|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 23, 2008 12:29:20 GMT -5
No doubt the chemical munitions are damaging weapons in their own right and the yellowcake represents one crucial ingredient in WMD development but yellowcake can also be used in the preparation of fuel for nuclear reactors (my understanding is that what was found was not enriched so it was probably intended for the latter). The fact remains, they are not the Weapons of Mass Destruction the Bush administration claimed were there and used as their reason to attack Iraq immediately. But they were there. No matter how much you want to deny it, or minimize it with weasel word statements about "yes some were found, but not what we were looking for", the fact remains that there have been WMD and components located in Iraq since 2003. And how about a few thousand gallons of precursors and finished chemical munitions found more recently in inurgent caches? Think they went down to Wal-Mart and just picked those up? While most well informed analysts believe that the majority of Saddam's stockpiles plus R&D were moved to Syria in the months leading up to that "immediate attack", there still were considerable and dangerous quantities of materials, munitions and precursors located. And more are being located as time goes on. Reading press from elsewhere in the world often reveals more of the story than one might find in American media in the middle of a Presidential election year. Given the actions, and non-actions, of the Times and their apparent political agenda, I think your belief in this case is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 23, 2008 12:47:38 GMT -5
Actually, while various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have been found, most weapons inspectors now believe that Iraq's chemical weapons program did indeed cease production after 1991. The Iraq Survey Group found indications that Saddam intended to resume WMD activities if and when military sanctions were lifted.
Regarding the yellowcake, we already knew that the Tuwaitha facility south of Baghdad possessed yellow cake uranium. Between 1980 and 1982, Iraq procured more than 400 tons of yellowcake from Portugal and Niger which remained in a storage complex close to Tuwaitha. The facility and its yellowcake were monitored and frequently inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency after the 1991 Gulf War. About 1.8 metric tons of yellowcake and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing when the Iraqi guards left Tuwaitha unattended during the 2003 invsion of Iraq. When the facility was first encountered by U.S. Marines, they believed they had stumbled upon an illegal weapons cache; according to nuclear experts, however, they actually wound up breaking the IAEA seals that are "designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands." The Pentagon dispatched a team to survey the site "after a month of official indecision", finding it heavily looted and said it was impossible to tell whether nuclear materials were missing. This material was later sold by the new Iraqi government to Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Jul 23, 2008 22:14:22 GMT -5
It seems to be unanimous. Saddam had complete, or atleast enough parts to easily possess, WMDs contemporaneus to any military action.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 26, 2008 15:59:36 GMT -5
Saunterelle sez...Saunterelle, I do believe that you are finally starting to read the links that we have posted in response to your earlier claims. Your statement is straight out of the Dulfer Report. That's worth an exault.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 26, 2008 17:10:41 GMT -5
Just think.
If Algore had won Tenn.(his home state) in 2000, he would have been POTUS on 9/11/01.
Knowing what he said from 1997 forward, he would have invaded Iraq.
The WMD stuff we found would have been heralded as proof positive of his wisdom & vision.
He would be a hero to the left.
No doubts would have been raised, no motives questioned, for he is the old Messiah.
BOH is the new one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Aug 1, 2008 12:14:15 GMT -5
"How about the chemical muntions found? The thousands of metric tons of yellowcake uranium? Etc. Etc. Etc. All found in Iraq since the active military campaign ended. Oh, but that isn't what gets reported in the NY Times?" No doubt the chemical munitions are damaging weapons in their own right and the yellowcake represents one crucial ingredient in WMD development but yellowcake can also be used in the preparation of fuel for nuclear reactors (my understanding is that what was found was not enriched so it was probably intended for the latter). The fact remains, they are not the Weapons of Mass Destruction the Bush administration claimed were there and used as their reason to attack Iraq immediately. Believe me, if we had found the WMDs we were looking for it would be plastered on every newspaper around the world, even the NY Times. Uh well ACTUALLY Saunterelle "Chemical Munitions" BY DEFINITION ARE WMD's........ A weapon of mass destruction (WMD): is a weapon which can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains) or the biosphere in general. The term covers several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons. Mustard Gas - Can Kill Large Numbers of Humans / and Destroy the Biosphere.... Comprehension > Saunterelle |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 1, 2008 13:02:28 GMT -5
Actually, Colin Powell specifically defined which weapons we "knew" were there. Turns out, NONE of them were. You can twist the broad definition all you want but it doesn't make you right.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Aug 1, 2008 13:14:35 GMT -5
Actually, Colin Powell specifically defined which weapons we "knew" were there. Turns out, NONE of them were. You can twist the broad definition all you want but it doesn't make you right. Can you provide this list you have referred to over and over again?? It's not a BROAD definition it's pretty narrow in fact. Chemical Weapons = WMD. That's a FACT. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 1, 2008 14:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Aug 1, 2008 14:13:51 GMT -5
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
AWESOME VIDEO .....From a conspiracy nut.
Another FINE piece of information from Saunterelle.
EVERY one of this guys other videos are on UFO conspiracy...
Bwahahaha
I ASKED FOR COLIN POWELLS SUPPOSED LIST.
NOT a Link to a "MOCKUMENTARY" By some Loon.
Buy a larger sized Che' shirt the one you are wearing is cutting the flow of oxygen to your brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 1, 2008 14:24:32 GMT -5
LOL, yeah, It's CNN footage cut by a conspiracy nut.. It's the first thing I could find showing his presentation to the UN. "Yet in hindsight, his best stuff now looks pretty thin. The four "chemical bunkers," which he showed in overhead spy photos, have since been scoured to a fare-thee-well and come up dry. Powell also made much of aluminum tubes, which he said could be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium* and thus constituted proof that Saddam remained "determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Even back in February, Powell conceded that some intelligence analysts thought the tubes were meant for conventional artillery rockets, though he added, "It strikes me as quite odd that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets." Now, it doesn't seem odd at all; indeed, the tolerances turn out to be exactly the same as those of conventional artillery tubes made in Italy. As for the "mobile biological-weapons labs," one trailer of which was supposedly found in northern Iraq last May, the Defense Intelligence Agency has recently concluded that the trailer was in fact what Iraqi officials claimed it was: a producer of hydrogen for military weather balloons. (Even the rival Central Intelligence Agency's report of May 28, which called the trailers "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological-warfare program," was, read closely, far more ambiguous than its sweeping summary paragraphs suggested.)" From a 2003 Slate article found here: www.slate.com/id/2086924/ |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 2, 2008 0:37:59 GMT -5
"Maybe this is far-fetched"
perhaps you left out this line of the article or maybe you didn't read down that far.
|
|
