Do you really give a rats ass about Cindy Sheehan?

[Divinus Arma]

YEs no who



edit: crap this was supposed to be a poll. Mods?

[PanzerJaeger]

At one point she had some validity as a grieving soldier's mother and deserved our compassion and attention.

However, she has long since sold her soul to the devil.. erm, michael moore, and has become a left wing whore - and should be treated as nothing but that.

It has recently come out that her son did indeed believe in what he was doing and the rest of the family did aswell. I can think of few things worse than using your own son's death to push political causes that he adomently opposed to suck up to the radical left. Her far ranging opinions about a myriad of issues besides the Iraq war only add to her lack of legitimacy. (Where does she get off thinking she can lecture about the Israel/Palestine conflict?)

The *woman* has become nothing more than the radical left's latest mouthpeice - not to be confused with moore putting his proverbial peice in her proverbial mouth ~;) - and should not be taken seriously.

[Zalmoxis]

I don't trust her, because the son knew that if he wasn't quite up to the task, he'd die.

[Adrian II]

I don't trust her, because the son knew that if he wasn't quite up to the task, he'd die.This is why I love these threads. They open up a wonderful world of new facts and insights.

So, Zalmoxis, the mother is not to be trusted because the son wasn't up to.. well, up to what exactly? Staying alive? Is it a soldier's task to stay alive at all costs? Is a soldier's death under fire evidence of his failure as a soldier?

If so, then I wonder why we continue to honour and commemorate all those American failures who died in the liberation of my country in 1945. They clearly weren't up to the task of staying alive. What a bunch of losers, eh?

[Zalmoxis]

If this war actually had good motives, like taking down a threat to millions of lives (I don't know, maybe Jews?) or the country being invaded had a significant military force, then I'd sit quietly, but that is not the case now, is it?

[Al Khalifah]

I (would have) voted for 'who?'. I haven't heard about this story. Anyone care to give any impartial heads-up ?

[Zalmoxis]

A Cindy Sheehan's son went into Iraq, and was killed, though he knew the risks,, and now his mother (Cindy) wants to speak ask the President why he let her son die, even though she had already met with the President. So far, she's camped outside the President's ranch for quite some time, (I believe her husband even filed for divorce), and she won't leave until she has spoken with the President, even though she already did, and even though her son knew the risks of going to fight a war based on questionable reasons. I'm off to bed, doctor's appointment tommorrow.

[Al Khalifah]

Surely she knew that if her son went off to war there was a chance he was going to be killed? I mean that's the idea of a war. I doubt she'd have had any qualms about her son killing other people while he was over there.

[Aenlic]

A Cindy Sheehan's son went into Iraq, and was killed, though he knew the risks,, and now his mother (Cindy) wants to speak ask the President why he let her son die, even though she had already met with the President. So far, she's camped outside the President's ranch for quite some time, (I believe her husband even filed for divorce), and she won't leave until she has spoken with the President, even though she already did, and even though her son knew the risks of going to fight a war based on questionable reasons. I'm off to bed, doctor's appointment tommorrow.

Well, so much for the impartial heads-up. Heh. I'm sure it'll do for Al Khalifah, though.

[Sjakihata]

No idea who she is, so I cant say that I care.

[Al Khalifah]

Wasn't the most impartial account of events I'll agree, but I can read between the lines easily enough. Sounds like another case of soldiers' relatives having a very rosey picture of what it means to be a soldier as part of an occupying force in another country.

I know that's not exactly the whole picture of what is going on in this instance, at least in the Western view of things, but to many Iraqi people, this is how events will be seen.

[Aenlic]

I think it's a shame that she's managed to become a foil for both sides of the issue, villified on one hand and raised up as some kind of modern anti-war saint on the other. There are other, more eloquent and more reasoned, proponents on both sides who will not be heard while the media focuses on the circus of the day.

[ichi]

Interesting piece by Georgie Ann Geyer



CINDY SHEEHAN STIRS UP A LONG OVERDUE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

WASHINGTON -- She is a plain, rangy woman with a strangely beseeching nasal voice. She dresses like the Californian she is, in T-shirts and cut-off jeans. She has already seen George W. Bush once, and yet she's insisting upon seeing him again. She is no glamour girl, and yet she has a throng of admirers who have been nursing inside themselves, for the last two years and more, the secrets that she implicitly reveals.
But none of those contradictory realities about 48-year-old Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star mother of the Iraq war, even begins to define the reasons for her sensational overnight appearance as the moral reminder of America's losses.

Part of the drama is the woman herself, a simple, quintessential mother -- a kind of Greek chorus of motherhood -- as she mourns the death of her 24-year-old son, Casey, killed 17 months ago in a burning Humvee in Sadr City.

Part of the increasingly successful political theater lies in the fact that she picked exactly the right staging. By placing her protest (against the war) and her demand (to bring the troops home immediately) outside the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch on these August dog days, she has underlined the plausible image of a lazy, out-of-touch commander in chief riding his bike while Baghdad burns.

But the biggest reason behind Cindy Sheehan's lightning effect on the country is that she has been saying -- with her actions, gestures and intonations, if not exactly in words -- what has been left deliberately unsaid in America until now:

That the war in Iraq is useless, and that all those Americans who died or were wounded there died and suffered in vain. That Iraq is not and never was a war that America needed to fight, but that it was an adventure on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the rest. And that it still could end horribly. This is frankly unbearable to most Americans, even now.

It should come as no surprise that many other American mothers of boys and girls who have perished on the seething plains of Mesopotamia have not exactly been enamored of Cindy Sheehan's strange vigil. We can bear it to know that our loved ones were sacrificed for some worthy and lasting cause. But to die for nothing is too much. That may be the destiny of other, less lucky and less blessed peoples of the world, but not us Americans.

That, at least, is what we have thought throughout our history. This generation has forgetton -- until now, as Iraq begins to look more and more like a worse Indo-China -- that in our own lifetimes we already have lost 50,000 Americans in Vietnam -- for nothing.

The curious question is why it should have taken so long for a Cindy Sheehan to arise. The war, after all, has been grotesquely misanalyzed, mishandled and misfought from the beginning.

Moreover, it is clear from their actions and rhetoric that there has been little concern for the American soldier in Iraq on the part of the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense, not to speak of the now-disappearing neocons who looked upon Iraq as not a necessity, but as some great experiment in transforming the Middle East.

The reason I think it took so long for a Cindy Sheehan to arise, and for an anti-war movement to capture at least some of the headlines, lies in a dangerous series of disconnects in American society today. Our military is a volunteer force; this provides for top-level talent, but it inevitably means that the vast majority of Americans feel little direct connection with it. At worst, they forget about it, or even look upon its members as paid professional warriors who are not their concern.

It is my contention that a professionalized volunteer force like this, without the traditional indirect controls of citizens who share broadly in the defense of the country, allows the adventurers far greater latitude for their experiments.

Along with these trends, one sees revealed on many levels a disturbing deinstitutionalization going on in America that further feeds into the myriad ways Americans have managed to ignore this war.

It's obvious in the approximately 20,000 "private security forces" (21st-century mercenaries?) in Iraq, in the dozens of cities across the United States that have, on their own, adopted Kyoto treaty-style environmental controls, and in cities and towns which, in increasing numbers, are moving on their own to deal with the problems of illegal immigration.

From all this suddenly steps the figure of simplicity and clarity. No matter that she's plain Jane (and perhaps that's for the best). No matter that her family is against her actions and that her husband filed for divorce last week. No matter that a lot of movements have gratuitously signed on to her and that 1,500 vigils were recently held in one night in her name -- without her knowing who most of the people were.

The fact is, in a country increasingly dying for clarity about what its self-isolated president is really thinking, Cindy Sheehan has arisen as a kind of tribal truth-teller who reads the stones. The stones and sand particles of Iraq are finally beginning to reveal that this war has been waged for nothing.


The important thing about her, to me, is that she is an American exercising her right to free speech. She believes in what she is doing, and instead of sitting in front of a TV or computer she's doing what she feels is important.

But look how's she's been vilified in the conservative press, even Panzer stooped to calling her a whore and making a dumb joke about having a piece of micheal moore in her mouth.

The trend in this country is that if you wave a flag and nod your head then you are a good patriotic American. If you disagree with Bush and try to stand up for your beliefs then you are a radical whore.

Shame. I lived thru Vietnam and saw many of the same thnigs then. That war ripped our country apart and it seems to be happening all over again.

They've divided us once again, and so many buy into it so easily. Buy into the Us and Them, With Us or Against Us, left and right, right and wrong. In my humble opinion simple minds easily distracted from the real problems and set to bickering with their neighbors while the real problems go unchecked.

Maybe we should send Pat Robertson to assassinate her, get it all over with.

ichi :bow:

[Redleg]

Interesting piece by Georgie Ann Geyer




The important thing about her, to me, is that she is an American exercising her right to free speech. She believes in what she is doing, and instead of sitting in front of a TV or computer she's doing what she feels is important.

But look how's she's been vilified in the conservative press, even Panzer stooped to calling her a whore and making a dumb joke about having a piece of micheal moore in her mouth.

The trend in this country is that if you wave a flag and nod your head then you are a good patriotic American. If you disagree with Bush and try to stand up for your beliefs then you are a radical whore.

Shame. I lived thru Vietnam and saw many of the same thnigs then. That war ripped our country apart and it seems to be happening all over again.

They've divided us once again, and so many buy into it so easily. Buy into the Us and Them, With Us or Against Us, left and right, right and wrong. In my humble opinion simple minds easily distracted from the real problems and set to bickering with their neighbors while the real problems go unchecked.

Maybe we should send Pat Robertson to assassinate her, get it all over with.

ichi :bow:

And you lost your moral high ground in the last comment. Ah so sad - your point was actually good until that.

[_Martyr_]

Who needs a moral highground. He's dead right.

[dgfred]

No, she is a loon!

[yesdachi]

I doubt she'd have had any qualms about her son killing other people while he was over there.
Sure, I can see it now as she is camped outside Bushes ranch… Why did you force my son to kill! why, WHY!! :bigcry:

[Hurin_Rules]

Whatever you think of her personally, she has indeed energized the antiwar movement. Fewer and fewer people are afraid to criticize Bush or the war every day. On Iraq, it seems, the worm has turned.

A poll that came out yesterday showed bush's approval rating at 36%, his disapproval at 58%. (Can't find the link to it yet, but it was reported on CNN). In terms of American politics, this puts Bush in the toilet. I think LBJ's ratings at the height of Vietnam were something like 36%.

Sheehan just came along at the right time.

[econ21]

Do we have to discuss this issue in such a crude way? "Rat's ass", Michael Moore's "piece", "loon", "obnoxious" etc. I know virtually nothing about Cindy Sheehan but understand that we're talking about a mother who has lost her son before his time. Would posters talk this way in front of her? You should at least respect her grief or at least not gratuitously insult her. Whatever people think about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War or appropriate methods of protesting it, it can be said in a more civilised manner than some are doing here.

[Redleg]

Who needs a moral highground. He's dead right.

And I agreed with him until the last comment - complaining about villainization and doing it yourself is well - hypocritical.

[Redleg]

Whatever you think of her personally, she has indeed energized the antiwar movement. Fewer and fewer people are afraid to criticize Bush or the war every day. On Iraq, it seems, the worm has turned.

A poll that came out yesterday showed bush's approval rating at 36%, his disapproval at 58%. (Can't find the link to it yet, but it was reported on CNN). In terms of American politics, this puts Bush in the toilet. I think LBJ's ratings at the height of Vietnam were something like 36%.

Sheehan just came along at the right time.

Here is a site that has compiled all of Bush's ratings on How well he is doing his job

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

And here is a site with the recent poll - not sure if it is completely valid though

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_popularity

Let us know if you find the link to the report that you are thinking of.

[Hurin_Rules]

Hi Redleg,

I've found that a better site is this one:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh.htm

It includes all the major polls. Note that it divides them up into two main categories: favorability and job approval. Favorability tends to be a bit higher than job approval-- favorability is just your general impression of the man, whereas job approval is your estimate of how well he is doing his job.

I am sorry I could not yet get that poll number with the 36% figure. I have been desperately searching for it for the last 24 hours, since CNN reported it. I believe it was an Associated Press Poll, but I'm not sure; their website has nothing on it. I'll post it here as soon as I can find it. I hope you can trust me that I'm not BSing on this-- I don't have all the details, but CNN most definitely reported this yesterday.

~:cheers:

[JimBob]

She's a flash point in my opinion. Is she right? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is she doing things perfectly? Not really. Has she awakened people and gotten things moving? Yes. Ever see Network ? "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" that's what she is.

[|OCS|Virus]

I'm sorry she lost her boy to this war, but I think America needs to stay untill the job is done, and once they have a leader in place and elections going then I think we should pull out.

Her boy died for a reason, and he had a choice to go to war, he gambled and lost, but lets not let this war be a total failure. I think that the president should just give her a half-hour humoring session then get on with his job. Although I am not a huge advocate of George Bush, I am not totaly disappointed in what he has done so far.

Anyways in short, yeah she lost her boy, so she should get to see the pres for a half-hour. What more do you want nobody likes loosing people in a war! :duel:

[Redleg]

Hi Redleg,

I've found that a better site is this one:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh.htm

It includes all the major polls. Note that it divides them up into two main categories: favorability and job approval. Favorability tends to be a bit higher than job approval-- favorability is just your general impression of the man, whereas job approval is your estimate of how well he is doing his job.

I am sorry I could not yet get that poll number with the 36% figure. I have been desperately searching for it for the last 24 hours, since CNN reported it. I believe it was an Associated Press Poll, but I'm not sure; their website has nothing on it. I'll post it here as soon as I can find it. I hope you can trust me that I'm not BSing on this-- I don't have all the details, but CNN most definitely reported this yesterday.

~:cheers:

Are you thinking about the Handling of the War or his overall Approval Rating.

I have seen a poll and several stories of his approval rating for the War with Iraq being below 40%.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Has she awakened people and gotten things moving? Yes. Ever see Network ? "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" that's what she is.

If anything shes making the left look bad.

[_Martyr_]

It could be said that she makes the Left look bad, but take a look around this topic. She's managed to make the right look pretty ugly as well.

[yesdachi]

I think that the president should just give her a half-hour humoring session then get on with his job.
I thought about this too, but it makes me think that if she gets a ½ hour than everyone that looses someone will want a ½ hour with the P. I think maybe he should give a few minutes of “take it easy” speech, answer some questions and then get back to running the country.

If it were me, I would scold her for making such a ruckus about a decision that her SON made. Then maybe send her on a humanitarian mission to Iraq to see what her son was fighting and died for. No joke, I think people would be more appreciative of the sacrifice being made if they could see the difference we are making there. Out of sight, out of mind. It is easy to protest something that you don’t really see the details/effects of. It is George W’s last term; he should start doing some off the wall, unconventional stuff.

This is captain smiley :army: ; he will be your guide today as you tour the Iraq countryside. On your left you will notice people who have recently received their freedom and over here on the right are blown up cars and behind them more people that are now free. ~D

[Red Harvest]

No, nobody really cares. There is a right way to protest the war, and a wrong way. Hers is the wrong way. It is ignorant, obnoxious, and gives those of us who oppose the war a bad name.

I don't see how it is a "wrong way." It is her way. Doesn't matter if I agree with her, she is protesting and what she is doing is a legitimate protest. She's not burning flags. She's not blowing up buildings. She's not threatening folks by firing off weapons...

What she is doing VERY WELL is helping to dispell that myth of Dubya as a "compassionate conservative." His apparatus go after her with fangs bared might be successful in painting the image they want of her, but it is counterproductive in the long term.

[Hurin_Rules]

Are you thinking about the Handling of the War or his overall Approval Rating.

I have seen a poll and several stories of his approval rating for the War with Iraq being below 40%.

I may have confused things but I don't believe I did. On CNN they said that the drop was 6% from the last poll, and if you look at the AP poll on his approval rating, that was at 42% in the last poll. I'll get back here with a clarification as soon as I can find the data--pollingreport.com will definitely post the latest polls soon.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Polls dont mean squat and many are not accurate in the least but made to prove someones pre determined agenda. I doubt Cindy Sheehan hs any effect other than to further polarise things. Those who hate the war love her and those who are for it think shes a jerk. Shes not going to bring her son back to life and is making a mockery of his service to his country. Even the rest of her family is against her.


PS man is she UGLY. Reminds me of Joe Walsh but even more rundown ~D

[yesdachi]

Polls dont mean squat and many are not accurate in the least but made to prove someones pre determined agenda. I doubt Cindy Sheehan hs any effect other than to further polarise things. Those who hate the war love her and those who are for it think shes a jerk. Shes not going to bring her son back to life and is making a mockery of his service to his country. Even the rest of her family is against her.
Interesting that you mention how invalid some poles are. I read an interesting article where an agency was attempting to get a pole/survey like “4 out of 5 dentists agree” and ended up doing the 5 dentist pole/survey 13 times before getting the response they desired. Goes to show that you cant always trust what you read.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Interesting that you mention how invalid some poles are. I read an interesting article where an agency was attempting to get a pole/survey like “4 out of 5 dentists agree” and ended up doing the 5 dentist pole/survey 13 times before getting the response they desired. Goes to show that you cant always trust what you read.

I know this because I one of my jobs is working for SUNY in the political research department calling people with these polls and helping to change the questions ~;)

[Al Khalifah]

Those who hate the war love her and those who are for it think shes a jerk. Shes not going to bring her son back to life and is making a mockery of his service to his country. Even the rest of her family is against her.
I'm against the war and while I wouldn't go so far as to call her a jerk, I have to say I'm completely against the way she has 'handled' the loss of her son. I would have been ashamed of my own mother if she had behaved in such a manner if I had died in the line of duty.

There's no us and them here Gawain or at least the line is not drawn between the anti-war camp and the pro-war camp.

[Adrian II]

Shame. I lived thru Vietnam and saw many of the same thnigs then. That war ripped our country apart and it seems to be happening all over again. They've divided us once again, and so many buy into it so easily.Speaking of lessons learned.. well said, Ichi-san. :bow:

[ichi]

(uses serious voice - notice complete lack of sarcasm)

Sorry to let you down Redleg, it was an easy crack at ol Pat. Really, you know I respect you and feel bad now.

I guess its like hating racists. It is wrong to hate, but I do despise them. And when a Christian minister advocates assassination well its pretty tempting to drop off the ol moral high ground for a sec and let fly.

But you have raised a very important moral issue. When one group rises up and demonizes, polarizes, hates, spreads discontent and basically works hard to divide a nation, is it better to quietly resist in a harmonious, but futile way or is it wrong to stand up and cry BS, even by doing so one increases the division and risks losing the high ground?

ichi :bow:

[Redleg]

But you have raised a very important moral issue. When one group rises up and demonizes, polarizes, hates, spreads discontent and basically works hard to divide a nation, is it better to quietly resist in a harmonious, but futile way or is it wrong to stand up and cry BS, even by doing so one increases the division and risks losing the high ground?

ichi :bow:

(in an equally serious voice of reason)

It is best to resist the demonization of the opposition and use the calm - cool logic approach that you did in the initial part of your post. It was brillant and strikes to the point in a logical manner that can not be defeated by emotional rhetroic of the idealogs of the oppostion. Your not going to convince them of the error of their ways - you can only attempt to have those who are not dead set in their idealog baised views. Your initial post got me thinking a little more about the errors of the adminstration - it doesn't get me off supporting removing Saddam from power - but it does make one think about how the administration went about polarizing the nation in their methods of rhetroic. Which I thought was a brilliant deducation on your part - and then you threw it away with the shot (well deserved at Pat - but it disracts from your main point.)

Now for those that are idealogs - well blast away - they often deserve the same treatment that they are giving (I know that is what I do to several others on this forum. I just normally don't see you do it - so it kind of surprised me. It makes me a hypocrit - but it seems I have intelligent conservation and discourse with some - and have to give others the same treatment they want to give out).

Try to stay away from moral high ground arguements and demonization techniques in the same message - the message of sinceraty (SP) gets lost in the demonization. But sometimes demonization of the opposition is necessary especially when they do not want to at least listen to the opposing viewpoint.

Now by all means blast away at Pat at any opporunity - he deserves it for his demonization of those he does not agree with.

You should write what you posted here in an letter to the editor and to congress - minus the shot at Pat of course. I really liked the message. Its that good.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Shame. I lived thru Vietnam and saw many of the same thnigs then. That war ripped our country apart and it seems to be happening all over again. They've divided us once again, and so many buy into it so easily.

Dont even keep beating this dead horse. It reminds you of Nam. Im telling you its nothing like Nam but thats the best thing the left can hope for. Its turned into their montra. Its ludicrous. There have always been anti war people and others who favor it. Why dont you blame Cindy Sheehan for dividing us? How is she so special? What makes here more important than all the other mothers who have lost their sons and daughters over there? She doesnt represent the majority of them or the american people. Shes a news hound. Shes milking her 15 minutes of fame for all its worth. I wonder when the book will come out?


I wouldn't go so far as to call her a jerk

Either would I but shes coming close ~D

[VAE VICTUS]

two words for her.(OK MAYBE MORE THAN 2)

SHUT UP WOMAN!OTHERS HAVE LOST THEIR KIDS 2.AND THEY DONT ALL AGREE WITH YOU.YOU PUT NAMES OF DEAD SOLDEIRS ON A CROSS,AND MOCK THE CAUSE THEY DIED FOR.YOU SICKEN ME.

[Aurelian]

I think that the only thing significant about the Cindy Sheehan story is that it is easily digestible for 24 hour news stations. It's just a long overdue wakeup call for people to start thinking seriously about the Iraq War. I don't really care about her personally, but she was able to place herself next to a bored group of reporters who had to cover Bush's French-style 5 week August vacation. The story isn't about whether Cindy Sheehan has a 'right' to meet with the president. She's just a mother who lost her son who has been able to raise the issue of Iraq in the national press. Her villification by the jabbering gargoyles of the right-wing echo machine just goes to show how desperately they don't want the populace thinking about Iraq, it's costs, whether it's been worth it, whether it's been handled right, and whether there is any end in sight.

The truth is, nobody every holds the Bushies accountable for anything, and at least Cindy Sheehan has tried to hold the administration up to a little summer vacation-time accountability.

The reaction from the professional right just shows how addicted to petty character assassination they have become.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

She's just a mother who lost her son who has been able to raise the issue of Iraq in the national press.

Like they needed her LOL. Shes nothing more than a tool of the left and the press.


The truth is, nobody every holds the Bushies accountable for anything,

And generally you make such intelligent posts.


The reaction from the professional right just shows how addicted to petty character assassination they have become.

Its been better than that of the proffessional left. Using some poor women who lost her son to advance their agenda.

[Divinus Arma]

I think what is most interesting is the change in the media's language.

They used to say that she was a "symbol of the anti-war movement". Now she is a symbol for the "peace movement".

Peace movement? I guess America bombed the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, consequently starting a war for oil based on lies... what?! :furious3:

That is what the left does not see. These extremists won't stop until we are all dead.

Lets kill them first.

[Petrus]

Peace movement? I guess America bombed the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, consequently starting a war for oil based on lies... what?!

Do you really think the terrorist attacks in the US were planned by the US administration?

I know some books pretended this kind of element to be true, but they appeared as total paranoid crap.

Do you have elements that should go this way?

[Ser Clegane]

Peace movement? I guess America bombed the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, consequently starting a war for oil based on lies... what?! :furious3:

I think you need to refresh my memory.

What was the link betwen 9/11 and the Iraq war again? ~:confused:

[Aenlic]

Bush was at it again yesterday. In a speech before a VFW group defending the war in Iraq, he inserted the line, "terrorists like bin Laden" into a speech about Iraq. When pressed, the adminstration has admitted that there is no link between Iraq and 9/11; but that doesn't stop them from bringing up bin Laden and 9/11 every time they talk about the war in Iraq. It's psy-ops being used against their own citizens; and it stinks.

[Divinus Arma]

Do you really think the terrorist attacks in the US were planned by the US administration?

I know some books pretended this kind of element to be true, but they appeared as total paranoid crap.

Do you have elements that should go this way?

Not at all. This is what some wack jobs think. I was just pointing out how absurd I think that is. I agree, highly paranoid. I have heard that many Moderate Middle Eastern Muslim think the jews did it and the whole thing is a lie!

[VAE VICTUS]

Like they needed her LOL. Shes nothing more than a tool of the left and the press.



And generally you make such intelligent posts.



Its been better than that of the proffessional left. Using some poor women who lost her son to advance their agenda.

yes yes yes and yes

[Petrus]

Not at all. This is what some wack jobs think. I was just pointing out how absurd I think that is.

OK, that's what i understood, but it seemed strange in a post concerning the war in Irak.


I agree, highly paranoid. I have heard that many Moderate Middle Eastern Muslim think the jews did it and the whole thing is a lie!

Absolutely, i have relatives that were in Syria in the days that followed the attacks of september 2001 and they reported this kind of reaction.

Other relatives that worked and still work inEgypt reported the same, this seems to be a commonly accepted fact in those countries even nowdays.

[Divinus Arma]

I think you need to refresh my memory.

What was the link betwen 9/11 and the Iraq war again? ~:confused:


Okay, let's come to an understanding together. I think there has been some confusion. Proponents of the War in Iraq are not saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Let's get some facts straight:

(1) Osama bin Laden and Al qaeda are a nationless political/social movement with the stated goals of destroying the west, and specifically, the United States. They would love to use nuclear/chemical/biological weapons to do this. This is a known fact.

(2) Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th 2001. Fact.

(3) President George W. Bush declared a "Global War on Terrorism". Not on Al Qaeda. Not on Bin Laden. Not on Afghanistan. On terrorism. This means that we are fighting individuals and groups who target innocent civilians as a means to achieve a political/theological/social aim. There are organizations and nations that may support terrorism

(4) We invaded Afghanistan as a campaign in the War on Terrorism because they harbored terrorists.

(5) We invaded Iraq as a campaign in the War on Terrorism because intelligence showed that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction and supported terrorists.

(6) The intelligence on Iraq was very wrong. Fortunately, Saddam was an evil guy anyway.

(7) The motive for staying in Iraq has now changed, regardless of the impetus. We have a moral obligation to restore security to Iraq. It is also in our nation's best interests to do so: The Iraq conflict is attacting terrorist wannabes like a roach motel. It is more effective to deal with them proactively through our military in Iraq, than reactionary through law enforcement and internal defense tactics (which we employ anyway). Additionally, a stable democratic Iraq may spur positive change in the region.

[yesdachi]

(6) The intelligence on Iraq was very wrong. Fortunately, Saddam was an evil guy anyway.
Nice summary but I wouldn’t call the intelligence “very” wrong. It was outdated and once we got there became was wrong. And yes, fortunately, Saddam was an evil guy so it was excusable (at least in my eye and the American publics ~:) ).

[Ser Clegane]

Let's get some facts straight:

[...]

We have a moral obligation to restore security to Iraq.

By and large I agree with the points you make - including the one I specifically noted in the quote.

However, considering point (6) it should be understandable that Mrs Sheehan is more than a little upset about the death of her son.
Even if you argue that her son volunteered for the service in the army one could also argue that when he did so his intentions were to defend his country and not to die in a war that was based on sloppy intelligence.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However, considering point (6) it should be understandable that Mrs Sheehan is more than a little upset about the death of her son.
Even if you argue that her son volunteered for the service in the army one could also argue that when he did so his intentions were to defend his country and not to die in a war that was based on sloppy intelligence.

He still died defending his country.

[Ser Clegane]

He still died defending his country.

Against who?

Against an enemy the US created by attacking the Iraq?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Against who?

Against an enemy the US created by attacking the Iraq?

Oh thats right I forgot Saddam and Iraq were our freinds until we attacked them for no reason. LOL.

[Ser Clegane]

Oh thats right I forgot Saddam and Iraq were our freinds until we attacked them for no reason. LOL.

So you invaded Iraq to "defend" the US?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So you invaded Iraq to "defend" the US?

No we did it to defend Russia. ~;)

[Ser Clegane]

No we did it to defend Russia. ~;)

Cute.

You haven't answered my original question:




He still died defending his country.
Against who?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You haven't answered my original question:

I didnt think you really needed such and obvious answer. YES. Why do you think we invaded?

[Ser Clegane]

I didnt think you really needed such and obvious answer. YES. Why do you think we invaded?

Because of the perception of a threat that was based on faulty intelligence - see DA's points (5) & (6)

To what question is "Yes" the answer, BTW?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Because of the perception of a threat that was based on faulty intelligence - see DA's points

I think the word partially should be used here. All of it wasnt wrong. I still believe that Iraq was a threat not only to us but to the rest of the world. Besides that it is now not even a question as to whether he was defending his country. If we dont stay and fight we will surely be in worse shape than if we had never invaded. Iraq was a real threat not just a percieved one. Again read the Dueffler report. What everyone ignores is that it says that it was even a bigger threat than we imagined.

[Redleg]

. Again read the Dueffler report. What everyone ignores is that it says that it was even a bigger threat than we imagined.

Boy I can't wait to here the coming rhetoric about the Dueffler Report. It should be interesting. :book:

[Ser Clegane]

Besides that it is now not even a question as to whether he was defending his country. If we dont stay and fight we will surely be in worse shape than if we had never invaded.

As I said, the second part is certainly true. As for the first part, for Mrs. Sheehan and perhaps even for her son that actually might be a relevant question.

BTW, perhaps my memory is failing me again - but I do not recall the Duelfer report saying that Iraq had WMDs but that there were indications that it still had the intentions of getting them.
This is hardly worse than what the broad public seems to have imagined based on the faulty intelligence.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

BTW, perhaps my memory is failing me again - but I do not recall the Duelfer report saying that Iraq had WMDs but that there were indications that it still had the intentions of getting them.

I suggest you re read it then. It clearly states that the situtation was worse than we had thought. How much enriched uranium again was sent back to the US from there?

[Ser Clegane]

How much enriched uranium again was sent back to the US from there?

Please tell me (ideally not with referneces to secondary sources but with direct references to the Duelfer report) as I did not find any statements on this in the report.

Some statements from the report:


ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.


Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program.


Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991.


It does not appear that Iraq took steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development.


ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.


In May 2003, coalition forces visited the former yellowcake extraction plant at Al-Qaim and discovered 16 drums of yellowcake and radioactive waste—materials we believe were associated with the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.

Quotes are from this section of the Duelfer report (http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html)

So what I found in the section that deals with the nuclear weapons program is that there was some remaining yellowcake and that there was evidence for Iraq's intention to revive the nuclear weapons program as soon as circumstances would allow for it.
While this is certainly a violation of the UN resolutions, it is certainly not "worse that we imagined" as the US administration obviously fueled the public imagination to believe that there actually were WMDs that were a direct threat to the US and its allies.

I did not find any mentioning of enriched uranium that has been found. But I am sure you will show me the relevant sections of the report, Gawain (I certainly cannot eliminate the possibility that I overlooked such statements in the report)

[Aenlic]

For those that don't know what's involved in the above argument, allow me to explain.

Uranium comes out of mines in ore form. Nearly all of this uranium is U-238 which is the stable isotope and useless for weapons. It has to be enriched to increase the percentage of the more unstable U-235 isotope (from 3-5% for nuclear power and up to 90% U-235 for nuclear weapons) But uranium oxide can't be enriched in ore form. Initially the product of the mine is fairly low in uranium oxide content, typically less than 10% of the total that is mined is actually uranium oxide. It has to be milled to remove the coarser non-uranium contents of the mine product. The result mostly uranium oxide (but still essentially unusable) powder is then washed in sulphuric acid which leeches out the uranium. The result of that washing process is dried and filtered to produce the yellowish uranium oxide powder, called yellowcake. That's just the first step in the process. The yellowcake is then combined with flourine in a long process to create uranium hexaflouride. This can then be easily heated into a gas. The uranium hexaflouride gas is processed in a gas centrifuge. Because the U-238 is heavier, much of it can be centrifuged out, leaving more of the needed U-235. This is uranium enrichment. It can also be done with gas diffusion, which is much more expensive and time-consuming but slightly more efficient in end product. The process is long and takes many steps. The end result is nuclear weapons grade, or enriched, uranium.

Now, if you'll look at the Dueffler report, then you'll notice it clearly states that "Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991."

Without the gas centrifuges, or the much more costly and time and resource intensive gas diffusion processors, you can't do much with yellowcake except play patty cake. You can't even use it for nuclear power which still requires some enrichment.

Iraq could have been knee deep in yellowcake and it would have gotten them precisely nowhere in an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, since they had no gas centrifuge capability after 1991. ~D

[yesdachi]

For those that don't know what's involved in the above argument, allow me to explain. ~D
Bill Nye couldent have done a better job ~D

[Ser Clegane]

Now, if you'll look at the Dueffler report, then you'll notice it clearly states that "Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991."


And in addition to that:


ISG investigations of sites related to the pre-1991 centrifuge program did not uncover any attempt to utilize these facilities to support a renewed centrifuge effort. ISG site visits revealed significant looting and destruction, which have rendered the sites inoperable.

[Redleg]

That arguement however does leave out the use of yellowcake uranium in the "dirty" bomb mode. The mere presence of yellowcake uranium in Iraq could be considered a violation of the United Nations Resolutions and a violation of the ceasefire agreements unless the documentation is shown that it was for a nuclear power plant for energy purposes.

What the Dueffler Report points out is that Iraq attempted to hide data and to provide an illusion. Some of that data - does indeed point a critical finger at the failure of the Weapons Inspection Program - and again in that same report some criticial failures of the United States Intelligence Service and the Adminstration are also seen. The Dueffler Report is a decent source material to look at - it provides some insight to way the Inspectors had such a hard time proving or disproving the complaince of the inspection programs by the Iraq Government.

Read the report - you will draw you own conclusion - but you should be able to see the dangerous game of duplicity that the Saddam Regime played concerning the Requirments of the United Nations Resolutions over the last 12 years.

If you don't think Yellowcake Uranium wont kill you - your sadly mistaken - the openpit miners of Uranium from the 1940's and 1950's suffered a high rate of cancer based upon the radiation and breathing of Uranium laden dust. (I know this one from experience since my Grandfather - for a time was one of this open pit miners.)

[Ser Clegane]

That arguement however does leave out the use of yellowcake uranium in the "dirty" bomb mode. The mere presence of yellowcake uranium in Iraq could be considered a violation of the United Nations Resolutions and a violation of the ceasefire agreements unless the documentation is shown that it was for a nuclear power plant for energy purposes.

As I said in my previous post, the mere presence of yellowcake was a violation of the resolutions.

However, it should be pointed out that the report also states that
- Iraq had no capability to produce further yellowcake
- that there was no indication that Iraq intended to reconsitute these capabilities
- that Iraq turned down offers to buy yellowcake from third parties

The fact that some old barrels with yellowcake and nuclear waste were found rather indicates that the destruction of the stocks was done sloppily (anyone also remember the non-functional chemical weapon shells?) than that these stocks were part of a revitalized WMD program.

This is not meant to say that Iraq's adhering to resolutions was exemplary - however, stating that the situation was even worse than people imagined, or that the war was necessary - even in hindsight - to defend the US, and to come back to the original topic, that Mrs. Sheehan's son died defending the US seems to be way over the top.

[Redleg]

As I said in my previous post, the mere presence of yellowcake was a violation of the resolutions.

Yes indeed you did - However I felt it necessary to point out that fact again. That is probably the damning part of the Deuffler Report that Gaiwan was refering to.



However, it should be pointed out that the report also states that
- Iraq had no capability to produce further yellowcake
- that there was no indication that Iraq intended to reconsitute these capabilities
- that Iraq turned down offers to buy yellowcake from third parties


The fact that some old barrels with yellowcake and nuclear waste were found rather indicates that the destruction of the stocks was done sloppily (anyone also remember the non-functional chemical weapon shells?) than that these stocks were part of a revitalized WMD program.


Was it the destruction being done sloppily or was it initially an attempt to hid the stocks from the inspectors - and then over the years just left to waste and left unaccounted for.

If it was a sloppily accounting system for the destruction of the material - then that is even more damning to the United States reasons for going to War again with Iraq.

However if it was initially hidden (for whatever reason by the Saddam Regime) then its a clear violation with intent to decieve by that Regime - even with the conditions of the materials when found being that the weapons were no longer usable. The Dueffler Report seems to say (at least last time I read it - the conclusion I drew from it) that there was an intentional deception by the Saddam Regime to confuse others on the status of their weapons programs. Again this is a clear violation of the United Nations Resolutions and the initial Ceasefire Agreement which halted Operation Desert Storm.



This is not meant to say that Iraq's adhering to resolutions was exemplary - however, stating that the situation was even worse than people imagined, or that the war was necessary - even in hindsight - to defend the US, and to come back to the original topic, that Mrs. Sheehan's son died defending the US seems to be way over the top.

Agreed this part of the discussion is off topic from the orginial premise of the thread. To state SPC Casey Sheehan died to defend the United States is over the top. SPC Casey Sheehan died going to the rescue of his fellow soldiers - when it comes down to it - soldiers never die for their country - they normally at worst die in the service of their country and at best die in attempting to help others. Which from all accounts SPC Casey Sheehan did not die for his country - he died preforming a mission to help his fellow soldiers out of a bad spot - a mission it seems he volunteered for on top of his volunteering for service.

And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.

[Ser Clegane]

And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.

Agree.

BTW, that's what I like about the discussions here - they actually make me take the time and read up the relevant stuff in the primary sources ~:cheers:

[Aenlic]

On the issue of using yellowcake for dirty bombs:

Yellowcake is unenriched uranium oxide containing roughly .7% U-235 and 99.3% of U-238, the stable isotope (I say roughly because there is a third isotope, U-234, which accounts for a miniscule .005%). Depleted uranium, such as the type used in harmless things like - U.S. military armor piercing ordnance in Iraq - has roughly 1/3 as much U-235 compared to yellowcake, or about .2% of the more radioactive isotope. Both are still radioactive, with yellowcake being relatively slightly more so. The combination of radioactivity and the non-radioactive poisonous nature of uranium as a whole might make it suitable for a dirty bomb. Depleted uranium doesn't mean that it isn't radioactive, it just means that it has less U-235 in it than can be useful in nuclear power generation. It's sources include spent fuel rods, but it also comes from the process of enriching uranium via gas diffusion. The two results of the gas diffusion process are depleted uranium and enriched uranium. ~D

Compared to using a few barrels of yellowcake to the thousands of metric tons of depleted uranium available all over Iraq from military ordnance expended in the first Gulf War, I think it would have been cheaper to simply go burned-out-tank-hulk shopping for uranium to make dirty bombs than to find a couple of barrels of yellowcake, had Iraq wanted to do so.

And in that light, if uranium is to be considered a possible dirty bomb-making material, then we've also managed to supply a hefty lot of depleted uranium to any terrorist in Afghanistan who wants it. ~D

[Redleg]

On the issue of using yellowcake for dirty bombs:

Yellowcake is unenriched uranium oxide containing roughly .7% U-235 and 99.3% of U-238, the stable isotope (I say roughly because there is a third isotope, U-234, which accounts for a miniscule .005%). Depleted uranium, such as the type used in harmless things like - U.S. military armor piercing ordnance in Iraq - has roughly 1/3 as much U-235 compared to yellowcake, or about .2% of the more radioactive isotope. Both are still radioactive, with yellowcake being relatively slightly more so. The combination of radioactivity and the non-radioactive poisonous nature of uranium as a whole might make it suitable for a dirty bomb. Depleted uranium doesn't mean that it isn't radioactive, it just means that it has less U-235 in it than can be useful in nuclear power generation. It's sources include spent fuel rods, but it also comes from the process of enriching uranium via gas diffusion. The two results of the gas diffusion process are depleted uranium and enriched uranium. ~D

Yep the amount of damage done is slow - but still deadly in the long run. It took 15- 20 years for the cancer to be noticable in both my Grandparents. Most of it because the technology had to improve to detect the cancers in both - since it attacked their livers.



Compared to using a few barrels of yellowcake to the thousands of metric tons of depleted uranium available all over Iraq from military ordnance expended in the first Gulf War, I think it would have been cheaper to simply go burned-out-tank-hulk shopping for uranium to make dirty bombs than to find a couple of barrels of yellowcake, had Iraq wanted to do so.


True - but then doing that would not have been a direct violation of the Ceasefire in which the Iraqi Regime fired. And shows the current obligation of the United States to remain in Iraq - to at least clean up our mess if nothing else.



And in that light, if uranium is to be considered a possible dirty bomb-making material, then we've also managed to supply a hefty lot of depleted uranium to any terrorist in Afghanistan who wants it. ~D

Uranium is a possible dirty bomb making material - any radioactive material is a dirty bomb making material - be it yellowcake - or depleted Uranium shells on the battlefield. I know why the United States uses depleted Uranium in certain muntions - doesn't mean I agree completely with it.

Where do you think the logic of waging a nuclear war in Iraq and Afganstan comes from. Its not about nuclear weapons like some on the far right think - its about the use of depleted uranium rounds. The far right making light of that statments shows how polarized the nation has become. Cindy made a statement agaisnt the use of depleted Uranium rounds - but because she did it in an over the top way - the far-right took it to mean something else then what the real intent of the statement was. She demonized - the far right demonizes to reduce and counter the impact of her statements.

Arguing with passion about something is a good thing - but in her statement about waging nuclear war - she showed a lack of knowledge and a polarization of her own politics on a very valid concern - which distracts from her point of we should stop using depleted Uranium in our muntions because of the future hazardous that the muntions present.

[Divinus Arma]

Against who?

Against an enemy the US created by attacking the Iraq?

I think I may be able to answer this. I am, after all, in the military. And I reenlisted knowing that we were going to war in Iraq and that I would end up going. I even volunteered to go, but was told I had to stay put because too many people wanted to go.

A service member's duty is NOT to decide who the enemy is.

A service member's duty is only this:

"I _________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

As a U.S. Marine, I am the enforcement arm of American policy. My leaders, who are elected by the people through the constitutional process, know better than I how best to achieve the strategic aims of national security. Whether that be in Iraq, or elsewhere, but not somewhere else, is not up to me.

If my leaders decide that invading one country while ignoring a different country is what bests serves our national security, than so be it.

I do not pretend to have the facts, knowledge, and resources to make this type of decision. My responsibility, my duty, is to follow orders, and bear faith that my nation has elected the best individuals to decide military policy, whether I voted for the individual or not.

This, office ken, is what the young man died for. He defended his country as best as he was able by following the policy and strategy of those elected to lead.

I will elaborate if you wish.

[Aenlic]

Arguing with passion about something is a good thing - but in her statement about waging nuclear war - she showed a lack of knowledge and a polarization of her own politics on a very valid concern - which distracts from her point of we should stop using depleted Uranium in our muntions because of the future hazardous that the muntions present.

I agree with you 100% on the above. And since the whole atmosphere surrounding Sheehan has become a circus of polarizing viewpoints and third parties seeking to use her for their own ends, we lose an opportunity for constructive debate in this country on the use of depleted uranium and its effects not just on civilians in targetted areas but also on service members who use it or come into contact with it in excess.

If we keep agreeing like this, we're going to give Clegane a stroke.

[PanzerJaeger]

And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.

I cant think of much worse than a mother using her son's death to promote a political agenda he was adomently against. Dont horrible people deserve to be treated horribly?

[Steppe Merc]

PJ, is it at least possible that she is actually upset that her son is dead?
Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?

[Goofball]

I think I may be able to answer this. I am, after all, in the military. And I reenlisted knowing that we were going to war in Iraq and that I would end up going. I even volunteered to go, but was told I had to stay put because too many people wanted to go.

A service member's duty is NOT to decide who the enemy is.

A service member's duty is only this:

"I _________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

As a U.S. Marine, I am the enforcement arm of American policy. My leaders, who are elected by the people through the constitutional process, know better than I how best to achieve the strategic aims of national security. Whether that be in Iraq, or elsewhere, but not somewhere else, is not up to me.

If my leaders decide that invading one country while ignoring a different country is what bests serves our national security, than so be it.

I do not pretend to have the facts, knowledge, and resources to make this type of decision. My responsibility, my duty, is to follow orders, and bear faith that my nation has elected the best individuals to decide military policy, whether I voted for the individual or not.

This, office ken, is what the young man died for. He defended his country as best as he was able by following the policy and strategy of those elected to lead.

I will elaborate if you wish.

*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing, the flag to be lowered, and smartly releases salute which has been held so hard as to cause his arm to quiver through the whole of the above speech*

There, now that the flag-waving is over, let me do some elaborating for you, my friend. You have forgotten one very important thing: While it may be the duty of young men and women in the military to do the lawful bidding of their legitimate political masters, there are two sides to that covenant. The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...

Is that your opinion of what their dying in Iraq for? It seems to me that Div just has more faith in our government than you do. What do you expect a Marine to say?


*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing,

More likely the Marine Corps Hymn ~;)

[Divinus Arma]

*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing, the flag to be lowered, and smartly releases salute which has been held so hard as to cause his arm to quiver through the whole of the above speech*

There, now that the flag-waving is over, let me do some elaborating for you, my friend. You have forgotten one very important thing: While it may be the duty of young men and women in the military to do the lawful bidding of their legitimate political masters, there are two sides to that covenant. The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...

Obviously, I must elaborate since your elaboration was not elaborate enough. It is clear that I left out important information, and that is my error.

(1)My duty as a Marine is to follow orders and all the above that I wrote. *flag waving in breeze, because of #2*

(2)My duty as a citizen is to be informed, participate in government, and urge others to do the same. In this way, I try not to allow myself to be thrown away. *flag still waving in breeze, because of #1*


Your only duty, as a citizen and former soldier, is number two. Please continue to do as you are and you will ensure I do not perish for nothing. In turn, I will ruthlessly follow orders, so that you that you may be able to continue as you are. Deal?

Edit:

OR-DERRRR....


ARMS!

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, is it at least possible that she is actually upset that her son is dead?
Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?

Have you heard her talk? Have you heard more than the standard 20 second sound byte? The woman doesnt even mention her son! I saw her on Cspan talking about how Bush was using nukes against the insurgents in Iraq. Shes nothing but a propagandist!

Her son did not agree with her crazy political position. Its truly horrible to use his death to push that agenda. The whole family has separated from her because she's made a fool of them and disgraced the honor of their beloved son. Its one of the most disgusting scenes ive ever seen.. straight out of the "spit on the soldiers" days of Vietnam.

[Azi Tohak]

She's a martyr protesting an illegal, oppressive regime.

Ha. No. Try this:

She's an idiot, either gone mad from grief or disgracing her son's memory intentionally.

Azi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have you heard she says we now never should even have gone into Afgahnistan or after the Tailiban?

Oh heres the uranium I was speaking of.


a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.

Seems to me you could make a lot of dirty bombs from that.

[Roark]

Well, I didn't know about Sheehan until I read this thread. The fact that some right-leaning members of the board have called her "whore" and "ugly" obviously means that she represents some kind of threat against the establishment they support...

Either that, or they're just acting their age...

[Azi Tohak]

Ugly is a statement of fact from a person. I don't know if it is true, I don't bother looking up pictures.

And

whore: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Yup! That about covers it! I believe she has disgraced herself and her son's memory in the pursuit of her 15 minutes of fame. (And the attendant money that comes with it.)

Steppe:

Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?

She was not automatically a horrible person. When I first heard about her, I thought this was an interesting way to make a point. Now she's taken a flying leap into wallowing in her own self importance to make whatever point she wants. She WAS pissed off. NOW she wants publicity.

Azo

[Divinus Arma]

Azi sums up my view on her. When I first heard about the issue I thought: "Alright, cool, someone's stickin' it to Bush."

Further research showed her to be nothing more than a puppet. If the people who supported her were in charge, it would not all of a sudden be a better place. We need people from the (strangely quiet) middle.

I agree Moe.

[Ser Clegane]

Have you heard she says we now never should even have gone into Afgahnistan or after the Tailiban?

Oh heres the uranium I was speaking of.



Seems to me you could make a lot of dirty bombs from that.

Nice - instead of providing a statement from the Duelfer report, you give me no source at all so that I have to look it up myself (no surprise here).

Again you are exxagerating the case. Were did you get the idea from that you could male "a lot of dirty bombed" from the discivered material?

In mmost sources I found the Energy Department on ly refers to "a" dirty bomb:


The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program,"
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/)

BTW, the "diverting would not have been possible for Iraq, as the enrichment facilities were not available.

From another source:


Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.

www.military.com (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_iraq_070704,00.html)

So, to answer your previous question:

How much enriched uranium again was sent back to the US from there?
None at all (unless you decide that "low-enriched uranium" is the same as "enriched uranium")

[Gawain of Orkeny]

None at all (unless you decide that "low-enriched uranium" is the same as "enriched uranium")

Thats like saying a soda thats low in sugar has no sugar at all. I heard that some of it was enriched but I cant find a link.

[Ser Clegane]

Thats like saying a soda thats low in sugar has no sugar at all. I heard that some of it was enriched but I cant find a link.

Actually it's not like that as low-enriched uranium and enriched uranium are different things (i.e. one is not suitable for amking nukes while the other one is).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think you need to do a bit more homework on this topic.


Enriched Uranium Removed From Iraq

Nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium has been removed from an Iraqi nuclear facility in a secret operation conducted by the U.S. Energy Department.

The quantity of nuclear material, stored at the al-Tuwaitha research complex southeast of Baghdad, was probably enough to give Saddam Hussein the capacity to produce at least one atomic bomb, according to a physicist with the Federation of American Scientists quoted by the Associated Press.

Story Continues Below

The fear that Saddam could produce nuclear weapons was cited by congressional Democrats two years ago when they voted to authorize the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists," the AP said.

Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, hesitated to characterize the threat posed by Saddam's enriched uranium because few details were provided by the Energy Department.

But he said that the low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

The Energy Department said that in addition to 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources . . . [that] could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device [or dirty bomb]" were also transported out of Iraq.

According to Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, much of the radioactive material - which had been used for medical and industrial purposes - "was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed."

Wilkes said that some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a radiological bomb.

The Energy Department refused to say to where the material was shipped.

LINK (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/6/230805.shtml)

More


The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Well, almost none.

The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ~D

LINK (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml)

[Ser Clegane]

I think you need to do a bit more homework on this topic.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ~D


LOL - I yield.

"Enriched uranium" would indeed be the general term for both "low-enriched" and "highly enriched" uranium.

However, the point still stands - the uranium that has been found was neither usable for nukes nor had Iraq the capabilities to turn it into usable material.

So the notion that this material shows that Iraq's WMD capabilities were even more dangerous than anticipated by the US administration is a farce.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However, the point still stands - the uranium that has been found was neither usable for nukes nor had Iraq the capabilities to turn it into usable material.

Did you read what I posted?


Wilkes said that some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a radiological bomb.


But he said that the low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.


Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

Youve been checkmated but wont admit defeat.

This is because most of you only listen to the mainstream press like the BBC which is just as biased as US mainstream media. You never hear any of this stuff there .

[Aenlic]

Except that he could have had 5000 tons or 50,000 tons or any amount of nuclear power grade uranium and still not be able to make a bomb, not without either a gas centrifuge facility or a gas diffusion facility. And we're not talking about the centrifuge that your phlebotomist uses to separate blood from plasma either. We're talking about an entire plant that is required, a factory sized complex. Take a good look at pictures of Hanford - our own enrichment facility, or Yongbyon in North Korea. These aren't things you can hide in your freaking garden!

And speaking of gardeners, Mahdi Obeidi keeps changing his story. Before he wrote the book, he was on the record (and I saw him in an interview myself) saying that the centrifuge plans and parts were buried in his yard in 1991. This coincides exactly with the statments in the Dueffler report that Saddam's gas centrifuge making progam ended in 1991. Then Obeidi goes and writes a book and the story changes. How odd. Changing your story to make a book sell better? Who would do that? Ever accused anyone of doing that, Gawain? Just wondering. ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That was covered


"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

he point is that Saddam had every intention of pursuing a bomb and you totally ignored the fact that dirty bombs can easily be made from this material.


Wilkes said that some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a radiological bomb.

The point all of you have been trying to make that Saddam was no threat is really quite humorous.

[Aenlic]

Yes, and I covered his cover with my cover in my post.


Then Obeidi goes and writes a book and the story changes. How odd. Changing your story to make a book sell better? Who would do that?

Game, set, gasoline, match. Duck and cover!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Game, set, gasoline, match. Duck and cover!

Yes to me. See you when you answer my other points.

[Aenlic]

We've covered dirty bombs in depth in more than one thread. I'll provide a short synopsis:

If dirty bombs can be made from enriched uranium, then they can be made from depleted uranium which is only slightly less radioactive and just as poisonous when ingested or inhaled. We provided any wannabe terrorist dirty bomb makers with far more material from our usage of depleted uranium armor piercing ordnance during the first Gulf War than Saddam ever dreamed of acquiring via yellowcake and the expensive process of enrichement. And we've also made numerous drop shipments of the same material to such wannabe terrorists all over Afghanistan as well. Using your logic of partially enriched uranium yellowcake being useful for a dirty bomb (even though it isn't), doesn't that make us the world's leading exporter of terrorist bomb-making supplies? ~D

I think we need to invade the Pentagon just to be sure. If we don't find anything incriminating, we can just claim later that we were doing it to bring democracy and freedom to the oppressed peoples of the D ring.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We provided any wannabe terrorist dirty bomb makers with far more material from our usage of depleted uranium armor piercing ordnance during the first Gulf War than Saddam ever dreamed of acquiring via yellowcake and the expensive process of enrichement.

Oh so thats where he got the 500 tons of it? How do you get the uranium after the shell expoldes?

The fact that he had every intention of producing a bomb I guess has no effect upon you .

[Ser Clegane]

Did you read what I posted?


Youve been checkmated but wont admit defeat.

This is because most of you only listen to the mainstream press like the BBC which is just as biased as US mainstream media. You never hear any of this stuff there .

Have you actually read the Duelfer report - and not only Newsmax?

The report (other than your precious Newsmax article suggests) clearly and repeatedly states that Iraq had no capabilities left to further enrich low-enriched uranium, so while this

could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
is possible for somebody who had the capabilities to actually produce highly enriched uranium, Iraq was in no position to make a single nuclear bomb.



Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991.

[...]

ISG believes a reconstituted program for the purpose of producing material for nuclear weapons would have required redevelopment and testing of centrifuge manufacturing technology, the manufacture of thousands of machines required for a production plant, effort to gain experience in enrichment operations, and production of metric-ton quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feed. However, the initial research and development stages might use only a single centrifuge.

This relates to the equipment that has been hidden:


In August 2003, a former EMIS scientist told ISG during an interview that he had taken material and equipment that was related to EMIS and hid them in various places near his home in the 1990s. The scientist had not been specifically told to do this but believed his supervisors were cognizant of his actions. He chose items to hide that could be used in future reconstitution of the EMIS program. The scientist turned over to the Coalition a broad range of items that had been withheld from the UN inspectors, including technical reports on EMIS, a collection of foreign EMIS-related patents, a mass spectrometer, blocks of high-purity graphite, high-purity tantalum shielding sheets, and an indigenously designed collector piece from inside the EMIS machine

[...]

Though this activity was isolated, it also had the potential to contribute to a possible restart of Iraq’s uranium enrichment programs.


So the Newsmax statement:

And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.
is distorting the findings of the Duelfer report in a way to create the impression that Iraq actually had the equipment for further uranium enrichment - which directly contradicts the statements made in the Duelfer report.

So I suggest you read the relevant sources more carefully before starting your little victory dance.

Also, this stuff

other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium -
- and this is even mentioned in the newsmax article - is only useful for the making of a dirty bomb and not a nuclear weapon.
I hope you know the difference between WMDs and a dirty bomb...

So instead of lecturing me that I should not only read BBC, perhaps you yourself should take the time and take a look in the Duelfer report and not only repeat what Newsmax pre-digested for you.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have you actually read the Duelfer report - and not only Newsmax?

No I get all my information from newsmax. Dont be a twit.


is possible for somebody who had the capabilities to actually produce highly enriched uranium, Iraq was in no position to make a single nuclear bomb.

But it had every intention of doing so once the sanctions were lifted.


- and this is even mentioned in the newsmax article - is only useful for the making of a dirty bomb and not a nuclear weapon.

And thats what I stated. Other here have said he or terrorists couldnt even have made a dirty bomb from the material. The facts are that Saddam had every intention of seeking a nuclear weapon and that sooner or later he would be a threat to the US and the rest of the world. Trying to deny that is silly.


So instead of lecturing me that I should not only read BBC, perhaps you yourself should take the time and take a look in the Duelfer report and not only repeat what Newsmax pre-digested for you.

Instead of lectiring me on things that arent so. Like me not reading the report I suggest you face the facts.

"Goes back to the dance" ~D

[Goofball]

Obviously, I must elaborate since your elaboration was not elaborate enough. It is clear that I left out important information, and that is my error.

(1)My duty as a Marine is to follow orders and all the above that I wrote. *flag waving in breeze, because of #2*

(2)My duty as a citizen is to be informed, participate in government, and urge others to do the same. In this way, I try not to allow myself to be thrown away. *flag still waving in breeze, because of #1*


Your only duty, as a citizen and former soldier, is number two. Please continue to do as you are and you will ensure I do not perish for nothing. In turn, I will ruthlessly follow orders, so that you that you may be able to continue as you are. Deal?

Edit:

OR-DERRRR....


ARMS!

Agreed. But you still make no mention of the political leaders bearing responsibility for spending soldiers' lives. And to me, that is the most important part of the deal. It's even more important to me now, because only one hour ago I completed the final step in re-enlisting in the army, but as a reservist this time.

However, I think it is important to point out that this time I'm going to be an officer instead of a troopy. As such, DA (and you too, Redleg), if we ever meet in person I fully expect you both to bring yourselves smartly to a position of attention and extend to me the proper military courtesies. Otherwise, I'll have you both doing piss-can drill on the parade square with full combat packs until Zero-dark-sparrow-fart hours...

~D

Atten... SHUN!

Shoulder... ARMS!

Platoon, DIS... (wait for it Redleg, you slacker, don't anticipate the word of command)... MISSED!

Hehe...

[Proletariat]

As such, DA (and you too, Redleg), if we ever meet in person I fully expect you both to bring yourselves smartly to a position of attention and extend to me the proper military courtesies.

Uhm, didn't Redleg retire as an O4? You might be in for some grass cutting with a brand new pair of Fisher Price scissors. Or a little mop and bucket action on the company's outdoor basketball court.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

owever, I think it is important to point out that this time I'm going to be an officer instead of a troopy. As such, DA (and you too, Redleg), if we ever meet in person I fully expect you both to bring yourselves smartly to a position of attention and extend to me the proper military courtesies. Otherwise, I'll have you both doing piss-can drill on the parade square with full combat packs until Zero-dark-sparrow-fart hours..

Id like to see you try to make them.As a Canadain you have no authority over any US troops. ~D

Besides as has been stated Redleg was a real officer in a real Army ~D

[Redleg]

Agreed. But you still make no mention of the political leaders bearing responsibility for spending soldiers' lives. And to me, that is the most important part of the deal. It's even more important to me now, because only one hour ago I completed the final step in re-enlisting in the army, but as a reservist this time.

Glad to here it



However, I think it is important to point out that this time I'm going to be an officer instead of a troopy. As such, DA (and you too, Redleg), if we ever meet in person I fully expect you both to bring yourselves smartly to a position of attention and extend to me the proper military courtesies. Otherwise, I'll have you both doing piss-can drill on the parade square with full combat packs until Zero-dark-sparrow-fart hours...


Well since I still retain my Rank as a Major, Field Artillery - you will have a long time to wait. But if I am ever recalled to service off of the Medical Disablity list - (a very small chance - would take an act of Congress and a major war) and they send me to Canada to train you in the tactics and techniques of the Field Artillery - I will gladly let you report to me.



~D

Atten... SHUN!

Shoulder... ARMS!

Platoon, DIS... (wait for it Redleg, you slacker, don't anticipate the word of command)... MISSED!

Hehe...


Carry on Lt - Report to me after the First Sergeant as shown you the correct way to salute and dismiss the troops.

:charge:

[Aenlic]

Wilkes said that some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a radiological bomb.

The point all of you have been trying to make that Saddam was no threat is really quite humorous.

Actually the humor is coming from the other direction. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Luckily for me, the government went through a great deal of expense to train me in the operation of it's naval nuclear power plants; so I can detect the tickle as someone tries to blow radioactive smoke up my rear access hatch.

Cesium-137. Nasty, bad, evil terrorist Cs-137! Shame on Saddam for having it! (waggles fingers theatrically).

Cs-137 is a fission byproduct. Any country with a nuclear power plant produces it. Darn Canadians! Terrorists! (the others listed above as dangerous Saddam radioactives are also fission byproducts)

Some nasty, dangerous terrorist things which use Cesium-137:

Moisture-density gauges, leveling gauges (used to detect liquid flow in pipes), thickness gauges (measures thickness of sheet metal, film etc.), well-logging devices (help characterize rock strata in the drilling industry - largest users? Halliburton and Schlumberger). Aha! I knew it! Halliburton is a terrorist enterprise! Dick Cheney should be frog-marched out of the White House right this minute and sent to Gitmo for interrogation. Better yet, let's "render" him to one of the former Soviet -stans for more effective questioning. ~D

Strontium-90. Evil, terrorist Sr-90! It's another fission byproduct, readily available, and is used for those same thickness gauges, in radio-tracing in medicine and agricultural research, and in treating some eye diseases.

Next up on your list of dangerous Saddam-hoarded radioactives - Cobalt-60!

Along with being used in many of the same devices listed above for Cs-137, Co-60 is used in industrial radiography to identify material flaws, and in radiotherapy in hospitals and one other nefarious, terrorist use...

wait for it...

I'm just curious, Gawain. What's your conservative opinion on the irradiation of food to sterilize it? Otherwise known as "cold pasteurization"? ~D

[Redleg]

Actually the humor is coming from the other direction. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Luckily for me, the government went through a great deal of expense to train me in the operation of it's naval nuclear power plants; so I can detect the tickle as someone tries to blow radioactive smoke up my rear access hatch.

...................

Along with being used in many of the same devices listed above for Cs-137, Co-60 is used in industrial radiography to identify material flaws, and in radiotherapy in hospitals and one other nefarious, terrorist use...

wait for it...

I'm just curious, Gawain. What's your conservative opinion on the irradiation of food to sterilize it? Otherwise known as "cold pasteurization"? ~D

Are you not forgetting to mention one thing about them all?

Yes indeed the government gave me some equally dangerous training about "dirty" bombs and nuclear devices. The BBC explains it pretty well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/dirtybombqa.shtml


The technology of a dirty bomb is relatively simple in principle. The key components are conventional plastic explosives and radioactive material. There are many complexities in the actual process of making a functional dirty bomb. The process could be potentially fatal in the long term, but a bombmaker could protect themselves for long enough to build the device. Neither the Horizon programme nor website discuss methods or precautions in any way.

The radioactive material in the Chemical Alarms that the United States Military uses - provides enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb.

So do other available items in civilian locations.

[Goofball]

Uhm, didn't Redleg retire as an O4? You might be in for some grass cutting with a brand new pair of Fisher Price scissors. Or a little mop and bucket action on the company's outdoor basketball court.

Hmmm. An O4 is a major, correct? My mistake if you are correct about Red's rank. For some reason, I though Red was an E6 or E7 type.

*backs out of Redleg's presence, bowing and scraping*


Id like to see you try to make them.As a Canadain you have no authority over any US troops. ~D

True, but American/Canadian soldiers are still expected to salute officers of either military (in fact, I think that applies to all officers of any army, as long as you don't happen to be shooting at them at the time) when they encounter them.


Besides as has been stated Redleg was a real officer in a real Army ~D

Ouch...

You're right though, now that I'm going to be a reservist rather than reg force, I have to admit I'm feeling a little sheepish about the disdain we regulars used to shower upon the part-timers. Stuff like: "You're only half a man..."

Oops...

[Aenlic]

You're right though, now that I'm going to be a reservist rather than reg force, I have to admit I'm feeling a little sheepish about the disdain we regulars used to shower upon the part-timers. Stuff like: "You're only half a man..."

Oops...

Bad idea! Shame on you. In today's military, with the call up of so many reservists, you never know when the guy giving you orders or sharing your bivouac just might be a reservist.

[Redleg]

Hmmm. An O4 is a major, correct? My mistake if you are correct about Red's rank. For some reason, I though Red was an E6 or E7 type.

Now my little brother is an E8 - Master Sergeant - he would get real upset at you if you confused officers with enlisted. As he says all the time he works for a living.




*backs out of Redleg's presence, bowing and scraping*


No need to grovel - a smart saluate and about face is more then enough.



True, but American/Canadian soldiers are still expected to salute officers of either military (in fact, I think that applies to all officers of any army, as long as you don't happen to be shooting at them at the time) when they encounter them.


You would be correct - military protocal is to saluate all officers of all allied armies. And we even saluated enemy officers also - after the shooting was done of course.



Ouch...


LOL - it wasn't that painful now was it



You're right though, now that I'm going to be a reservist rather than reg force, I have to admit I'm feeling a little sheepish about the disdain we regulars used to shower upon the part-timers. Stuff like: "You're only half a man..."

Oops...

Reservists are an important part of both are countries' militaries. I say that from serving 2 years in the National Guard, 3 years in the Reserves, and 10 years active duty.

[Azi Tohak]

What happened to Sheehan? While the arguments between Goof, Redleg, DA, Prole are funny... and the arguments between Clegane and Gawain are useful... what happened to Sheehan?

Azi

[Redleg]

What happened to Sheehan? While the arguments between Goof, Redleg, DA, Prole are funny... and the arguments between Clegane and Gawain are useful... what happened to Sheehan?

Azi

well we are now responding to the title of the thread - by discussing a different topic.

The question posed at the start was

Do you really give a rats ass about Cindy Sheehan?

On a personal level - nope. Last I heard she went home to take care of her sick mother - and would be returning to the Crawford Ranch soon.

[Aenlic]

The radioactive material in the Chemical Alarms that the United States Military uses - provides enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb.

So do other available items in civilian locations.

Well, it seems as if you're teetering on the edge of getting my point. My point is exactly that those materials being found in Iraq is meaningless. They can be found in many places. Your next door neighbor could be harboring radioactives in the bed of his pickup at this very moment! Having the materials is meaningless. Saddam was not caught with a dirty bomb, just the materials that might make one. Canada hasn't been caught making one from their ample supply of radioactive isotopes either. Saying that Saddam might have made such from the supplies is meaningless as well. Canada might make such too. Or your neighbor, or Halliburton, or your local hospital. So where does that leave us? Intent?

North Korea has a working program to enrich not just uranium, but plutonium. North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has expressed a willingness to use them if they feel threatened. But we didn't invade North Korea, even though we don't need faulty intelligence to point a finger, because they've admitted to it! So intent can't be used as the excuse for going after Saddam.

You're going to have to come up with something else as a raison d'jour for the invasion of Iraq.

[Redleg]

Well, it seems as if you're teetering on the edge of getting my point. My point is exactly that those materials being found in Iraq is meaningless. They can be found in many places. Your next door neighbor could be harboring radioactives in the bed of his pickup at this very moment! Having the materials is meaningless. Saddam was not caught with a dirty bomb, just the materials that might make one. Canada hasn't been caught making one from their ample supply of radioactive isotopes either. Saying that Saddam might have made such from the supplies is meaningless as well. Canada might make such too. Or your neighbor, or Halliburton, or your local hospital. So where does that leave us? Intent?

I got your point - however it seems you got mine also - the one of Intent. Saddam's Regime (and its in the Duefler Report) attempted to decieve the world on what the status of his programs were. For many years there was an effort by the Iraq Regime to hide materials - there were efforts do mislead the world on what exactly the Iraq Regime was doing in regards to the fulfilling all the requirement of the Ceasefire and the UN Resolutions. And in the Duelfer Report it talks about a concrete effort and plan by the Saddam Regime to restart nuclear weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. What was Saddam's real intent - I don't know, but he painted a picture to me anyway of an individual who was willing to make such devices if given the chance.



North Korea has a working program to enrich not just uranium, but plutonium. North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has expressed a willingness to use them if they feel threatened. But we didn't invade North Korea, even though we don't need faulty intelligence to point a finger, because they've admitted to it! So intent can't be used as the excuse for going after Saddam.


Violations of the United Nations Resolutions and violating the conditions of the cease fire can be used This is the main difference between North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is in violation of agreements that halted a war. North Korea is still honoring the ceasefire agreements that ended that conflict.



You're going to have to come up with something else as a raison d'jour for the invasion of Iraq.

Then you misunderstand my position - I don't use the raison d'jour the violations of the ceasefire agreement signed between the United States (along with other nations) and Iraq is more then enough reason for me. Under International Law that sets the conditions about such things - the Hague Treaty of 1907 - the United States is within its rights to restart to conflict for the violations of the treaty. Only politians need a raison d'jour to sell the masses on the idea.

if one would go back and read the initial speech by President Bush where he makes his case - he quotes all the violations of the Cease fire done by Iraq. His problem after that is that He and his adminstration along with Mr. Blair focused soley on the WMD. That has caused the politicians in them to find new reasons. He should of just stuck to his initial speech and pointed to that they whole time. But what do you expect he is a politician.

[Ser Clegane]

"Goes back to the dance" ~D

As you please, but be careful that you do not trip and fall.

However you have not brought forward any new facts that prove that Iraq was possessing WMDs or had the means to produce nukes.

That there was material to produce a "dirty bomb" has been established several posts before you brought forward your precious Newsmax article and hardly justifies your theory that things were "even worse than expected" - the real situation was not even close to what the Bush administration was trying to make the US public and their alliens believe.

[Aenlic]

if one would go back and read the initial speech by President Bush where he makes his case - he quotes all the violations of the Cease fire done by Iraq. His problem after that is that He and his adminstration along with Mr. Blair focused soley on the WMD. That has caused the politicians in them to find new reasons. He should of just stuck to his initial speech and pointed to that they whole time. But what do you expect he is a politician.


I agree in part. Although, it's pretty clear that Bush intended to go after Iraq long before 9/11. Many who were there at the time have stated it, from various positions. They can't all be lying. If it was just one or two people saying it, then perhaps. That makes all of it, from the initial speech to the current "freedom and democracy" claim, just excuses for doing it. Not wanting to go to war because we had good reason; but instead coming up with good reasons because we wanted to go to war. There's a vast difference between the two. And since it was a "pre-emptive" war, instead of a response to aggression like the first Gulf War, I see the whole invasion as not having sufficient justification fr sending U.S. and other countries' citizens to their deaths, along with the deaths of innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire.

9/11 gave the administration the excuse to do what it didn't have the sufficient justification to do before the attacks - go after Iraq. So we shifted military and economic assets to invading Iraq, we pretty much forgot all about 9/11 and bin Laden (except when trying to tie them to Iraq as further justification) and we invaded a country on, at best, bad intel. We lost focus. We lost the moral high ground of being attacked on 9/11. We've probably created more terrorists in Iraq than were there before. We possibly further destabilized the entire region if a way can't be found to resolve what are turning out to be nearly insurmountable divisions inside Iraq.

And meanwhile bin Laden - the real bad guy - is still thumbing his nose at the lot of us. It makes me very angry.

[Redleg]

I agree in part. Although, it's pretty clear that Bush intended to go after Iraq long before 9/11. Many who were there at the time have stated it, from various positions. They can't all be lying. If it was just one or two people saying it, then perhaps. That makes all of it, from the initial speech to the current "freedom and democracy" claim, just excuses for doing it. Not wanting to go to war because we had good reason; but instead coming up with good reasons because we wanted to go to war. There's a vast difference between the two. And since it was a "pre-emptive" war, instead of a response to aggression like the first Gulf War, I see the whole invasion as not having sufficient justification fr sending U.S. and other countries' citizens to their deaths, along with the deaths of innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire.

He is a dirty politican after all - but as for a pre-emptive war I don't see it as such, I see this as a contuation of the conflict in which I fought back in 1991. Like I said before - I feel that the United States betrayed the Iraq people back in 1992 when we did not enforce the ceasefire conditions or came to the defense of the Kurds and the Shai'.



9/11 gave the administration the excuse to do what it didn't have the sufficient justification to do before the attacks - go after Iraq. So we shifted military and economic assets to invading Iraq, we pretty much forgot all about 9/11 and bin Laden (except when trying to tie them to Iraq as further justification) and we invaded a country on, at best, bad intel. We lost focus. We lost the moral high ground of being attacked on 9/11. We've probably created more terrorists in Iraq than were there before. We possibly further destabilized the entire region if a way can't be found to resolve what are turning out to be nearly insurmountable divisions inside Iraq.

And meanwhile bin Laden - the real bad guy - is still thumbing his nose at the lot of us. It makes me very angry.


Well about sufficient Justifcation concerning Iraq - we have always had it - just never had the politicial will or the support of the population until after 9/11. To bad President Bush threw away the opporunties to do it correctly.

[Aenlic]

I feel that the United States betrayed the Iraq people back in 1992 when we did not enforce the ceasefire conditions or came to the defense of the Kurds and the Shai'.



With you 100% on this one, Redleg. But even earlier we should have continued on to Baghdad. But the Saudis objected, thinking it would destabilize the region and some of the military commanders thought it would be too difficult. Since George W. Bush is and has been for a very long time on very good terms with the Saudi royal family, he wasn't going to risk that relationship to continue the roll to Baghdad. And that was a mistake. We had most of the world on our side. We had sufficient forces, from many different countries. We had the Shia in the south and the Kurds in the north who had risen up at our instigation against Saddam. We had plenty of justification with U.N. backing, we had proof of Saddam's intentions and his capabilities with the Scuds. We had the Republican Guard in a shambles cowering in B-52 dropped bomb craters, the tank forces were destroyed. The army was surrendering. And we pissed it all away.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That there was material to produce a "dirty bomb" has been established several posts before you brought forward your precious Newsmax article

Really? Then why did Adrian start a whole thread on why it wast so?


hardly justifies your theory that things were "even worse than expected" - the real situation was not even close to what the Bush administration was trying to make the US public and their alliens believe.

This is the point



While Saddam’s WMD Have Not Been Found, Duelfer Report Concluded Saddam Had Desire, Knowledge And Capabilities To Assist Terrorists In Threatening America.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there. The Duelfer report also raises important new information about Saddam Hussein’s defiance of the world and his intent and capability to develop weapons. The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program, once the world looked away. Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies. Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror, operating in the world’s most volatile region. In a world after September the 11th, he was a threat we had to confront. And America and the world are safer for our actions.” (President George W. Bush, Statement On Iraq Report, Washington, DC, 10/7/04)


Duelfer Report Confirms Saddam’s Iraq Was Gathering Threat

“[L]atest Official U.S. Analysis Concludes That Baghdad Intended To Make Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons If U.N. Sanctions Were Lifted.” (“U.S. Report Confirms No WMDs In Iraq,” United Press International, 9/17/04)

Iraqi Survey Group’s Final Report Concluded Saddam Maintained WMD Development Capabilities And Was “Importing Banned Materials,” Among Other Violations Of U.N. Resolutions. “Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon. According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons. Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.” (Katherine Pfleger Shrader, “U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD,” The Associated Press, 9/17/04)

Heres what stuck in my head that made me say things were worse than thought. I had forgotten where it came from.

DAVID KAY: “And in the shadowing effect of 9/11, it seems to me that you recalculate what risk. Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion, although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war.” (David Kay On NPR’s “Weekend Edition,” 1/25/04)

Of course wthis was on NPR so take it with a grain of salt. ~D

LINK (http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2004/200410/20041031/20041031_38417.shtm)

[Ser Clegane]

Really? Then why did Adrian start a whole thread on why it wast so?

I read the thread - where was he saying that a dirty bomb was not a possibility?

Regarding the other statements - so Kay believed it was worse?
Just because this guy says it was even worse, we should now all believe that the possibility that Iraq might in the future have revived the WMD program is worse than Iraq actually having WMDs (as the faulty intelligence that the US administration used to e.g., persuade its allies and the UN to join and/or approve the invasion?

:help:

[Red Harvest]

Ser Clegane,

No matter what you or anyone else says, finds or does, Bush supporters will cling to the belief that there was an active WMD program and clear AQ links. It isn't true. It isn't rational. It's "faith based" leadership in action.

[Redleg]

Ser Clegane,

No matter what you or anyone else says, finds or does, Bush supporters will cling to the belief that there was an active WMD program and clear AQ links. It isn't true. It isn't rational. It's "faith based" leadership in action.

Just like some no matter how much evidence is shown to them still cling to the notation that Saddam's Regime was not in violation of the Ceasefire and numerous UN resolutions. The Duefler Report also clearly shows that.

Beware of labeling one side - its a dangerous thing to do, and it makes your arguement weaker in presentation of your case.