The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

How do you use uranium in construction?

It's used in different metal alloys used in structures. Modern reinforced concrete uses such alloys.

Quote[/b] ]And do you need to use barrels and barrels of it for medical research?

If I recall correctly the barrels found contained uranium oxide and uranium hexafloride which can't be enriched and purified.

Quote[/b] ]I may be wrong on this last part, but didn't Saddam stop cooperating with the IAEA?

Nope. Only by Bush's claim. IAEA was part of the inspection teams and said that Iraq had provided solid documentation on the nuclear part.

[Guest]

So you are saying that the no-fly zones were there for no reason at all?

How do you reach that conclusion?    

Because you interpret Wolfowitz's comment that it was about removing the no-fly zones. Since the no-fly zones were there for the same reason that you invaded Iraq you are making a circular argument.

Quote[/b] ]1) Granted that all Americans are retarded, but do you think we'd try to appease AQ by invading another Islamic country so that we'd have somewhere to place troops other than SA?

AQ and Iraq have nothing in common. As a matter of fact, the Islamic fundamentalist hated Saddams secular socialist rule.

Quote[/b] ]2) If our military presence in SA is the root cause behind AQ's terrorism, as so often stated by OBL, don't you think someone should let the AQ cells in Riyahd and Morocco know that our troops are being moved? Apparently they didn't get the message.

Yes they did and they gave you a parting gift. A boot imprint on your butt so to say.

[E6Hotel 0]

Because you interpret Wolfowitz's comment that it was about removing the no-fly zones. Since the no-fly zones were there for the same reason that you invaded Iraq you are making a circular argument.

It seems fairly linear to me.  The war was not intended to remove the no-fly zones; it was to remove the regime necessitating them.  Cancelling the overwatch and removing the troops is a result.

AQ and Iraq have nothing in common. As a matter of fact, the Islamic fundamentalist hated Saddams secular socialist rule.

AQ has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine situation either, but that doesn't stop OBL from trying to hijack it for his purposes.  Even after Arafat himself tells him to knock it off.

Yes they did and they gave you a parting gift. A boot imprint on your butt so to say.

I hope they kept the receipt.  

Semper Fi

[Guest]

Because you interpret Wolfowitz's comment that it was about removing the no-fly zones. Since the no-fly zones were there for the same reason that you invaded Iraq you are making a circular argument.

It seems fairly linear to me.  The war was not intended to remove the no-fly zones; it was to remove the regime necessitating them.  Cancelling the overwatch and removing the troops is a result.

Ah, but what about it being a "HUGE reason" as Wolfowitz put it. You're still not explaining why there was a war. What do you make of it:

[*]Rumsfeld: Iraq may have destroyed the weapons before the outbreak of the war

[*]Wolfowitz: The WMD issue was just a bureaucratic justification so that we could get world support.

[*]Wolfowitz: A "huge" factor was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda

You sum it up. What conclusions do you make?

Read Bush's declaration of war speech. What conclusions can you draw?

Is it unprecedented incompetence or is it deception?

[Alkurta 0]

Quote[/b] ]uranium oxide and uranium hexafloride which can't be enriched and purified.

If I remember my chemistry class correctly, uranium hexafloride is a gas. The heavier U238 isotopes can be separated from the fissile U235 either through a centrifuge, which saddam had, or through another process whose name I forget, so it can be enriched.

Quote[/b] ]Well, the people in Bagdad won`t have any trouble to get some uranium since the US attacks. There has been enough uranium ammo usement of the US troops.

The uranium used in armor piercing shells uses depleted uranium. This is the non-radioactive, stable, U238 isotope.

There is a tiny amount of the radioactive U235 mixed in, but I would think it would just be easier to mine it since Uranium ore in the ground is naturally about 10% U235.

Are there any Uranium miners or Nuclear Physicist out there who can back me up?

[E6Hotel 0]

You sum it up. What conclusions do you make?

Read Bush's declaration of war speech. What conclusions can you draw?

Is it unprecedented incompetence or is it deception?

Assuming for the sake of argument that no WMD's are found (which I am NOT prepared to do at this time):

My conclusion would be that the primary objective was to remove Saddam from power.  The threat from WMD's was presented in an attempt to act within the UN's framework, but when that didn't work it was back to goal #1.

I'm not thrilled that we've broken our streak of never throwing the first punch, but I can't say I'm too heartbroken over the end result.  Realpolitik, ends justifying the means, whatever -- destroying a tyrannical regime is an inherently "good" act, unless of course it's replaced with something worse.  Whether that will be the case remains to be seen.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

My conclusion would be that the primary objective was to remove Saddam from power.  The threat from WMD's was presented in an attempt to act within the UN's framework, but when that didn't work it was back to goal #1.

And why did they want Saddam removed?

You havn't however answered what I asked you: was it gross incompetence or deception?

When Bush said these things in his State of the Union speech, was he just being ignorant, a victim of incompetent intelligence agencies or was he lying to the American public?

Quote[/b] ]

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Edit: Related article Marine Chief in Iraq Surprised WMD Are Still Missing (FOXNews)

[E6Hotel 0]

You havn't however answered what I asked you: was it gross incompetence or deception?

When Bush said these things in his State of the Union speech, was he just being ignorant, a victim of incompetent intelligence agencies or was he lying to the American public?

Your question assumes that WMD's will not be found.  As I stated earlier, I am not prepared to make that assumption.

Then again, maybe we needed oil from somewhere to pump through that Unocal pipeline we invaded Afghanistan for.

EDIT:  WTF are you doing linking Fox News?  

Semper Fi

[Guest]

Your question assumes that WMD's will not be found.  As I stated earlier, I am not prepared to make that assumption.

I'm sure you know better than Rumsfeld and the Marine commander in Iraq.  

It doesn't matter however. Wolfowitz has already declared that the WMD issue was only used as an excuse to get the world to support a war.

Quote[/b] ]Then again, maybe we needed oil from somewhere to pump through that Unocal pipeline we invaded Afghanistan for.

Very funny, but you have not given any explanation to what you think.

Quote[/b] ]EDIT:  WTF are you doing linking Fox News?  

Making a point that this is not some left-wing peace activist conspiracy theory.

Edit: Btw, don't you think it is odd that I am more interested in these discrepancies than you? It's your government we're talking about. It's you they've fed false information (intentionally or not). If somebody tried to pull off something like this in Sweden there would be heads rolling.

The British seem mighty upset about Blair lying. Howcome there is no American reaction? Did your media not report this? Or is it that you just don't care about the preservation of democracy in your country? Don't you feel that you have some requirements on the integrity (or competence) of your leaders?

[E6Hotel 0]

I'm sure you know better than Rumsfeld and the Marine commander in Iraq.  

From your link:

Quote[/b] ]"Whether or not we're wrong at the national level I think still very much remains to be seen," he added.

Conway said it remained possible that if those who are continuing the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq manage to "ask the right question of the right person," then they may be led to hidden weapons.

Very funny, but you have not given any explanation to what you think.

I thought this pretty much said it all:

Realpolitik, ends justifying the means, whatever -- destroying a tyrannical regime is an inherently "good" act, unless of course it's replaced with something worse.

You did ask for my opinion.

Semper Fi

[FallenPaladin 0]

The uranium used in armor piercing shells uses depleted uranium.  This is the non-radioactive, stable, U238 isotope.  

According to the news I heard when they found uranium in Iraq that was also depleted uranium from former known "production" .

If the ammo is not dangerous so should be the found uranium in Iraq. At least the fact that it was there was known. Like so many other things that are easily forgotten when you go to war. Saddam sponsored by the USA? Never! USA allowing Saddam to massacre Kurds after GW 1.0? Never! USA making the Kurds revolt, before they become massacred? Never! USA selling and giving Saddam Weapons (maybe even biological and chemical ones, who knows?) against Iran? Never! It`s a damn long list and we could go on and on with it.

[FallenPaladin 0]

You did ask for my opinion.

But you haven`t yet answered why there is no reaction of you US citizens after being lyed (sp?) at by the TBA. You are following blindfolded.

The USA really seems to go down the drain moralically (again sp? ) . It`s sad to see that.

[E6Hotel 0]

Edit: Btw, don't you think it is odd that I am more interested in these discrepancies than you?

Not particularly.  Once again, these are possible, not confirmed, discrepancies.  The WMD search is not over.  If you want to use this controversy to back up what you already believe that's fine with me.    

Again, even if no WMD's are found I personally have absolutely no problem with the outcome of the war.  Sorry if it sounds harsh, but IMO the "greater good" (yes, this is a personal call) achieved by taking Saddam out outweighs the negatives.

I should stress that my opinion above depends on us leaving the Iraqis with a better future than they would have had with Saddam.  If this is handled like post WWII Germany or Japan, great.  If it resembles 1950's Iran...

Semper Fi

[Alkurta 0]

When the Shiites rose up in the south and the Kurds rose up in the north, it was a dark day for America when we didn't support them.

Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, realpolitik intervened. The Kurds would have caused trouble for our ally Turkey. The Shiites in the south might have linked up with Iran and made even stronger.

Hopefully, things will be set right for the people of Iraq.

On a slightly different topic, I heard a wild theory as to why Saddam acted the way he did before the war if he didn't have any WMD: Perhaps he was lied to by his underlings at to their progress. For whatever reason, either the scientist couldn't or wouldn't produce the weapons, but lied to their bosses as to their progress.

It sounds fantastic and I doubt if it is true, but I thought I would add this to our discussion.

[E6Hotel 0]

But you haven`t yet answered why there is no reaction of you US citizens after being lyed (sp?) at by the TBA. You are following blindfolded.

You'll have to find someone else to speak for all Americans.  Can't help you there.

The USA really seems to go down the drain moralically (again sp?    ) . It`s sad to see that.

It seems to me that you're confusing morality with legality.  And legality without enforcement is worthless.  What's "moral" about leaving Saddam in power?

Semper Fi

[Alkurta 0]

Preach on E6hotel,

I also agree, the greater good has been served.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Additonally, read the post I added earlier. One of the reason for this war, was to stop WMD's falling into terrorist hands. Because of NO security at NUCLEAR STORAGE facilities, looters have nicked barrels of uranium, plus loads of research equipment. If this is preventing nuclear materials falling in terrorist hands, insanity does indeed prevail.

I believe we didn't know  where this stuff was stored at and the looters got there before we could.

But the presence of Uranium Oxide brings up and important question:  In a country that has NO nuclear reactors, either for power generation or for medical research, what was Saddam doing with barrel upon barrel of Uranium?  It has no other use than either power generation or the making of nuclear weapons.

Once again, Saddam had refused to abide by the ceasefire terms of Gulf War 1.0 and the U.N. resolutions.

Eh? This was a registered nuclear site. It was documented and sealed by the IAEA. Initially, some sites were opened by US soldiers and the seals broken, but CENTCOM did apologise for doing so.

Other sites were not secured, although they were known nulcear sites. All nuclear materials were catalogued bu the IAEA, and sealed up as part of the UN resolutions. When the US invaded, many of the guards at these depots ran off (Can you blame them! ), but no efforts were made to secure numerous depots and research building.

Result = 'People' have nicked several barrels of uranium, plus a hefty amount of technical and research machinery.

Quote[/b] ]But the presence of Uranium Oxide brings up and important question:  In a country that has NO nuclear reactors, either for power generation or for medical research, what was Saddam doing with barrel upon barrel of Uranium?  It has no other use than either power generation or the making of nuclear weapons.

Do you know about the work the IAEA have been doing for the last decade? All of the materials are sealed up, and inspected occasionally to ensure they are intact. They are registered, and known by many agencies. You are making the same and mistake the US troops did. They found one site, broke into it, and claimed they had found a nuclear stockpile. Only afterwards did they realise that the place had been sealed by the IAEA, and the materials accounted for.

Quote[/b] ]Once again, Saddam had refused to abide by the ceasefire terms of Gulf War 1.0 and the U.N. resolutions.

Actually, this was one part he DID abide by. Read up on it.

In short - Known, 'legal' stockpiles of nuclear materials were either through carelessness or stupidity, allowed to be ransacked. Who knows if one of those 'looters' isn't selling some barrels on the border right now?

-------------------

Museums, schools, universities, research buildings, waterworks, powerplants, nuclear storage facilites, banks, shops, etc - All unguarded or unsecure

Oil ministry - Armour and infantry from the moment troops got into the area.

Now I'm not ranting about 'How this war was all about oil', so I would like a reply from someone who considers themselves 'Pro War'. Look at the above, and tell me there isn't something wrong with that? Give me an honest answer.

[Guest]

Not particularly.  Once again, these are possible, not confirmed, discrepancies.  The WMD search is not over.  If you want to use this controversy to back up what you already believe that's fine with me.    

Very confirmed. As I said: Compare the pre-war talk to Wolfowitz's post-war comments. He explicitly said the the WMD issue was just an excuse to get world support.

Quote[/b] ]Again, even if no WMD's are found I personally have absolutely no problem with the outcome of the war. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but IMO the "greater good" (yes, this is a personal call) achieved by taking Saddam out outweighs the negatives.

Yeah, and next time when Bush says that he wants to invade [insert country here] then you'll fully support him although he lied to you last time. It's no problem to you since he will say that the leader of [insert country here] is very bad and wants to give thermonuclear weapons to a terrorist group called "Death to America". And as the proud citizen you will follow your führer without for one second doing that horrible un-patriotic act of thinking for yourself.

And FYI the situation for the Iraqis right now is worse than it was during Saddam's rule. People don't have water and electricity. Bandits roam the country. People are dying of cholera. And there is nothing that looks like it's chaning for the better.

[DarkLight 0]

And FYI the situation for the Iraqis right now is worse than it was during Saddam's rule. People don't have water and electricity. Bandits roam the country. People are dying of cholera. And there is nothing that looks like it's chaning for the better.

I wonder why some of us never see that kinda stuff on TV...

Gotta love the media...

[Tovarish 0]

Funny how history repeats isn't it?

30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War

Some highlights:

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam -- no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

.

.

.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers -- in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf -- a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

.

.

.

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets -- there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."

[FallenPaladin 0]

I had the same thoughts, too, and made almost the same comparison for myself.

BTW nice signature, Tovarish, downed another one?

[Tovarish 0]

BTW nice signature, Tovarish, downed another one?  

Thanks . I kind of like that track. Not every day you manage to shoot off both wings of an ace Me-262 .

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

You need to change the OFP picture on the right to do something similar.

[E6Hotel 0]

Yeah, and next time when Bush says that he wants to invade [insert country here] then you'll fully support him although he lied to you last time. It's no problem to you since he will say that the leader of [insert country here] is very bad and wants to give thermonuclear weapons to a terrorist group called "Death to America". And as the proud citizen you will follow your führer without for one second doing that horrible un-patriotic act of thinking for yourself.

Yes, because until the President said that Saddam Hussein was "very bad" I had no opinion of my own on the matter.  

Despite what many people here think about Americans in general, the American military, and specifically the USMC, I'm quite capable of thinking for myself.  In this instance I reached the conclusion that removing Saddam, for whatever reason was more "moral" than allowing him to continue to run Iraq.  Your ideas of American patriotism don't really factor too heavily into my thought processes, so please spare me the Nazi rhetoric, 'cause it doesn't wash.  I'm more of an Uncle Ben "with great power yadda yadda yadda" type.  

And FYI the situation for the Iraqis right now is worse than it was during Saddam's rule. People don't have water and electricity. Bandits roam the country. People are dying of cholera. And there is nothing that looks like it's chaning for the better.

"Right now" some things are worse but I believe they're getting better.  On the other hand, the torture chambers, mass graves, imprisoned children, etc. are in the past.  Call me an optimist, but that's an improvement in my opinion.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

In this instance I reached the conclusion that removing Saddam, for whatever reason was more "moral" than allowing him to continue to run Iraq.

You are either not getting what I'm saying or you are dancing around the issue. I'm not talking about if the war was justified or not. I'm talking about the fact that the Bush administration claimed that it was necessary to invade Iraq because  of its massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and now they're saying that it was not really an issue but just a way to get world support.

I'm talking about them lying to the world, the American people, the US Congress etc etc

I'm talking about them starting a war under false pretenses. I'm not talking about if the war was a good thing or not which you persist in talking about.

My question has been all the time: Does it not concern you that they said "We must attack Iraq because of its WMD". and now they are saying "Weapons of Mass Destructions weren't really the issue, it's just something we used to get support".?

For a nation that was so obsessed with Clinton lying about his personal affairs one would expect at least some form of reaction on this which is by any means orders of magnitude more serious.