Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on September 01, 2008, 01:42:37 pm
-
http://www.france24.com/en/20080901-anbar-control-handed-over-iraq-us&navi=MOYEN-ORIENT
Iraqi forces Monday took over control of Anbar, once the most explosive battlefield in Iraq, from the US military, symbolising the growing security gains in the war-torn country.
The ceremony to transfer Anbar to local forces took place at the provincial governate building in Ramadi, the provincial capital, marking the handover of the 11th of Iraq's 18 provinces.
Anbar is the first Sunni province to be returned to Baghdad's Shiite-led government.
-
Was just about to post this. Pretty cool stuff.
http://iht.com/articles/2008/09/01/mideast/iraq.php
-
excellent, iraq is regaining control of its homeland. soon enough american, british, polish and japanese forces can leave iraq and return to their homes. 5 years since bush led a false claim on WMD's into iraq.
now all iraq has to wait for is exploitation like before, russians, border raids, Sunnis attacking Shiite Muslims, another dictators, etc. i hope this does not come for a while, iraq needs some time out of the spot light for sure.
-
5 years since bush led a false claim on WMD's into iraq.
5 years? Wow.
-
excellent, iraq is regaining control of its homeland. soon enough american, british, polish and japanese forces can leave iraq and return to their homes. 5 years since bush led a false claim on WMD's into iraq.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html
-
excellent, iraq is regaining control of its homeland. soon enough american, british, polish and japanese forces can leave iraq and return to their homes. 5 years since bush led a false claim on WMD's into iraq.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html
I love the way that they are trying to make it sound like they have really achieved something there. It is only a minor victory though even within that field.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/23/nuclear.terrorism.united.nations
The suicidal extremist driving a crude nuclear device into the centre of a major city is now the ultimate nightmare. George Bush and Tony Blair went to war in Iraq with the ostensible aim of preventing Saddam's assumed nuclear stockpile falling into the hands of al-Qaida jihadists. Barack Obama has called nuclear terrorism "the greatest danger we face".
The gap between rhetoric and effective action, however, is startling. The US has so far spent $648bn on the war in Iraq to eliminate a threat that never existed. The amount spent on removing fissile material from countries that actually do have the ingredients for a nuclear device has been paltry by comparison. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), launched in 2004 after previous efforts at eliminating the world's civilian stocks of fissile material had proved ineffectual, has an annual US budget of about $150m, or roughly what the US military spends in eight hours in Iraq. Britain allocates a respectable £36.5m a year to the programme, most of it on helping to secure nuclear sites in the former Soviet Union, but that still pales in comparison to the £1.7bn cost last year of keeping troops in Iraq.
While it's good news that the yellowcake is out of Iraq let's not forget that there are much bigger dangers than that which no one gives a stuff about.
-
excellent, iraq is regaining control of its homeland. soon enough american, british, polish and japanese forces can leave iraq and return to their homes. 5 years since bush led a false claim on WMD's into iraq.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html
Yay! Now i'm glad all those people are dead! :)
-
"The US has so far spent $648bn on the war in Iraq to eliminate a threat that never existed."
Is this guy serious? Hahahahaaah! well that just about kills any credibility he has with his article.
Back on topic, here is what Obamas VP candidate Joe Biden said about Anbar:
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE): “Even with the surge of troops, in a city [Baghdad] of 6 million people you’re talking about a ratio that would still be roughly above one to 100. It’s bound to draw down support that we need in other parts of Iraq, including Anbar province. Just thinking that somehow 30,000 forces are going to change the circumstances … what does that do to change the dynamic in Anbar province?” (Senator Joseph Biden, Conference Call With Reporters, 12/26/06)
He also said the surge "...will not have any positive effect, except extremely temporarily."
Just goes to show you, even the supposedly infallible Democrat Party can be wrong about things.
-
"The US has so far spent $648bn on the war in Iraq to eliminate a threat that never existed."
Is this guy serious? Hahahahaaah! well that just about kills any credibility he has with his article.
Yellowcake is not a threat. The chance of terrorists getting hold of uranium from Saddam Hussain was pretty negligable. Saddam would have tortured then killed any who tried it. The threat of a terrorist nuclear bomb coming from Iraqi sources was ridiculously low in pre-invasion Iraq. In fact if anything the invasion increased the level of threat until just now when the yellowcake was removed.
Fissile nuclear material sitting in a shed guarded by a single man or just a padlock is a much bigger threat. 800 incidents in which radioactive material has gone missing is a bigger threat. The world would be a much safer place if more money had been spent on dealing with that instead.
But of course if you want to try to ignore the entire point of the article just because of one line you didn't understand properly in the first place then go ahead.
-
im just glad Iraq has been freed from the spoon feeding by American and British services to train the Iraqi troops although not necessarily a good thing. however that said, it was still good to remove one threat from Iraq anyhow, one Saddam Hussein killing innocents just because they didnt see eye to eye with his regime, and that appalling display by still using the old tradition of cutting peoples hands off under his rule.
so hazaanko's news article and under line of a certain part of a sentence is not entirely true :P.
however even so, i think the classified dossier got the wrong country instead, Iran is the one experimenting on nuclear warhead prototypes at this stage. and that idiot in presidential office of Iran is boasting about it, which ties in with that story about Poland placing patriot missiles in their country to prevent part of Germany, Poland, Denmark and the surrounding ex-Russian states from being nuked in case the Irani president does decide to take matters into his own hands which i wouldn't put past him.
-
however even so, i think the classified dossier got the wrong country instead, Iran is the one experimenting on nuclear warhead prototypes at this stage
It would be irony on a massive scale if the entire invasion of Iraq was based on a one letter typo. :p
-
yeah :lol:. would be highly embarrassing for the bush administration if that was true.
-
Fissile nuclear material sitting in a shed guarded by a single man or just a padlock is a much bigger threat. 800 incidents in which radioactive material has gone missing is a bigger threat. The world would be a much safer place if more money had been spent on dealing with that instead.
Says who? Even if I believed this guy that there were actually 800 incidents and that those materials were any real danger, that was over the last 20 years. Would it have actually taken over 20 years for this stuff to be weaponized and used? Smells like a mostly bull**** article to me. And spend that money on what? Invading friendly countries who have no desire to create or acquire WMDs? You don't use the military to FIND WMDs. That's what the CIA is for. And they seemed to have proved themselves pretty incompetent with the whole 9/11 and Saddam WMD thing already. But thanks to certain laws passed by the Clinton administration, there's not much the U.S. can do in the way of improving how the CIA works (or the FBI for that matter).
Sorry, but according to all the intelligence reports at the time, Saddam was the #1 threat concerning WMDs (along with many many many other non-WMD threats) at the time. Unstable dictator + large amount of funds + desire to obtain WMDs + record of extreme violence + many other extremely troubling things = bad news. Oh, by the way, Saddam DID have extensive ties to terrorists, and it is entirely possible that he would have supplied them with uranium (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks ) President Bush's reasons aside, the invasion of Iraq was backed by the U.S. senate and the UN almost unanimously. Which brings us back to the MAIN topic...
In despite of all those invested in defeat of the Iraqis, it looks like things are really pulling together. Anbar was THE hotspot for the insurgency. Now, they (the Iraqi police) are holding parades in the middle of the street. If things keep up like this, the U.S. will be able to pull the troops out in no time.
-
so be it. however, you cant just say that you suddenly that you found proof through websites and supposed released info, it means nothing. its all just an excuse find themselves out of a situation that they put themselves in, if all else fails they will use a scapegoat, that being Saddam Hussein at the time.
-
Says who?
Says anyone with common sense. Enriched uranium which could be used to build a nuke or dirty bomb getting into the hands of terrorists is a bigger danger than yellowcake in the hands of even a madman like Saddam who couldn't enrich it without it being noticed.
Even if I believed this guy that there were actually 800 incidents and that those materials were any real danger, that was over the last 20 years. Would it have actually taken over 20 years for this stuff to be weaponized and used? Smells like a mostly bull**** article to me.
It's not all being stolen by the same person you know! :p
The point was that if 800 incidents have occurred and nothing much was done about them then there are likely to be 800 more. And it only takes one of those incidents resulting in the wrong people ending up with fissile material for the world to be introduced to nuclear terrorism.
I consider that a credible threat. If you don't then I really don't know what to say to you that could convince you.
And spend that money on what? Invading friendly countries who have no desire to create or acquire WMDs? You don't use the military to FIND WMDs. That's what the CIA is for.
And with that sentence you not only pointed out that you couldn't be bothered to read the article before saying it was wrong but also undermined your own argument.
You spend the money where the $150m in my original quote was spent. Security for existing nuclear sites, removing and reprocessing material from countries which no longer have a use for them (like Bulgaria). It's all in the article.
Spending $648bn to allow the military to look for WMD in Iraq even though they didn't exist is stupid. As you yourself said you don't use the military for that. That is what the CIA is for. Not to mention UNMOVIC.
Sorry, but according to all the intelligence reports at the time, Saddam was the #1 threat concerning WMDs (along with many many many other non-WMD threats) at the time. Unstable dictator + large amount of funds + desire to obtain WMDs + record of extreme violence + many other extremely troubling things = bad news.
Funny how you forget that you had Hans Blix practically screaming that he either didn't have WMD or was acting to dispose of any means he had to deliver them though. Funny how they've found no proof of WMD or means of producing them. You can try to claim that you only know that in hindsight but that's bollocks. We knew at the time that he didn't have them.
Oh, by the way, Saddam DID have extensive ties to terrorists, and it is entirely possible that he would have supplied them with uranium (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks )
And as I keep saying he didn't have anything much to supply them with. He had no weaponised uranium.
President Bush's reasons aside, the invasion of Iraq was backed by the U.S. senate and the UN almost unanimously.
:wakka:
The UN backed the war in Iraq? Oh that is just too ****ing funny for words. Tell me you meant US.
-
President Bush's reasons aside, the invasion of Iraq was backed by the U.S. senate and the UN almost unanimously. Which brings us back to the MAIN topic..
I have a feeling you know less about this topic than even me.
-
The chance of terrorists getting hold of uranium from Saddam Hussain was pretty negligable. Saddam would have tortured then killed any who tried it. The threat of a terrorist nuclear bomb coming from Iraqi sources was ridiculously low in pre-invasion Iraq. In fact if anything the invasion increased the level of threat until just now when the yellowcake was removed.
This is a short-term view I can't really agree with, as Saddam had very much created a cult of personality based government, and when he died, I can't see any evidence that Iraq's government would have stood up to the strain. The Iraq government and its interaction with its armed forces is actually a very interesting subject, and the best book I have on Gulf One deals with it at length; Saddam had done marvelously well in creating a system where he was indispensible, better than Stalin, better than Hitler. So well that the system would almost certainly have been unable to withstand his eventual death.
The collapse, likely Iranian invasion, possible move by the lower Gulf states and/or US to counter, all that would have created a very seriously unstable environment and the possiblity of some of Iraq's WMD capablities (it would almost certainly have some that ten or twenty years down the road, if miniscule) falling into the hands of a quick-thinking Hezbollah leader isn't a pretty one. Though in terms of threats, there is probably one ranked above even that; Iraq still had some Scuds, they just couldn't have ever hoped to drive the TEL out of the shed without being immediately pounced on by US or other aircraft. Have Hezbollah get ahold of one of those and launch it from Iranian or Jordianian soil and we have all the makings of yet another Israel-vs-the-Arabic/Islamic-world war.
-
Says anyone with common sense. Enriched uranium which could be used to build a nuke or dirty bomb getting into the hands of terrorists is a bigger danger than yellowcake in the hands of even a madman like Saddam who couldn't enrich it without it being noticed.
It's not all being stolen by the same person you know! :p
The point was that if 800 incidents have occurred and nothing much was done about them then there are likely to be 800 more. And it only takes one of those incidents resulting in the wrong people ending up with fissile material for the world to be introduced to nuclear terrorism.
I consider that a credible threat. If you don't then I really don't know what to say to you that could convince you.
And all 800 of those supposed "incidents" involved weapons grade enriched uranium? And all 800 of those supposed "incidents" were actual mistakes? I admit its scary, but I think you (and the dude who wrote the article) are blowing the whole thing way out of proportion.
And with that sentence you not only pointed out that you couldn't be bothered to read the article before saying it was wrong but also undermined your own argument.
You spend the money where the $150m in my original quote was spent. Security for existing nuclear sites, removing and reprocessing material from countries which no longer have a use for them (like Bulgaria). It's all in the article.
Spending $648bn to allow the military to look for WMD in Iraq even though they didn't exist is stupid. As you yourself said you don't use the military for that. That is what the CIA is for. Not to mention UNMOVIC.
I think you missed my point. The U.S. can't force allied countries to do what we want them to do. Plus, if you think that the coalition forces were sent into Iraq for the sole reason of finding a WMD, you're dead dead dead wrong. While it certainly was the heralded flagship reason (pushed even more by the media than the Bush administration), it most definitely was nowhere close to the only reason.
Funny how you forget that you had Hans Blix practically screaming that he either didn't have WMD or was acting to dispose of any means he had to deliver them though. Funny how they've found no proof of WMD or means of producing them. You can try to claim that you only know that in hindsight but that's bollocks. We knew at the time that he didn't have them.
HAHAHAH Blix? You're actually trying to use Hans "Left Out A Few Important Details From The Oral Report" Blix? Hans "This Is Real Disarmament" Blix? Don't even get me started. No wonder you believe this crap if you actually believed Hans Blix.
:wakka:
The UN backed the war in Iraq? Oh that is just too ****ing funny for words. Tell me you meant US.
My bad - I did mean US. Brain fart or typo or whatever.
-
This is a short-term view I can't really agree with, as Saddam had very much created a cult of personality based government, and when he died, I can't see any evidence that Iraq's government would have stood up to the strain. The Iraq government and its interaction with its armed forces is actually a very interesting subject, and the best book I have on Gulf One deals with it at length; Saddam had done marvelously well in creating a system where he was indispensible, better than Stalin, better than Hitler. So well that the system would almost certainly have been unable to withstand his eventual death.
The collapse, likely Iranian invasion, possible move by the lower Gulf states and/or US to counter, all that would have created a very seriously unstable environment and the possiblity of some of Iraq's WMD capablities (it would almost certainly have some that ten or twenty years down the road, if miniscule) falling into the hands of a quick-thinking Hezbollah leader isn't a pretty one. Though in terms of threats, there is probably one ranked above even that; Iraq still had some Scuds, they just couldn't have ever hoped to drive the TEL out of the shed without being immediately pounced on by US or other aircraft. Have Hezbollah get ahold of one of those and launch it from Iranian or Jordianian soil and we have all the makings of yet another Israel-vs-the-Arabic/Islamic-world war.
In the 12 years after the first gulf war Saddam completely failed at making any weapons grade uranium and actually reduced almost to nothing his stock of chemical weapons. Why is everyone so insistent that all of a sudden he'd have the stuff to give to terrorists if Iraq hadn't been invaded?
Besides the point I was making is that if you want to reduce the chance of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material there are much larger risks than Iraqi yellowcake.
-
In the 12 years after the first gulf war Saddam completely failed at making any weapons grade uranium and actually reduced almost to nothing his stock of chemical weapons. Why is everyone so insistent that all of a sudden he'd have the stuff to give to terrorists if Iraq hadn't been invaded?
Besides the point I was making is that if you want to reduce the chance of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material there are much larger risks than Iraqi yellowcake.
I chose my phrasing carefully, and when I said WMDs I meant everything that might fall under the label. We know Iraq had the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons, even if they didn't actually have any at the moment. Besides, the point I'm making is not that he would have given it away, but rather that in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq without some sort of strong stablizing influnence already in place, all the risks you fear would have existed, and more. I don't think you actually read what I wrote.
-
And all 800 of those supposed "incidents" involved weapons grade enriched uranium? And all 800 of those supposed "incidents" were actual mistakes? I admit its scary, but I think you (and the dude who wrote the article) are blowing the whole thing way out of proportion.
Again. It only takes one.
I think you missed my point. The U.S. can't force allied countries to do what we want them to do.
But if it spent half as much time on convincing them to get rid of dangerous material as it had trying to browbeat everyone into supporting the invasion of Iraq there wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Again my point is that the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) are focused on the wrong threats. It's like stopping on a level crossing to look at a papercut rather than wondering what that ringing noise is. :p
Plus, if you think that the coalition forces were sent into Iraq for the sole reason of finding a WMD, you're dead dead dead wrong. While it certainly was the heralded flagship reason (pushed even more by the media than the Bush administration), it most definitely was nowhere close to the only reason.
It was the big one. Don't swallow the big lie and believe that it wasn't the major reason they used. The war in Iraq lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to. WMD and insinuating that Saddam was involved in 9/11 were what sold it to them and both were complete fabrications. The American public would not have gone to war to bring "Peace and Democracy" to Iraq. That was the excuse that was given once the big two were proved to be bull****.
HAHAHAH Blix? You're actually trying to use Hans "Left Out A Few Important Details From The Oral Report" Blix? Hans "This Is Real Disarmament" Blix? Don't even get me started. No wonder you believe this crap if you actually believed Hans Blix.
On one hand you have the CIA - who were completely and utterly wrong. On the other hand you have the UN inspectors who by and large were right.
And you want to say Bush was right to trust the CIA? :lol:
I chose my phrasing carefully, and when I said WMDs I meant everything that might fall under the label. We know Iraq had the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons, even if they didn't actually have any at the moment. Besides, the point I'm making is not that he would have given it away, but rather that in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq without some sort of strong stablizing influnence already in place, all the risks you fear would have existed, and more. I don't think you actually read what I wrote.
I read what you wrote but my point still stands. Saddam didn't have WMDs. Yes he could have made them but most countries in the world can make them. Mustard gas is pretty easy to make. If you're going to invade a country because it can make mustard gas and could destabilise after the death of a ruler then you're going to have to invade half of the 3rd world.
You're trying to argue that the US should have invaded because Saddam might have changed his mind and made some, might have suddenly died without setting up conditions where his sons or some other person could have taken the power from him gradually, which might have left the country in a state where terrorists might have been able to grab WMDs and get away with them.
Doesn't that seem like a flimsy pretext to you?
Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on real threats?
-
But if it spent half as much time on convincing them to get rid of dangerous material as it had trying to browbeat everyone into supporting the invasion of Iraq there wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Again my point is that the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) are focused on the wrong threats. It's like stopping on a level crossing to look at a papercut rather than wondering what that ringing noise is. :p
Well, on second thought you may have a point there. The only problem is, we're already IN Iraq (whether you agree to the reasons for going in or not), and that seems to be priority one. I'm inclined to agree with the decision there. Having a stable ally in the Middle East is going to be a huge asset in the war on terror in general in any number of different ways, and thus no small factor against nuclear terrorism. We DID have Iran as an ally a few decades back... but thanks to the Carter presidency, they've pretty much got terrorists running the country now...
It was the big one. Don't swallow the big lie and believe that it wasn't the major reason they used. The war in Iraq lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to. WMD and insinuating that Saddam was involved in 9/11 were what sold it to them and both were complete fabrications. The American public would not have gone to war to bring "Peace and Democracy" to Iraq. That was the excuse that was given once the big two were proved to be bull****.
All I have to say is go back and read President Bush's address to the nation. I never said it wasn't the main reason they used. I said it wasn't the only. And it sure as hell wasn't the only. Don't swallow the big lie yourself. And saying the war "lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to" is assuming an awful lot. Oh by the way, the chemical weapons that Saddam had WERE technically considered WMDs, however you choose to define it.
On one hand you have the CIA - who were completely and utterly wrong. On the other hand you have the UN inspectors who by and large were right.
And you want to say Bush was right to trust the CIA? :lol:
The UN inspectors were wrong. Very wrong. They were proven wrong about the conventional and unconventional (chemical) weapon stockpiles, they were proven wrong about Saddam's technological ability to attack other countries, they were dead wrong about his attempts to obtain weapons grade nuclear materials and being willing to disarm.
And it wasn't just the CIA who were wrong about Saddam having WMD production facilities, it was almost every other ally's intelligence that said the same thing (including the British, which was the original report where the whole thing got started). Its pretty sad, but who else were we supposed to believe?
-
Well, on second thought you may have a point there. The only problem is, we're already IN Iraq (whether you agree to the reasons for going in or not), and that seems to be priority one.
No one is saying we aren't in Iraq. My entire point was that trumpeting the removal of yellowcake from Iraq as a major victory in the war against terror is pretty stupid. There are far more important sources of nuclear material that have been ignored because of the preoccupation with Iraq. And that's before we get to the possibility that the invasion of Iraq led to the disappearance of nuclear material.
All I have to say is go back and read President Bush's address to the nation. I never said it wasn't the main reason they used. I said it wasn't the only. And it sure as hell wasn't the only. Don't swallow the big lie yourself.
I never said it was the only. However it was the main one. And it was bollocks. For the reasons I gave above there were things that should have been on the list long before Iraq.
And saying the war "lacked a single credible reason that the American public would have agreed to" is assuming an awful lot.
Assuming that the American public had known what we know now about Iraqi WMDs and links to al-Qaeda do you think they would have agreed to go to war?
Oh by the way, the chemical weapons that Saddam had WERE technically considered WMDs, however you choose to define it.
Which chemical weapons? The few remaining cans of ageing mustard gas he had left over from the Iran-Iraq war? How much has been found exactly since the war ended?
The UN inspectors were wrong. Very wrong. They were proven wrong about the conventional and unconventional (chemical) weapon stockpiles, they were proven wrong about Saddam's technological ability to attack other countries, they were dead wrong about his attempts to obtain weapons grade nuclear materials and being willing to disarm.
So you say. Now back that up. Where are these chemical weapons then?
And it wasn't just the CIA who were wrong about Saddam having WMD production facilities, it was almost every other ally's intelligence that said the same thing (including the British, which was the original report where the whole thing got started). Its pretty sad, but who else were we supposed to believe?
Well obviously the French, Chinese and Russian agencies since their governments were (rightly) convinced that the whole WMD thing was a load of bollocks. :p
-
No one is saying we aren't in Iraq. My entire point was that trumpeting the removal of yellowcake from Iraq as a major victory in the war against terror is pretty stupid. There are far more important sources of nuclear material that have been ignored because of the preoccupation with Iraq. And that's before we get to the possibility that the invasion of Iraq led to the disappearance of nuclear material.
When I posted that article, it wasn't about nuclear terrorism. It was a response to somebody else's comment to show that Saddam was trying to go nuclear. As far as "trumpeting" goes... if it were being trumpeted, then why was the first time you heard about it... was from me?
Which chemical weapons? The few remaining cans of ageing mustard gas he had left over from the Iran-Iraq war? How much has been found exactly since the war ended?
I wouldn't call 500 a 'few.' And considering they're still being found, just goes to show you Saddam's unwillingness to disarm and get rid of the WMDs he already had. Degraded they may be, but still "extremely dangerous." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1
Well obviously the French, Chinese and Russian agencies since their governments were (rightly) convinced that the whole WMD thing was a load of bollocks. :p
:wtf: Right. Yeah we'll believe lesseee... the FRENCH, the CHINESE, and the RUSSIANS before we believe our other allies. Perfectly good sources of information. :rolleyes:
-
500 degraded bombs? that's not very threatening especially since none of it was used in the recent take over of Iraq. and that's the point.
The collapse, likely Iranian invasion, possible move by the lower Gulf states and/or US to counter, all that would have created a very seriously unstable environment and the possibility of some of Iraq's WMD capabilities (it would almost certainly have some that ten or twenty years down the road, if minuscule) falling into the hands of a quick-thinking Hezbollah leader isn't a pretty one. Though in terms of threats, there is probably one ranked above even that; Iraq still had some Scuds, they just couldn't have ever hoped to drive the TEL out of the shed without being immediately pounced on by US or other aircraft. Have Hezbollah get a hold of one of those and launch it from Iranian or Jordanian soil and we have all the makings of yet another Israel-vs-the-Arabic/Islamic-world war.
i do not like the idea of Israel vs the rest of the civilized Arabian world. Hezbo has its agendas that are not known to me or anyone else, but i would be very surprised that they would use chemical/nuke weapons that have seriously degraded or fell into disrepair to kill others. however it is possible. besides this im sure al quida has agents that keep a keen eye on such devices that could be used as another means of terrorism, i wouldn't put it past them that even at this moment they are waiting for the chance to steal a few of these devices and use them to their own ends while the whole network is located to a huge city of 5 million plus people as further insurance against retaliation.
as for the comment that seems everyone missed, if even Saddam had nukes or biological waste rockets the USA/Russia/Europe would of immediately picked it up on radars and intercepted such devices, and shot them out of the sky without any further harm. however i am not convinced one bit that 500 barrels of degraded chemicals counts much these days as a WMD and i am sure this whole WMD situation on iraq was been blown all out of proportion, trying to find some proof of such a thing about the WMD is futile because their are none. to argue about it you can do however its irrelevant unless you have some real proof of such things and not a website that means nothing in the way of proof.
-
When I posted that article, it wasn't about nuclear terrorism. It was a response to somebody else's comment to show that Saddam was trying to go nuclear. As far as "trumpeting" goes... if it were being trumpeted, then why was the first time you heard about it... was from me?
Yellowcake can be purified for civilian nuclear power. You'll need better proof than that to claim that there were any serious attempts at enrichment for WMDs.
I wouldn't call 500 a 'few.' And considering they're still being found, just goes to show you Saddam's unwillingness to disarm and get rid of the WMDs he already had. Degraded they may be, but still "extremely dangerous." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1
Don't make me laugh. You're trying to claim Saddam didn't want to disarm because he dumped the shells rather than spending time and money on keeping them viable or disarming them? I know they say that the great thing about dictators is that they get the trains running on time but the other great thing about them is that they don't have to worry about the press complaining if they decide to dump toxic waste out in the middle of the desert rather than disposing of it properly.
To claim that 500 or more 15 year old unmaintained and half-forgotten shells are proof of a desire to hold onto WMD is seriously grasping at straws. He didn't want them so he dumped them.
:wtf: Right. Yeah we'll believe lesseee... the FRENCH, the CHINESE, and the RUSSIANS before we believe our other allies. Perfectly good sources of information. :rolleyes:
The French ARE our allies. Or has the whole Freedom Fries thing really gotten to you? :p As were the Germans and the other EU/NATO countries against the war.
Believing only the intelligence that gives you the answer you want was exactly the mistake Bush made.