6 ms·

I remember the fate of Iraq's WMD (chemical) -- they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. It was all way too suspicious, but their b

I remember the fate of Iraq's WMD (chemical) -- they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. It was all way too suspicious, but their biggest trick was that when UN approved a military intervention, no WMDs were actually found. That put US in a very bad position because they couldn't prove WMDs existense. Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs (or just hidden well). However, unlike chemical substances, radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace, so I bet they won't be lost for long. The only way to actually hide them is to contaminate the whole area with the same materials.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
We're so back. Another quagmire war in the middle east. Exactly what we needed. For whatever you feel about WMDs or the justification for the Iraq war, the facts are we spent almost two decades in the first go round, found no WMDs, killed a dictator we installed, blew up a shit ton of infrastructure, rebuild a shit ton of it, killed probably millions of innocent people, absolutely blew up the Taliban and later ISIS's recruitment numbers, made ourselves look fucking stupid on the global stage, then pulled out, leaving billions in military materiel to be claimed by the people we were ostensibly there to stop. An utter fucking farce, and we have learned absolutely nothing. Time to send more young men to die.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  Why do you assume the US will invade?
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Because we've all been here before. This time we are led in by someone who is just as stupid, but with several times more malicious intent.
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      We've also bombed places without invading. I share your opinion of Trump, but even a stopped clock...
  - leptons 1y ago
    Both the US and Israel currently have leaders that have to be seen as "wartime leaders" to extend their rule beyond what their respective country's laws usually permit, because otherwise they both very likely will end up in prison.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Bibi, yes. Trump is in the clear. The immunity decision means that successfully prosecuting a president will take years.
      - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
        I genuinely think hell will freeze over before we see an American president face justice.
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        We would have if he hadn't been reelected or if some of the prosecutions were not so ambitious.
        ToucanLoucan 1y ago
        I admire your faith in the system. Neither party wants to see presidents prosecuted, because basically every president remaining alive could be easily convicted of a slough of war crimes and other crimes against humanity for their actions in perpetuating the American Empire. This isn't even to say they are individually imperialists, but every last one, as soon as they take the oath of office, immediately begins getting their hands soaked, drenched in blood. They can't not. That's what the system does and that's all it can do. And the few candidates who ran on the idea that that should be changed were roundly rejected by their associated party, and an independent has received, at most, 5% of the vote? Nah. Trump was never going to see anything, even for his particularly egregious offenses. I knew it in 2018 and I still know it. If he ever faces the most meager iota of consequences I'll eat my favorite hat, and post video here.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    While I am first to admit that my basic assumptions have been severely tested by the last news cycle, I do think it is very naive to think this is the end of hostilities.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    The actions on the US-Israel side so far (deeply cutting non-defense discretionary spending, decoupling from international trade, assassinating secular leaders who can be replaced, bombing three locations which can be rebuilt) only make sense as the near-term prelude to a major ground invasion. If the invasion doesn't happen the US will be left with a self-inflicted economic growth wound and no way to explain it, and Israel will be left with an adversary that believes itself to be facing an existential risk, that is able to enrich uranium, and that would not trust any treaty negotiations.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      The self-inflicted economic wound is nothing more than Trumpnomics. If the numbers look bad he will just say they are fake or solved by GDP growth or tariff revenue. Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them. Nothing has changed with these strikes. Bombing nuclear facilities and killing scientists kicks the can down the road and that has worked for decades. But the US/Israel coalition is also trying to negotiate or orchestrate regime change, which could provide a more lasting impact.
      - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
        > Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them. Every respected strategist said the exact same fucking thing about Iraq before we killed 17 years there. Didn't stop us from trying and failing.
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah?
        amy214 1y ago
        >You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah? Well, the hand and the head are different body parts, but one controls the other
- deepsun 1y ago
  Another quagmire war is underway, you forgot Russia. Tortures, genocidal propaganda, cutting body parts. And the soldiers doing that are not prosecuted, but awarded. I feel about Iran war the same way: yes it's going to happen whether we want it or not, there's nothing we can do. If you persuade everyone to not interfere, Iran would just drop nukes on other countries, so there will be nothing to interfere into later. Saudi Arabia always declared that if Iran gets nuclear, they will do too, and they have unlimited money to do that.
timewizard 1y ago
> they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. For many years the IAEA vacillated between praising and and admonishing the Iraqi's for their cooperation or lack thereof. > It was all way too suspicious Yea, for _both_ sides. There was clearly more politics being played in these deals than anyone let be known. > Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs There really were no WMDs. They have a shelf life. They expire. There was some evidence they did exist but were likely long gone. Hans Blix was pretty clear on this. This angered the CIA so greatly they made him a target to undermine him. It didn't work. This is recent history and how quickly it is forgotten.
perihelions 1y ago
> "radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace" This is quite untrue. Uranium is only marginally radioactive.
- gh02t 1y ago
  Indeed it is not, however it's quite difficult to scrub anything sufficiently to hide them from IAEA environmental sampling (most of which is chemical based, primarily micro scale spectroscopy). Enriching uranium is a nasty, dirty process at all steps that leaves a lot of sticky, messy, and hard to get rid of traces, and IAEA has access to some of the most sophisticated analytical laboratories on the planet and a lot of practice. If the inspectors are given sufficient access to do their inspections.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago

We're so back. Another quagmire war in the middle east. Exactly what we needed. For whatever you feel about WMDs or the justification for the Iraq war, the facts are we spent almost two decades in the first go round, found no WMDs, killed a dictator we installed, blew up a shit ton of infrastructure, rebuild a shit ton of it, killed probably millions of innocent people, absolutely blew up the Taliban and later ISIS's recruitment numbers, made ourselves look fucking stupid on the global stage, then pulled out, leaving billions in military materiel to be claimed by the people we were ostensibly there to stop. An utter fucking farce, and we have learned absolutely nothing. Time to send more young men to die.

stickfigure 1y ago
Why do you assume the US will invade?
- platevoltage 1y ago
  Because we've all been here before. This time we are led in by someone who is just as stupid, but with several times more malicious intent.
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    We've also bombed places without invading. I share your opinion of Trump, but even a stopped clock...
- leptons 1y ago
  Both the US and Israel currently have leaders that have to be seen as "wartime leaders" to extend their rule beyond what their respective country's laws usually permit, because otherwise they both very likely will end up in prison.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Bibi, yes. Trump is in the clear. The immunity decision means that successfully prosecuting a president will take years.
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      I genuinely think hell will freeze over before we see an American president face justice.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        We would have if he hadn't been reelected or if some of the prosecutions were not so ambitious.
        ToucanLoucan 1y ago
        I admire your faith in the system. Neither party wants to see presidents prosecuted, because basically every president remaining alive could be easily convicted of a slough of war crimes and other crimes against humanity for their actions in perpetuating the American Empire. This isn't even to say they are individually imperialists, but every last one, as soon as they take the oath of office, immediately begins getting their hands soaked, drenched in blood. They can't not. That's what the system does and that's all it can do. And the few candidates who ran on the idea that that should be changed were roundly rejected by their associated party, and an independent has received, at most, 5% of the vote? Nah. Trump was never going to see anything, even for his particularly egregious offenses. I knew it in 2018 and I still know it. If he ever faces the most meager iota of consequences I'll eat my favorite hat, and post video here.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  While I am first to admit that my basic assumptions have been severely tested by the last news cycle, I do think it is very naive to think this is the end of hostilities.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  The actions on the US-Israel side so far (deeply cutting non-defense discretionary spending, decoupling from international trade, assassinating secular leaders who can be replaced, bombing three locations which can be rebuilt) only make sense as the near-term prelude to a major ground invasion. If the invasion doesn't happen the US will be left with a self-inflicted economic growth wound and no way to explain it, and Israel will be left with an adversary that believes itself to be facing an existential risk, that is able to enrich uranium, and that would not trust any treaty negotiations.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    The self-inflicted economic wound is nothing more than Trumpnomics. If the numbers look bad he will just say they are fake or solved by GDP growth or tariff revenue. Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them. Nothing has changed with these strikes. Bombing nuclear facilities and killing scientists kicks the can down the road and that has worked for decades. But the US/Israel coalition is also trying to negotiate or orchestrate regime change, which could provide a more lasting impact.
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      > Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them. Every respected strategist said the exact same fucking thing about Iraq before we killed 17 years there. Didn't stop us from trying and failing.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah?
        amy214 1y ago
        >You realize that Israel and the United States are different countries, yeah? Well, the hand and the head are different body parts, but one controls the other
deepsun 1y ago
Another quagmire war is underway, you forgot Russia. Tortures, genocidal propaganda, cutting body parts. And the soldiers doing that are not prosecuted, but awarded. I feel about Iran war the same way: yes it's going to happen whether we want it or not, there's nothing we can do. If you persuade everyone to not interfere, Iran would just drop nukes on other countries, so there will be nothing to interfere into later. Saudi Arabia always declared that if Iran gets nuclear, they will do too, and they have unlimited money to do that.

timewizard 1y ago

> they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. For many years the IAEA vacillated between praising and and admonishing the Iraqi's for their cooperation or lack thereof. > It was all way too suspicious Yea, for _both_ sides. There was clearly more politics being played in these deals than anyone let be known. > Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs There really were no WMDs. They have a shelf life. They expire. There was some evidence they did exist but were likely long gone. Hans Blix was pretty clear on this. This angered the CIA so greatly they made him a target to undermine him. It didn't work. This is recent history and how quickly it is forgotten.

perihelions 1y ago

> "radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace" This is quite untrue. Uranium is only marginally radioactive.

gh02t 1y ago
Indeed it is not, however it's quite difficult to scrub anything sufficiently to hide them from IAEA environmental sampling (most of which is chemical based, primarily micro scale spectroscopy). Enriching uranium is a nasty, dirty process at all steps that leaves a lot of sticky, messy, and hard to get rid of traces, and IAEA has access to some of the most sophisticated analytical laboratories on the planet and a lot of practice. If the inspectors are given sufficient access to do their inspections.