots of medals. They will have killed thousands of potential terrorists, none of whom we will count as casualties because it would detract from the memory of the “noble hundred Americans who paid the ultimate price for defending freedom” (or whatever the crap phrase was uttered by Baghdad Ari at a recent Bush press conference).
While it appears as though the gas centrifuges may be permitted to operate in the capacity of producing low-grade reactor fuel, there is absolutely nothing that disallows them from being used to separate weapons grade material as well.
Here is a link to information about Iran’s gas centrifuge capability.
Some excerpts:
“Iran has demonstrated a capability possessed by only about ten countries. Because of the characteristics of gas centrifuges, the Iranian facility could be used for the production of low enriched uranium for civil purposes or highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, depending on the decision of the Iranian government.”
[sub]BOLDING ADDED[/sub]
“According to media reports, the site is many years from being completed. Iran, however, may start enriching significant quantities of uranium in centrifuges long before the plant is completed. It could produce significant quantities of enriched uranium either in the pilot plant or underground, perhaps as soon as next year. Small quantities of uranium could be enriched at any time in the pilot plant.”
[sub]BOLDING ADDED[/sub]
“When completed, the two largest underground structures are designed to be the main buildings for the production of enriched uranium in gas centrifuges, commonly called cascade halls. Their large floor area implies that Iran intends to install tens of thousands of centrifuges (see analysis below).”
[sub]BOLDING ADDED[/sub]
“The most likely reason for building an enrichment plant underground is to enable it to withstand aerial attack. The shape of the vehicle entrance tunnel, which appears to provide protection against a direct bomb or glide bomb hit on the plant itself, further supports this conclusion.”
[sub]BOLDING ADDED[/sub]
“The pilot centrifuge plant contained about 160 centrifuges operating in a cascade when senior IAEA officials visited the site on February 21, 2003. No uranium, however, was in any of the centrifuges at this site when these IAEA officials visited. The IAEA officials also saw components for another 1000 centrifuges in these buildings.”
“This capacity is far larger than needed for a nuclear weapon program, supporting Iran’s statement that the facility is aimed at producing low enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors. Nonetheless, such a facility could use a relatively small fraction of its capacity, say 10,000 SWU per year, to make enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year, while using the remaining capacity to produce low enriched uranium. In addition, if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant with a capacity of 10,000 SWU per year involving several thousand machines. IAEA safeguards could detect such clandestine activities, but the IAEA must have far more extensive inspection rights than Iran has been willing to provide the IAEA so far.”
[sub]BOLDING ADDED[/sub]
None of this is very reassuring. If this facility is for peacetime civilian applications, why is it being reinforced against military attack?
Because an attack might cause an environmental disaster, would hamper their power production, destroy millions of dollars worth of equiptment and probably kill a lot of people? The United States doesn’t plan on being invaded anytime soon, but we still fortify our important places against military attacks. If you were spending million dollars on stuff, wouldn’t you? Iran can’t see the future. No country knows for sure that they won’t end up in a war say, within the next twenty years or so. Heck, considering all our posturing, it even looks pretty likely that Iran could end up in a war where they would want to protect their stuff. If the mere act of protecting your resources now makes a country suspicious to the point of being worth invadeing, can we really say there is any sanity left in this world?
What I like, Dave, is the moving-target nature of your approach. When you get clobbered on the WMDs, it’s all about the Iraqi people. When I bring up the Iraqi people, it’s back to the inspections. You know what I think? I think dodgeball is great on the playground, but it’s bullshit in debate.
And I’ll come back to the inspections later, thanks.
As to all of the other countries that you listed, it’s totally immaterial to the discussion at hand. Each different situation requires different methods.
[/quote]
That may be so, but WTF is ‘appeasement’? You gave a definition, and I showed how our relationship with each of those countries, under that definition, constituted appeasement. Now you’re just saying they somehow aren’t comparable. Dodgeball again.
But you know what? Our objective in WWII wasn’t some BS about rescuing the German people. They had invaded their neighbors, and it was those neighbors that we were out to rescue. That things ultimately worked out well for the German people was one hell of a good idea, but it wasn’t anyone’s alleged reason for America’s joining WWII. Since Iraq hasn’t lately attacked anybody, at this point, the only possible justification, even in retrospect, for invading Iraq is that we’re rescuing the Iraqis. So far, we’re doing a lousy job, and there’s no evidence that we know how to do better. If we fail at that, then Bush can take that “Mission Accomplished” banner and shove it up his ass, for all it will have meant.
Now, the inspections: guess what - the second paragraph of UNSC Resolution 687 (the inspections resolution) begins: “Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq”.
There’s no “except if they violate the terms of this resolution” in there. It’s just “Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq”.
Sure, Iraq played games with the inspections. And I shoplifted a candy bar once. The question is, what response is appropriate? You could say that anything less than prison, in my case, would be ‘appeasement’: I’d have been ‘conceded’ my freedom. And you could say (and apparently have) that anything less than invasion, occupation, and removal of the regime was the appropriate punishment for noncompliance with 687. Except 687 says otherwise.
So - not because Saddam actually had WMDs, because he didn’t, and the Bush administration either knew he didn’t, or just didn’t give a flip anyway - but because he was juking the inspectors around (you know, the point of the inspections was to ensure that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, and guess what: he didn’t have any) - anything less than the absolute maximum punishment (invasion, occupation, and destruction of Saddam’s regime) was ‘appeasement’.
Maybe the next time some kid taunts you, you should kill him; it would make about as much sense.
Now, feel free to tell me the ‘appeasement’ wasn’t about the inspections, it was really about the Iraqi people.
We’re dealing with a country in which a democracy was overthrown by a military dictatorship. It has strong radical Islamist elements in its government (particularly its intelligence apparatus) and was instrumental in the formation of the Taliban, and so far as I know continued to support them during the time that the Taliban was working with al-Qaeda. Damaging a copy of the Koran can get you life in prison. If they decide you’ve made disrespectful remarks about Mohammed, you can be put to death- which in practice means that Christians and atheists can be legally killed for their beliefs. Torture is widespread. Only a total fool could deny that they have an active nuclear program.
And let me make a final, important point: they are known to have shared WMB information with rogue states in the past. Do you understand me? Not only do they have a WMD program, but they’re sharing it with our enemies.
I can’t say I’d shed too many tears over an invasion. You mess with the US, you oppress your own people, you’re out of here. Let’s roll.
Oh, wait- you said Iran? I thought we were talking about our ally, Pakistan. Never mind…
Moving target nature of my aproach? Bullshit. I’ll thank you to stop atribuing things to me that I never said. My feelings have been exactly the same throughout this entire process. I have reiterated again and again that I felt the removal of SH from power was the worthy goal of invading Iraq. The issue of WMD was also important, and frankly I am suprised that we haven’t found more. I am disgusted that Shrub and company blew so much political capitol on that one issue, particularly if they knew they weren’t going to find much. ( although, again, I am content to wait and see what we will ultimately find. I notice an interesting flip flop in your position on WMD, BTW. Last week it was “Damn the US army for not securing the sites quick enough, the WMD got away” and today it’s “not because Saddam actually had WMDs, because he didn’t,”. YOU seem to be the one whose wanting it both ways. )
In any event, SH was told that if he didn’t comply with the inspectors, we would attack. He didn’t and we did. I would favor the exact same aproach should the same set of circumstances present itself with reguards to any number of tinpot dictators across the globe. Shrub did the right thing, for mostly the wrong reasons. The fact that he did the right thing is enough * for me*in this particular instance.
You totally missed the point about post WWII Germany, BTW. It had nothing to do with the reasons for war, it was simply an example that the aftermath is usually more messy than the war itself.
So, SimonX and even sven, neither of you have any objections or concerns about Iran being able to produce sufficient material for three atomic warheads per year? How nice of you to stroll by and take a few jabs without addressing the central issues.
You claim in this thread that your appeasement claim had to do with the differing reactions to Saddam’s noncompliance with inspections, rather than the Iraqi people.
But in the Bluesman thread, you were claiming it was about the Iraqi people:
Now, was that something you never said? Because it’s got your username on it, and I’m attributing it to you.
That’s why I assumed, when I began this discussion in this thread, that your position on appeasement had to do with what was being done to the Iraqi people. Thank you for telling me I was wrong.
Yeah, but frankly that means zip. For what reason? To what end? Because he had WMDs? Because he was cruel to his own people? Because he jerked the inspectors around, whether or not he actually had the WMDs the inspectors were there to prevent him from having? Because we crave control over his oil? Because we want to take the entire Middle East, give it a good shake, and see if what results is an improvement? Because he’s just a nasty guy? Because it’ll make GWB look like a big shot?
Dream on, bucko.
Can I explain to you about hypotheticals, about if-then relationships?
The point of the first bit was to demonstrate that, if the Bushies really believed in WMDs, then their subsequent course of action - (a) not attempting to secure the WMDs during the invasion, and (b) subsequently being completely unworried about their being loose in the Middle East - made no sense whatsoever.
There were two possible conclusions from this: (1) that the Bushies never believed in the WMDs to begin with, in which case they are a bunch of lying scoundrels; or (2) they believed there were WMDs, and have in fact committed an incredible act of betrayal of their country by handling the invasion in a way that was almost calculated to give the WMDs the maximum opportunity to fall into terrorist hands. And then not warning the American people of the potential danger when the prospective WMD sites were stripped bare before we secured them.
I have chosen to conclude (1), which is the more charitable conclusion, because even as much as I detest Bush & Co., believing the alternative is quite beyond me. And that is what my assertion that there were no WMDs is based on.
Well, like I said, you’re advocating the death penalty for taunting. That’s swell, but it still doesn’t mean anything less constituted appeasement.
Oh, I don’t think so.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. The difference here is that the aftermath was the whole point, while in Germany, defeating the Third Reich was the point, and the aftermath - messy or not - was completely secondary. In Germany, winning the war and ‘losing’ the aftermath still constituted success. In Iraq, the same result would mean we’ve failed. Unless and until we can restore basic order in Iraq, it’s a loss. A month and a half after toppling big-ass statues in Baghdad, we still haven’t been able to do this basic but fundamental thing. Who knows if we even know how, without doubling or trebling our troop strength, and issuing shoot-to-kill orders?
I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it isn’t looking promising. Power vacuums don’t last long, and already there surely are gang leaders who have what passes for power in the streets of Iraq’s cities, who now have a vested interest in our failure. And that’s on top of Ba’athists who’d like to see us fail so they can re-grab power, and Shi’ites who’d like to see us fail so they can take over, and who knows what else. And they’re all more organized than the people who’d like us to succeed, whoever they might be. We had a moment, before all the hostile elements could get their act together (or, in some cases, come into being), but we were passive, we let the looting proceed, and we blew it. It’s as if the Bushies never looked past the win on the battlefield, to the real contest.
We could still pull out a W here, but right now we’re behind by about 5-0 in the bottom of the second inning. I know how I’m betting, unfortunately.
Well, everyone should have concerns when more nukes are being built. But the US has to lead, and making more bombs ourselves isn’t leading. What right do we have to decide that we can make bombs while someone else can’t? A more stable argument can be made if we weren’t producing them ourselves and we wanted to keep numbers stable.
Plus Al-qaeda getting nukes from Iran is the least of our worries, Iran knows that if it is traced back to them the whole country will become a radioactive wasteland. we should be worried about this, which lists:
I’d bet dollars to donuts that is where Al-Qaeda will get their radioactive material they will use in the dirty bomb i feel they will detonate on our soil sometime this decade.
Perhaps because a large, belligerent nation with a very powerful air force and naval air arm, and the capability to project them anywhere in the world, has been unremittingly hostile towards them, and has recently declared them “evil,” and has demonstrated an indifference to the sovereign rights of other nations and a willingness to invade them when it suits their purpose, so Iran is afraid of being attacked.
I mean, it does seem like a logical concern. Frankly, I completely understand why they’d want nukes.
Zenster,
Despite my objections to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, I still don’t think that openly and aggressively seeking to destabilize the Iranian gov is prudent at this juncture.
Engagement seems to be working w/ China. At a certain point, Iranjust wouldn’t be able to afford to go to war. Ity would run contrary to their national self-interest.
The policy suggested could very easily undermine the positive progress has been made in Iran toward a functional, peaceful democratic type state.
SimonX, thank you for a well reasoned reply. I’m not happy in the least with Shrub’s gun toting yahoo image. At the same time, I’m even less happy with the prospect that Iran might have the least opportunity to join the nuclear club.
I fully realize that Shrub’s interest in mini-nukes and the like is driving other nations towards nuclear capability. This is why I’d buy stock in crack if it were being sold. I think the oval office is the land of glass pipes and plastic bags right now.
That said, the Iranians placing their separation facility in underground shelters seems to shout, “WE KNOW YOU’LL BE COMING AFTER US!” Simple bunker busting bombs could easily cripple such an operation. If Iran were serious about defusing International tension over their nuclear programs, they would keep things out in the open. They aren’t.
The enrichment capacity they seek speaks volumes about their intentions. So long as they are unwilling to stand down from their publicly avowed wish for Israel’s destruction, I cannot see why a preemptive strike is not in order. Contrary to Shrub et al’s lunatic conduct, we are entering an age of the global community. To maintain that any country has no right to exist whatsoever is patently aggressive and unacceptable. Iran and all other Middle East nations who maintain that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth should be forced to rethink their (nonalcoholic) drink. Such force should include exclusion from global trade and other effective sanctions as needed.
I realize that these are blue-sky ramblings compared to the reality of things, but I am wholly unable to accept the concept of Iran being nuclear weapons capable. If they had contracted for full outsourcing of all fuel rods and separated materials, I’d have little problem with what they’re doing. They have not. Iran is seeking weapons production capacity and it is entirely contrary to the world’s interest that they do so. So long as they remain utterly hostile to religious plurality within the region (not to mention within their own borders) they are the poster child for preemptive strikes.
We are simply not going to be able to prevent anyone who doesn’t just love us to pieces from getting Da Bomb. Can’t be done without complete and utter world domination. Coupled with a willingess to rain hell and horror on anyone who dares defy us. You would be hard pressed to play pin the tail on the country without sticking it into a country that can develop, or already has developed, nukes. Pakistan has already done so, and that speaks volumes.
Like it or not, the era of throwing our military weight around for the sake of fleeting security is drawing to a close. We either live in peace, or we die. All of us. There are no other options.
elucidator, I must beg to differ. While America’s credibility on this particular issue is being eroded on a daily basis by Shrub et al., there needs to be harsh and unified global condemnation of any country seeking nuclear weapons capability.
It disgusts me beyond belief that our own government is giving some of the best excuses possible to other nations for their own pursuit of nuclear capability. Still, I would hope to think that a majority of nations would rather back a solid initiative to deny other countries atomic weapons than embark on a costly and high-risk development program.
What you are positing is akin to a world where everybody carries a concealed gun. The mayhem and slaughter that would derive from the first weeks of such a condition would be immeasurable.
So it is with nuclear capability. However much America seems to be the “elephant in the hen house” right now, we have one of the best track records of atomic weapons stewardship in all of history. I know this is being severely compromised by the current administration and it is something the next election needs to cure. Remember, regime change begins at home.
Still, the world cannot abide every banana republic, two bit dictatorship and Theocracy having possession of some of the most puissant weapons in all of history. Iran’s track record of human rights violations and suppressed personal liberties is so dismal that their anticipated possession or use of nuclear weapons is the stuff nightmares are made of.
Distance. In any case, that is a matter of Israeli policy, not US policy.
[quote]
Until Iran vocally adopts a policy that renounces such ill intentions, I do not see how they can be regarded as anything but a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. I would appreciate your feedback on this particularly inbred regional issue.
[/quoite]
I don’t find your addiction to superlative expression interesting.
Iran having a nuclear device, as Pakistan, is several steps away from NY or Washington being under threat.
There was a GD thread on SA about 2-3 weeks about. Myself and Testy participated.