The Dogs of War

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ April 11 2003,09:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 11 2003,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 11 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We don't know that.Unless you can tell the future.

He could have done anything he wanted ,with chemical weapons.If he has chemical weapons,he could have attack any allies/oil in the middle-east.<span id='postcolor'>

Aha, so that's the logic. USA has nukes and chemical weapons. Since I don't know the future, you could be very well planning to attack Sweden. That gives me the right to attack USA in a pre-emptive strike, to disarm you.

Hell, I'm sure that's what Osama did.  <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe they'll attack Finland first. After all, we do have gas masks in our combat gear.

The world has a lot of dictatators much like saddam, only difference being that they do not have oil. (iraq oil is now being directed to israel, what a way to help iraq people)

And how was saddam a serious threat to U.S.? By having suspected WMD? and how would he have deployed the WMDs? with al-samoud missiles (that have a range of 300km or so?) Only good thing about this war is that Bush is wasting american tax-payer's money, instead of using it to help his own people in the U.S.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said their a threat to USA homeland.I said their a threat to the oil,american allies.Were not the french,we don't forget about allies.

[foxer 0]

Some of you guys seem bitter that the US/UK took out saddam.Maybe you wishing for more US deaths,or an iraq win ?

I mean,I didn't agree with this war.But i'm happy the right side won(well about to win).But it's just a proven fact,no matter what the USA does there will always people against them.Like the sanctions,and how many civilians it's killed.Now their talking about how many civilians are killed doing the bombings.I think big question here is,Why are you against any action america takes.Sanctions,you blame and whine about america killing civilians.Now the war to take care of saddam/sanctions/WMD(?).Can you people ever agree with america,or will always be against their actions they take.To me it's like you guys always against america actions.

So damn if you ,damn if you don't.

[Longinius 1]

"I never said their a threat to USA homeland.I said their a threat to the oil,american allies.Were not the french,we don't forget about allies."

Do you say this out of ignorance or just pure stupidity? Its an honest question and not an insult.

The French are not in the habit of forgetting about allies. They chose not to take part in a conflict before it started, as is their right. And they were following the law, chosing not to break it.

America on the other hand has time and time again forgot about its allies. An example close to mind is when they got Iraqis to rise and rebel during GW1 and then gave them no support, which lead to their slaughter. This is not the first, nor the last time, Americans have "forgot" about their allies. The difference is of course that the French turned their back on the US before a conflict, while America tends to do the same during a conflict. Which is worse?

"Like the sanctions,and how many civilians it's killed."

The sanctions were not an American only thing. All our governments are responsible for this. The sanctions were wrong however, because they only strengthened Saddams grip over the people, while making civilians suffer and die.

"Why are you against any action america takes."

Because the sanctions were just plain wrong, even if many governments supported it. And this war is against international law, thus illegal.

"Can you people ever agree with america,or will always be against their actions they take.To me it's like you guys always against america actions."

No, only when it breakes international law or causes civilians to suffer needlessly.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I`m not always against US actions. But I`m against US actions when they are unjustified and violating international law. The UN was the first step in my eyes towards a more peaceful world, where everybody was sitting around a table and solving problems peacefully. Such an institution was a great base for a growing together but now the US government destroyed that. International relations are messed up and it`ll take a long time for them to recover. Also a lot of trust in the US government is lost because of it`s lone wolf behaviour ("no matter what you do or say, we`ll go our way anyway"). The US government only wants to see the USA safe and rich, it`s not thinking in a wider angle concerning world peace or so. That`s bad and the only thing Bush can come up with is: "The land of Africa suffers a great disease. We`ll beat AIDS!" ...

Regarding the invasion of Iraq. I`m glad it`s over, so some of the dying will stop. For now. Saddam`s on the run like Osama, let`s see what will become of him and Iraq. Time will show us.

[Longinius 1]

"Obevakat uranlager hittat i Irak

Tre irakiska lagerlokaler med sammanlagt 2 500 tunnor uran har stĺtt obevakade söder om Bagdad i flera dagar, rapporterar tidningen Los Angeles Times.

Lageranläggningen, omnämnd som "Location C", är Iraks enda internationellt kända och enda sanktionerade lagringsanläggning för kärnmaterial.

Därmed är den ocksĺ ett givet mĺl för alla dem som i krigets skugga försökt skaffa sig klyvbart material."

- Aftonbladet.se

Great, a warehouse filled with 2 500 barrels of uranium has been left unguarded for the last couple of days south of Baghdad. Shouldn't this be a place of interest for coalition troops or maybe it doesnt matter if some potential terrorists get a hold of a barrel or two? Because if they do, its Saddam who provided it since the place was left unguarded during the collapse of his regime, right? Right...

[FallenPaladin 0]

You can see the priorities... The only government building guarded by coalition troops was that of the oil minister (sp?) . The oil is liberated, so why care about a (in)direct threat of nuclear material falling into terrorist hands and a (in)direct to the USA?

[Longinius 1]

Exactly. I mean, it makes for a good excuse later on...

"Yeah, well, we have to attack the Vatican because secret agents sent by the Pope actually infiltrated Iraq during the chaos of the liberation and stole several barrels of uranium from an unguarded warehouse. We are confident that the Pope plans to use his intercontinental Goddamn missiles to launch a dirtybomb strike on the US...."

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2003,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Obevakat uranlager hittat i Irak

Tre irakiska lagerlokaler med sammanlagt 2 500 tunnor uran har stĺtt obevakade söder om Bagdad i flera dagar, rapporterar tidningen Los Angeles Times.

Lageranläggningen, omnämnd som "Location C", är Iraks enda internationellt kända och enda sanktionerade lagringsanläggning för kärnmaterial.

Därmed är den ocksĺ ett givet mĺl för alla dem som i krigets skugga försökt skaffa sig klyvbart material."

- Aftonbladet.se

Great, a warehouse filled with 2 500 barrels of uranium has been left unguarded for the last couple of days south of Baghdad. Shouldn't this be a place of interest for coalition troops or maybe it doesnt matter if some potential terrorists get a hold of a barrel or two? Because if they do, its Saddam who provided it since the place was left unguarded during the collapse of his regime, right? Right...<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that the same facility from the 'Marines find Nukes' link?  If so, there's actually a large number of MArines guarding it untill Army Specialists can come in.  Maybe it's a different facility housing tons of radioactive material, though.  I can't be certain.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinus @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Newsflash for you. There are no winners in a war, only different degrees of losers.<span id='postcolor'>

That really depends on your definition of Winning. I define Winning as achieving a set goal.

The U.S. Goal was appearently to oust Saddam. From what I hear, Saddam is no longer in power.

If so, then the U.S. has achieved it's set goal. By that logic, they've already 'Won'.

[Longinius 1]

I dont know, I didnt read the "Marines find nukes" article. These werent nukes though, just barrels with uranium.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ April 11 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Marines find nukes?

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Marines Hold Nuclear Site -

In the suburbs about 18 miles south of the capital's suburbs, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings — workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors, libraries and barracks — that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.

Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago.

Today, the Marines hold it against enemy counter-attacks.

...

So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have discovered 14 buildings that betray high levels of radiation. Some of the readings show nuclear residue too deadly for human occupation.

A few hundred meters outside the complex, where peasants say the "missile water" is stored in mammoth caverns, the Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts."

"It's amazing," said Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."

To nuclear experts in the United States, the discovery of a subterranean complex is highly interesting, perhaps the atomic "smoking gun" intelligence agencies have been searching for as Operation Iraqi Freedom unfolds.

Last fall, they say, the Central Intelligence Agency prodded international inspectors to probe Al-Tuwaitha for weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors came away with nothing.

...

Mindful of nuclear weapons inspectors, ISIS said the Iraqis developed methods to thwart them when they visited Al-Tuwaitha.

"Iraq developed procedures to limit access to these buildings by IAEA inspectors who had a right to inspect the fuel fabrication facility. On days when the inspectors were scheduled to visit, only the fuel fabrication rooms were open to them. Usually, employees were told to take their rooms so that the inspectors did not see an unusually large number of people," according to a 1999 report Albright wrote with Corey Gay and Khidhir Hamza for ISIS

...

Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

...

For him, Al-Tuwaitha is like a crime scene, and the next detectives on the atomic beat will be Army specialists.

Seegar promises to hold the nuclear site until international authorities can take over. His men hunker down in sandbag bunkers, sleepless, gripping machine guns.

Last night, they followed running gun and artillery battles on both sides of the complex, fought by U.S. Marines and soldiers against Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayeen terrorists.

<span id='postcolor'>

[PFC_Mike 2]

erm...the last time I checked, it's rather difficult to pump oil in anarchy. Maybe BP, Halliburton, and ExxonMobil intend to rule Iraq. But that can't happen unless the USstart improving conditions and restoring the rule of law.

A burglar once tried to enter a house through a skylight. Well, it broke under his weight and he was badly hurt. Guess who he sued? The homeowner. Never mind that the burglar was intent on committing a crime! Sounds a lot like the people on this forum who say that Iraqi freedom is less important thatn upholding the UN. Since when has the UN done jack shit about Russia in Chechnya or French romps in Africa?

[Longinius 1]

"Since when has the UN done jack shit about Russia in Chechnya or French romps in Africa?"

Or Israel? They havent done anything, since vetos have been used to stop it.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

Ah yes, the infamous veto.

The main reason for whcih the Security Council was all but useless during the Soviet years...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2003,13:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont know, I didnt read the "Marines find nukes" article. These werent nukes though, just barrels with uranium.<span id='postcolor'>

It's the same one and it's no news. They have non-enriched uranium there which was within the UN regulations since it can't be used in weapons. The complex is a leftover from the nuclear program in the 80's. The IAEA inspectors have as far as I know checked it inside out.

That "marines find nukes" article is a typical result of ignorant media. That's also why none of the more serious, major news agencies have not bothered to comment on it.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

But what about the (alleged) Plutonium Processors? To my knowledge, Nuclear Power Plants generally don't use plutonium (IIRC, some make it, as a byproduct of the energy-generation process)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 11 2003,16:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But what about the (alleged) Plutonium Processors?  To my knowledge, Nuclear Power Plants generally don't use plutonium (IIRC, some make it, as a byproduct of the energy-generation process)<span id='postcolor'>

Breeder reactors give plutonium as a byproduct which has to be processed since it is highly toxic. You don't however get weapons grade plutionum out of normal reactors.

If you read the article carefully, they are not making any claims of finding plutonium processing equipment nor uranium enrichment equipment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

"The plutonium processing was dispersed on-site by the bombing in 1991," said Michael Levi, the Federation's director. "But the Iraqis started to rebuild it. And they continued building there after 1998, when the Iraqis ended the inspections.

"I do not believe the latest round of inspections included anything underground, so anything you find underground would be very suspicious. It sounds absolutely amazing."

<span id='postcolor'>

He should keep himself better informed. The inspectors did indeed inspect several underground facilities, both nuclear and chemical related.

Edit:

Iraq nuclear site not new, expert says

Edit2:

US in row over nuclear project

[PitViper 0]

If I recall correctly,  the Ochirac reactor that the French provided produced spent fuel from which weapons grade material could be derived from.  That is why the Israeli's destroyed it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 11 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I recall correctly,  the Ochirac reactor that the French provided produced spent fuel from which weapons grade material could be derived from.  That is why the Israeli's destroyed it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes and the Isralei bombing of that reactor was condemned by the US. USA and Saddam were buddies back then, if you didn't know.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup (Washington Post article)

Please post any replys in the political thread since that's where this is going

[Guest]

Baghdad descends into total anarchy

A couple of things that caught my eye:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The BBC's David Willis in Baghdad says a small minority of the population is carrying out the looting and most residents are hunkered down behind locked doors in fear.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under new rules of conduct issued on Friday by General Tommy Franks, American troops have been forbidden from using deadly force to prevent looting.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The AFP news agency says Iraq's largest archaeological museum has been looted - ancient artefacts destroyed and stolen.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From the hospitals vital equipment such as heart monitors and incubators have been stolen and even the laboratories ransacked - centrifuges and microscopes smashed.

<span id='postcolor'>

[FSPilot 0]

Wait a minute. The UN and IEAE knew about Iraq having this weapons grade nuclear material?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 11 2003,20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wait a minute.  The UN and IEAE knew about Iraq having this weapons grade nuclear material?<span id='postcolor'>

Who says it is weapons grade nuclear material?

Really...like some marine is going to know weapons grade material from waste material. I can see it now...

HOLY CRAP! MY GEIGER COUNTER IS GOING OFF THE SCALE! IT HAS TO BE PLUTONIUM!!!

Iraq has leftovers from their nuclear energy program. This stuff doesnt just disappear. And considering that they found it at the site of their former nuclear program, this really isnt surprising.

[Guest]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 11 2003,200)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wait a minute.  The UN and IEAE knew about Iraq having this weapons grade nuclear material?<span id='postcolor'>

Not weapons grade. Leftover isotopes from their nuclear program in the 80's. And they were sealed off between 1991-1998. During the current round of inspections the inpectors confirmed that they havn't been touched. The materials were to be removed and the area sanitized, but the inpectors were never allowed to complete their work. Most of the radioactive materials have a long half life (>30 years) so it's a long process. That doesn't mean that they could be used to make nuclear weapons.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 11 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not weapons grade. Leftover isotopes from their nuclear program in the 80's. And they were sealed off between 1991-1998. During the current round of inspections the inpectors confirmed that they havn't been touched. The materials were to be removed and the area sanitized, but the inpectors were never allowed to complete their work. Most of the radioactive materials have a long half life (>30 years) so it's a long process. That doesn't mean that they could be used to make nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Just dirty bombs.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 11 2003,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 11 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not weapons grade. Leftover isotopes from their nuclear program in the 80's. And they were sealed off between 1991-1998. During the current round of inspections the inpectors confirmed that they havn't been touched. The materials were to be removed and the area sanitized, but the inpectors were never allowed to complete their work. Most of the radioactive materials have a long half life (>30 years) so it's a long process. That doesn't mean that they could be used to make nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Just dirty bombs.<span id='postcolor'>

Most nations have nuclear biproducts and garbage in some form. Believe it or not but Norway has lot's of it - not from the one nuclear reactor we actually have (at Kjeller), but from our oil-industry.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 11 2003,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just dirty bombs.<span id='postcolor'>

Other than the initial explosion, there is virtually no danger from a dirty bomb. Most studies state there will be about 1 additional death per 1000 population over a 30 year period. Thats horrific

I am not making light of that sort of thing, but strictly speaking you are more likely to die from shrapnel from the bomb than of radiation.