This is ridiculous
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
You got a problem with the homeless?Changleen said:
I love this logic. If Bush doesnt guard oil refineries, than (1) Iraq's only hope of self sufficiency in the future gets destroyed by simple acts of arson. and (2) The environmental reprocussions of all of those damn oil fields and refineries flaming away would make exxon valdez look like the plaque on fluffs molars (he's english). And with all the peacenicks, hippies, changleen's and syadastis floating around, its pretty much a lose lose situation, is it not? Since apparently Iraq had no Nuclear assets anyway according to your INSPECTORS!Changleen said:
Bush is proven dumb yet again, stop defocusing off the point.BurlySurly said:
I'd check to see if you can find your brain Shirley before you forget where you left it.BurlySurly said:
Perhaps Bush could have ordered more then just the oil refineries guarded? Perhaps 'our' inspectors (often US nationals, but treasonous ones I guess) can tell the difference between nucular assets and WMD, unlike the CIA who can't tell the difference between a teapot and a centrifuge, or Mossad who can't tell the difference between a stretcher and a missile.
Changleen said:Me right now
Your pic proves you are in deed a pussy!
*Meeeeeow*
:evil:
Take it easy on the Socialist N8.......... 
Changleen said:Like your picture proves you are bandy-legged pasty middle aged white guy who likes to wear colour co-ordinated lycra? Bwhahahaha...
Can you even ride a bike?
Changleen said:I can fly one...
:redX:
Changleen said:You're just jealous because the most air that comes between your tyres and the dirt is when you lift your bike into your car...
yep that's it.
Oh SNAP!N8 said:
Man N8, you really got him good.. with .. that...
Nevermind, that was weak.
bomberz1qr20 said:
LMMFAO...thanks for the laugh man....haha that was great
Yet more weapons in the hands of terrorists as the world of opportunity opens up for terrorists/becomes a safer place:
Get your weaponry here, limited offer...
Get your weaponry here, limited offer...
No. Not exactly.Changleen said:
Okay so the UN inspectors knew this stuff was around so my question is why were they not getting rid of it? Getting rid of that explosives would have been pretty easy. I could have done it with a bulldozer, det cord, and a couple of radio detonators. Shoot I wouldn't even need the bulldozer if I didn't really care about safety. That would have made a hell of a bang. Same with all of the other material listed in the first post (minus the Uranium). And how come no one thought to remove the radioactive material from Iraq?
Or was it that it was dual use equipment could be used of legitimate means or wmd construction? I guess the explosives could be classified as dual use as well .... I could use it to blow up a building or use it to detonate a nuclear weapon.
The UN and organizations claim that it was under their control but look at their effectivness in stopping Iran and North Korea from working on weapons programs. IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei said of North Korea in January of 2003
Furthermore, the IAEA says that the equipment and materials removed, lost or stolen can be used to assemble a nuclear weapon. That's terrible. It was a major misjudgement on the part of the US not seeking those spots out and controlling them more quickly and effectively. BUT it also means that Iraq had the equipment and material to make a nuclear weapon. These are the BBC's words
Could it be that the UN was not as effective in dealing with Iraq as it would have us believe? Oh I know there were no WMD but by the admission of the IAEA and the BBC many of the components were in place to move in that direction.
Or was it that it was dual use equipment could be used of legitimate means or wmd construction? I guess the explosives could be classified as dual use as well .... I could use it to blow up a building or use it to detonate a nuclear weapon.
The UN and organizations claim that it was under their control but look at their effectivness in stopping Iran and North Korea from working on weapons programs. IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei said of North Korea in January of 2003
Subsequently to this North Korea as claimed they have developed a working warhead as well as a ballastic missle capable of reaching far beyond its own borders.
Furthermore, the IAEA says that the equipment and materials removed, lost or stolen can be used to assemble a nuclear weapon. That's terrible. It was a major misjudgement on the part of the US not seeking those spots out and controlling them more quickly and effectively. BUT it also means that Iraq had the equipment and material to make a nuclear weapon. These are the BBC's words
Lastly, whose to say that in the case of the explosives actually disappeared on the 8th, 9th or 10th of April OR when they actually disappeared. The IAEA says after and the US forces say they weren't there when they got there and saw evidence of looting. Could it not be that the explosives were moved before the war was started? Even the IAEA says the last time they saw the explosives in question was January of 2003.
Could it be that the UN was not as effective in dealing with Iraq as it would have us believe? Oh I know there were no WMD but by the admission of the IAEA and the BBC many of the components were in place to move in that direction.
DRB said:
All good points; but sadly it wont matter in here. Somehow Bush is at fault for everything from Flu shots to Televangelism.
Without more information it is difficult to say why this material was left in Iraq although as it appears to be to do with nuclear energy rather than weapons grade uranium it may be that it is being produced on a regular ongoing basis. Does seem a bit daft to leave it lying around though.DRB said:
I lost the BBC quote in cyberspace but it seems more likely to me that the quote refers to the fact that the material could be enriched to make a bomb but that does not mean Iraq had the equipment to do it, in fact they almost certainly did not, given the complete unrestricted access granted to the UN inspectors just before the invasion.DRB said:
Given that the inspectors lost access to the site due to the invasion I think it is fair to say that regardless of the actual date, it was as a result of the military action.DRB said:
Again, non enriched uranium does not make a bomb and nowhere in the articles linked to here have I spotted a reference to Iraq having the capability to make a bomb from this material, only that the material could be used if someone had the equipment (like Iran appears to have for example).DRB said:
I'm not only talking about the uranium but the explosives. Again the dual use of RDX is pretty limited. I'd say that destroying it would have been a much smarter method of dealing with it. However, it seems that the UN never really could figure out how to effectively deal with Iraq. As for the whole nuclear energy thing.... let's get that out of the way right now. There is absolutely NO need for oil rich states to have nuclear power plants for power generation. So if you don't need them for power generation what are you doing with them? It makes more sense for North Korea to have them.fluff said:
I'll give you the BBC quote from the article you posted first......
Which goes to directly to my point. They had the equipment and materials to make the equipment. That's the point of the article. The items that are missing can be used as direct components, to assemble a weapon or produce the items necessary to do so. Why let a country with Iraq's past have such materials? Especially when the UN resolutions were really worded to not allow it. As for the unrestricted access.... come on even at the very end Iraq was still shucking and jiving. It might even have been you that put the possibility out that it was a bluff on Saddam's part to deny access.
Even if you don't have a formal program (admitted by US inspectors) the items to create a formal program were certainly laying around. Much like they were in Iran and North Korea. Both kept saying they had no weapons program, the UN and IAEA kept saying they don't have weapons programs.... but then all of a sudden they have weapons programs.
My point was that look how easily North Korea made the inspectors go away. Look how easily Iran decieved the inspectors. Look how easily Iraq made the inspectors go away in the past. The invasion certainly percepitated the loss of these explosives but my point is that the UN and the IAEA should never have allowed for those explosives to continue to be stockpiled. They should have destroyed them. They should have removed the raw materials of dubious dual use from Iraq. But they did neither. Nor did they really ever have control of them. A camera and seal does not provide control nor any real security. At any point Iraq could have simply said "Buh Bye" and headed in the direction that Iran and North Korea have.
The US is certainly a responsible party in all of this but so is the UN and the IAEA.