Printable View
LOL - I yield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
"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.
Did you read what I posted?Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Youve been checkmated but wont admit defeat.Quote:
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.
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 .
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
That was covered
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.Quote:
"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."
The point all of you have been trying to make that Saddam was no threat is really quite humorous.Quote:
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.
Yes, and I covered his cover with my cover in my post.
Game, set, gasoline, match. Duck and cover!Quote:
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?
Yes to me. See you when you answer my other points.Quote:
Game, set, gasoline, match. Duck and cover!
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.
Oh so thats where he got the 500 tons of it? How do you get the uranium after the shell expoldes?Quote:
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.
The fact that he had every intention of producing a bomb I guess has no effect upon you .
Have you actually read the Duelfer report - and not only Newsmax?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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
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.Quote:
could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
This relates to the equipment that has been hidden:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelfer report
So the Newsmax statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelfer report
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsmax
So I suggest you read the relevant sources more carefully before starting your little victory dance.
Also, this stuff
- and this is even mentioned in the newsmax article - is only useful for the making of a dirty bomb and not a nuclear weapon.Quote:
other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium -
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.
No I get all my information from newsmax. Dont be a twit.Quote:
Have you actually read the Duelfer report - and not only Newsmax?
But it had every intention of doing so once the sanctions were lifted.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
- and this is even mentioned in the newsmax article - is only useful for the making of a dirty bomb and not a nuclear weapon.
Instead of lectiring me on things that arent so. Like me not reading the report I suggest you face the facts.Quote:
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.
"Goes back to the dance" ~D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Id like to see you try to make them.As a Canadain you have no authority over any US troops. ~DQuote:
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..
Besides as has been stated Redleg was a real officer in a real Army ~D
Glad to here itQuote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
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.Quote:
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...
Quote:
~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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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
Are you not forgetting to mention one thing about them all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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...tybombqa.shtml
The radioactive material in the Chemical Alarms that the United States Military uses - provides enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
So do other available items in civilian locations.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
*backs out of Redleg's presence, bowing and scraping*
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Ouch...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
No need to grovel - a smart saluate and about face is more then enough.Quote:
*backs out of Redleg's presence, bowing and scraping*
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.Quote:
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.
LOL - it wasn't that painful now was itQuote:
Ouch...
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.Quote:
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
You're going to have to come up with something else as a raison d'jour for the invasion of Iraq.
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.
As you please, but be careful that you do not trip and fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Really? Then why did Adrian start a whole thread on why it wast so?Quote:
That there was material to produce a "dirty bomb" has been established several posts before you brought forward your precious Newsmax article
This is the pointQuote:
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.
Heres what stuck in my head that made me say things were worse than thought. I had forgotten where it came from.Quote:
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)
Of course wthis was on NPR so take it with a grain of salt. ~DQuote:
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)
LINK
I read the thread - where was he saying that a dirty bomb was not a possibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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:
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.