Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Do you think there should be A WAR?

Do you think there should be A WAR?

  • YES

    Votes: 16 45.7%

  • NO

    Votes: 19 54.3%
  • Total voters
    35
I am 2 sided on this..

Yes - for the fact that sadam is getting so psycho he will become as arogant and insane as Adolf... Also, it would apear we were weak, and all talk if we were not to go now, as we have been making threats for such a long time now.

No - Dubbya is just hankerin to send it troops.. and if it got bad, they could reinstate the draft.. And while I wouldnt want to go.. If I did.. I would serve the US Correctly.. It would be good for me, in so many ways.. It would get me in shape, teach me some values.. and most importantly, bring out my insanity.. Ive been hankerin to get that out!
 
Not without proof.
Let´s see if G.W. can provide some in february and if it will be more than that dossier he already has shown.

DW, why do you need to get drafted to get into shape?
 
Very skeptical as to whether the economy will be able to handle this increased burden. That IMO is the main reason not to go to war immediately and to just fuck around with saddam a bit. Bush seems unconcerned about that aspect... however I should also admit in the spirit of truth that I am no economist
 
Norman Bates said:
DW, why do you need to get drafted to get into shape?
Click to expand...

I don't NEED to get drafted for that, I am slowly making progress.. But, If I either enlist, or get drafted.. I will surely become in shape faster...
 
If the war has humanitarian consequences, yes. If not, then no. Seeing how the sanctions are the fault of the Iraqi gov. for not disarming, then removing them would help out the people alot. Even if another dictator was put in power, there would be more food, medicine & material wealth in Iraq. For that reason, yes i support toppling their government.

However, it isn't unrealistic to think Hussein would try to give weapons to enemies of the USA. Hussein tried to hire guys to kill George Bush sr before (to be fair to him, we've tried to kill him a few times too). So that should be taken into account.

I guess i support war. 12 years of violating UN regulations, humanitarian crisises that can be averted by government change, and the potential for serious WMD is a good case for war.

Dictators are fun. Once you control the police & military all the tables are turned. Evil becomes good, good becomes evil, wrong becomes acceptable/good. I wish i were a dictator. be a millionaire, be above the law, be powerful, create good & evil instead of obey them.

That part was irrelevant but important, i think.
 
:devil:
Assasinate Saddam and your problem will be solved. Take over the country from the inside during the mop up. It will spare the lives of white American Men!
 
If we dont go to war now then we would have done nothing to stop future terror attacks. Its pathetic to hear anti-war people cry about attacking first. Why wait until after thousands of Americans are dead? Thats stupid. Also what is the point in the UN coming in and making rules if there are no consequences to breaking them? The UN is a completely worthless organization already they should be in favor of this to at least make it look like they have some influence. We wanted Iraq to disarm as a part of ending the war and they have not done so. Either we can sit on our asses doing nothing looking weak or we can do what has to be done and kill some Iraqis.
 
No evidence should equal no war. Bush is pushing this war way to hard.

In his State of the Union speech, Bush left Americans to take those points on faith, or to choose not to, at least a while longer. Officials say new evidence is coming soon.

As usual in a president's summary of the nation's condition and where he wants to take it, nuances were left out - sometimes material ones.

Running down a list of biological and chemical agents and weapons from Iraq's past, Bush repeatedly stated that Iraqis have given no evidence that they destroyed the material - a point on which U.N. inspectors who have been in that country agree.

Lacking, still, was proof, publicly stated, that those weapons remain in Iraqi hands.

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=1103345&nav=6uy6Dcyz
 
Nuclear report on Iraq challenges U.S. rationale
But the report by the atomic energy agency ran counter to repeated administration claims that Iraq has resumed its nuclear efforts.
.
"We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s," Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the agency, told the UN Security Council.

Intelligence officials have said in recent months that they have found no conclusive evidence of links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

http://www.iht.com/articles/84948.html
 
I'm with Senator Kennedy on this one. I want to see CONVINCING EVIDENCE that Iraq is a threat and possess WMD.

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said on Tuesday he plans to introduce a resolution calling on President George W. Bush to present Congress with "convincing evidence of an imminent threat before we send troops to war with Iraq."


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28300130
 
agreed, with no evidence there is no real justifiction for an nvasion of that scale and people will then begin to think its about oil

also its interesting how the focus has been shifted to iraq from what was the war on terror, when little has been said about iraqi links with al-queada (maybe cos osama despises him), yet you have links coming out your ears with saudi arabia

so what do we do? use saudi as our airbase, and bomb the shit out of iraq. makes sense :rolleyes: what about north africa and the bunch of fanatics they have out there as well, tunisisa and algeria would seem prudent targets

a lot of stuff doesnt seem to make the media as well, for one the HUGE anti war sentiment there actually is and how numbers are always played down, not to mention the afghanistan oil pipeline which has supposedly been installed, but never made the evening news (some celebrity beng knocked up always seems to beat it)


the only way i would be in favour of a war is if
a) proof or something tangible was found, if thats the reason bush is using
b) bush can guarantee independant democratic elections being set up in the country after an arbritrary period of say 5 years
c) the oil fields NOT being placed in US control for the 'protection for iraqis' :rolleyes:
d) complete sovereignty over iraqs oil
e) a US led regenration program in iraq, and research and treatement for all the depleted uranium cancers

as i know this aint gonna happen, im against the war. (p.s. N.krea violated sanctions, has a nuke program and is an 'axis' member.....are they next on the list)
 
danielson said:
agreed, with no evidence there is no real justifiction for an nvasion of that scale and people will then begin to think its about oil

also its interesting how the focus has been shifted to iraq from what was the war on terror, when little has been said about iraqi links with al-queada (maybe cos osama despises him), yet you have links coming out your ears with saudi arabia
Click to expand...

Here's Bushes logic on how Iraq is linked to Al Queda. Iraq has a "Q" and Al Quada has a "Q" so let's BOMB AWAY!!!

LOL:rolleyes:
 
Have you ever tried to kill an ant bed by stepping on it?
The ants don't die, they just scatter.
And now they're mad, and have nothing to loose.
 
yes there is going to be a War, Who here didn't believe on Sept 11 that we would be going back to Iraq. I believed it would happen and it will

Bill Clinton Fucked this country in the ass over National Security. You can slice it up anyway you want to but bottom line is he left us in a world of shit. Cutting back Defense and Intellegence Communities to a point that they were about as effective as a whore not catching an STD


I feel there are more enemies of this country tied into this besides Iraq and AL Qeda, there are a couple other nations I would suspect of funneling money into the Terrorists and Rogue nations that threaten us.


Men in this country should not worry cause there will not be a re-instution of the draft. We dont want you unless you want to join us so have no worries about that. The War in Iraq will not be as drawn out as people think. I personally dont think Iraq would last longer then a couple of months. The Actual Country should be under our control within a month and Saddam will more likely escape to another country to live in Exile. Cause when his time comes I think he'll be a chicken shit and run


The American people dont have a need to know about the details of our Intel or whats happening. CNN will not be in Baghdad like the last war getting live images of Soldiers toppling Iraq. When you start making public Intel that is being used for action you put those who provide the intel and those acting on it in Danger.

As for proving Iraq has WMD the proof is on him to prove otherwise. If you Can't prove the weapons were destroyed why should we take his word that they were? What promisses has he kept through now?


Once again let me remind Everyone that doesn't already know just because CNN isn't telling you doesn't mean there hasn't or isn't any fighting going on in other parts of the world by U.S. Soldiers

I would put money on a simple truth that in Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America there are U.S. Soldiers going after Terrorists or those who support them...This isn't something new for the military its just something new for the People to be involved in
 
FreakMonster said:
I'm with Senator Kennedy on this one. I want to see CONVINCING EVIDENCE that Iraq is a threat and possess WMD.

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said on Tuesday he plans to introduce a resolution calling on President George W. Bush to present Congress with "convincing evidence of an imminent threat before we send troops to war with Iraq."


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28300130
Click to expand...

Would you like Saddam to just go and show the inspectors all his illegal weapons? He isnt going to do it. He is actively trying to cover it up and hide the weapons.

Even the liberals who say they need proof will come right back and say "if we attack he will use chemical and biological weapons on our soldiers". they are so stupid they dont see the contradiction there.

We need to go to war to protect America. We dont need anyone elses approval. This is a much better way to do it then to wait until after another attack on America.
 
The war is probably just as much about oil as it is about getting saddammy out of power... We need to protect our foreign interests and there is nothing more important to us than oil. If we have to invade to go secure oil in order to not be crippled with high prices in the future then that would be a pretty good reason to go to war in my estimation.

It's about national security... it's threatened by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction... just as it's threatened by other countries having a stranglehold over our oil.

If by this war we can secure oil- and thereby help secure our economy- i think we should go.

It shouldn't hurt the economy much- in fact it may help- the stock market has already factored in the stresses of war... once we start the spending blitz that comes with any war it should help our economy.


If we don't take care of him now he will continue to build his weapons- and continue to support terrorism and those that wish to hurt america until someone does. If we don't take care of it we'll just be leaving it up to our children.
 
Last edited:
Would you like Saddam to just go and show the inspectors all his illegal weapons? He isnt going to do it. He is actively trying to cover it up and hide the weapons.

Even the liberals who say they need proof will come right back and say "if we attack he will use chemical and biological weapons on our soldiers". they are so stupid they dont see the contradiction there.
Click to expand...
Of course he isn't going to show us where his weapons are. We have to find them!! We have to show convincing evidence that they exist or are you one of those sheep that blindly accepts everything the gov't tells you. Let me guess you also think that Iraq has ties to Al Queda.:rolleyes:

We need to go to war to protect America. We dont need anyone elses approval. This is a much better way to do it then to wait until after another attack on America. [/B]
Click to expand...

Protect america from what? If Iraq has had WMD since 1991 then how come he's never used them on us? And what makes you think he will suddenly start now? You seem to think that Iraq has attacked us. Iraq has never done anything to the US.
 
FreakMonster said:

Of course he isn't going to show us where his weapons are. We have to find them!! We have to show convincing evidence that they exist or are you one of those sheep that blindly accepts everything the gov't tells you. Let me guess you also think that Iraq has ties to Al Queda.:rolleyes:



Protect america from what? If Iraq has had WMD since 1991 then how come he's never used them on us? And what makes you think he will suddenly start now? You seem to think that Iraq has attacked us. Iraq has never done anything to the US.
Click to expand...

You're an ignorant idiot
 
FreakMonster said:

Of course he isn't going to show us where his weapons are. We have to find them!!

Click to expand...

Fuck that. We dont have to waste our resources playing some fucking hide and seek game. If we feel that he hasnt disarmed then we have to attack.
 
MortyJackson said:


Fuck that. We dont have to waste our resources playing some fucking hide and seek game. If we feel that he hasnt disarmed then we have to attack.
Click to expand...

What resources are we wasting?:confused:

I know we are going to war anyways whether we find anything or not. Dubya and his cronies just want their war no matter what.
 
Yes... but I'm not sure we should have it with Iraq... I think our might would be much more demonstrated if we take out a neutral or even ally country... that way we will show the world we will not fuck around! :)

C-ditty
 
Damn, some of you really seem to have no clue of how the world operates. I am so sick and tired of reading and hearing about all these liberals and democrats babbling about anti-war bullshit. Someone needs to take Susan Sarandon to Iraq and show her how wonderful it is and the how great dicatator she wants to keep IN power is. Fucking idiots. Ok people, in case you hadn't noticed- Sadaam has been trying for over 10 years to get a nuke and he HAS a delivery system. So, to say he is not a threat to the US is just plain retarded. Remember a few months back when some guys tried to sneak some weapons grade uranium into Iraq? Well that was a sample for Sadaam. Get it? No you probably dont because your too busy thinking about what to wear to the anti-war rally.
Anyway, read this- maybe then you might get it:




SAY "YES" TO WAR ON IRAQ
by Dan Savage



Liberals Against Liberation

"No to War! No to Oppression!"

The above anti-war message was delivered to me via a sad-looking pink poster. I pulled the poster off a light pole and hung it in my office over my desk. I look at the poster every day when I sit down to work, and every day I wonder how and when the American left lost its moral compass.

You see, lefties, there are times when saying "no" to war means saying "yes" to oppression. Don't believe me? Go ask a Czech or a European Jew about the British and French saying "no" to war with Germany in 1938. War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator--and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"--i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear.

While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not. "We do not intend to put American lives at risk to replace one dictator with another," Dick Cheney recently told reporters. For those of you who were too busy making papier-mâché puppets of George W. Bush last week to read the papers, you may have missed this page-one statement in last Friday's New York Times: "The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein."

These developments--a Republican administration recognizing that support for dictators in Third World countries is a losing proposition; a commitment to post-WWII-style nation-building in Iraq--are terrific news for people who care about human rights, freedom, and democracy. They also represent an enormous moral victory for the American left, which has long argued that our support for "friendly" dictators around the world was immoral. (Saddam used to be one of those "friendly" dictators.) After 9/11, the left argued that our support for brutal dictatorships in the Middle East helped create anti-American hatred. Apparently the Bush administration now agrees--so why isn't the American left claiming this victory?

Because claiming this victory means backing this war, and the American left refuses to back this or any war--which makes the left completely irrelevant in any conversation about the advisability or necessity of a particular war. (Pacifism is faith, not politics.) What's worse, the left argues that our past support for regimes like Saddam's prevents us from doing anything about Saddam now. We supported (and in some cases installed) tyrants, who in turn created despair, which in turn created terrorists, who came over here and blew shit up... so now what do we do? According to the left, we do nothing. It's all our fault, so we're just going to have to sit back and wait for New York City or D.C. or a big port city (like, say, Seattle or Portland) to disappear.

It seems to me that if supporting tyrants creates terrorists, withdrawing our support from those very same tyrants might help to "uncreate" terrorists. Removing the tyrants from power seems an even better way to uncreate terrorists.

But wait! Taking out Saddam means dropping bombs, and dropping bombs only creates more terrorists!
That's the lefty argument du jour, and a lot of squish-brains are falling for it, but it's not an argument that the historical record supports. The United States dropped a hell of a lot of bombs on Serbia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, and Italy. If dropping bombs creates terrorists, where are all the German terrorists? Or the Italian terrorists? Or the Vietnamese terrorists?

But wait! Iraq isn't in cahoots with al Qaeda, so why attack Iraq in the war on terrorism?
Because we're not just at war with al Qaeda, stupid. We're at war with a large and growing Islamo-fascist movement that draws its troops and funds from all over the Islamic world. Islamo-fascism is a regional problem, not just an al Qaeda problem or an Afghanistan problem. To stop Islamo-fascism, we're going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology. To be completely honest, I would actually prefer that the United States go to war against the ridiculous royal family in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been using American money to export their intolerant and deadly strain of Islam all over the world (the kind of Islam that inspires people to blow up discos in Bali), and getting rid of the Saudi royal family and their fascist clerics makes more sense than getting rid of Saddam. But the Saudis are our "allies," so perhaps we can pressure them to reform, as Josh Feit suggests.

In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.

Post-9/11, post-Bali, what other choice do we have?
 
Thats a great article, i thought i was the only one who saw it & the lefts reaction that way. i am really dissapointed with the left on the Iraqi issue too, they can't see the forest for the trees on this issue. If war which minimizes civilian casualties results in removal of sanctions, tyranny & creates economic growth why the fuck do people who claim to care about other's well being oppose it?

BigRedCat said:


SAY "YES" TO WAR ON IRAQ
by Dan Savage



Liberals Against Liberation

"No to War! No to Oppression!"

The above anti-war message was delivered to me via a sad-looking pink poster. I pulled the poster off a light pole and hung it in my office over my desk. I look at the poster every day when I sit down to work, and every day I wonder how and when the American left lost its moral compass.

..................

Post-9/11, post-Bali, what other choice do we have?
Click to expand...
 
The world changed on 9/11. By now everyone realize that. A war with Iraq is not only necessary but will help us in the long run. If we have to attack Iraq and kill a shitload of Iraqi's so that I can have kids someday and they will be able to go to the mall without wearing a chemical protection suit than KICK SADAAM'S ASS AND LETS GET ON WITH IT!

Iraq is just one of many nations that we have to contend with. It is 1st world vs. 3rd world muslims. If we want to continue being able to sip latte's and drive gas guzzling SUV's to our kids outdoor "unsecure" soccer games then we have to kick some ass. Why are all the lexus liberals fighting against it? That is what I dont get. Why are they against the war exactly? Do they feel war is absolutely not an option in any case or perhaps they really believe that Sadaam and Iraq have never done anything to us. Or is is they really hate Bush and would go against anything his administration put together? That anti-war ad with Susan Sarandon is un-fucking real. What a total ass she has made of herself. Allot of big names signed this drivel that "not in our name" put together( http://www.nion.us/NION.HTM
) . I hear where these people are coming from, in fact people like Howard Zinn and Kurt Vonnegut signed it (people I greatly respect but I do not agree with in this case) but one has to see that our country allowing a dictator like Sadaam to live is showing weakness and that is what we do not need right now. How can you actually think there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Common sense. Even if there isn't a link we need to take him out. How far could he possibly be from having a nuke? 6 months? A year?

The modern liberal movement is going to destroy this country. They are trying to stop the US from "bullying" other countries without realizing we HAVE to stop this before it gets us. What if we had passed on fighting WWII? Germany surely would have won and the death camps would be just a myth. Think about it. The liberals have their heart in the right place but put your country ahead of your party line for once and see reality.
 
Americans are not the smartest whip of the bunch. They need things laid out nice and easy and simple for them to follow. Maybe if Bush made a follow the bouncing ball song about killing Sadaam his rating would go up.

It was a good speech. I have to hand it to the fool, he did good. I love when he gets that silly content look when he thinks he did good- that little smirk that says "looky daddy, I done good on this here speech". It is so funny! haha.






Down with Sarandon!!!!!
 
All these articles conjure the fear of Iraq turing the whole world into a big graveyard.
If Iraq has really that much WMD than it should not be a problem to show some evidence next week,as it was promised by GW lately.
So after proving that Iraq is indeed a danger and has broken the resolutions it is clear that the war is going to take place.
But sofar all i have heard were some weapons inspectors saying that nothing was found sofar and that more time is needed.
Additionally, a report was shown a few months ago as prove that didn´t prove anything.
So, until some real evidence is shown, i still think that this war is not necessary.
 
IN all reality Iraq is a big threat if they are backing the elqida(spelling?) network. and even if they aren't. should we just sit back and watch them invade other countries(Israel)??? you all are fools to think it's all about money. i say we ship all you people who don't think we should go to war to Iraq, then bomb them.

BY THE WAY. AMERICA IS GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ. DOES THIS SCARE YOU?
 
BigRedCat said:
Damn, some of you really seem to have no clue of how the world operates. I am so sick and tired of reading and hearing about all these liberals and democrats babbling about anti-war bullshit. Someone needs to take Susan Sarandon to Iraq and show her how wonderful it is and the how great dicatator she wants to keep IN power is. Fucking idiots. Ok people, in case you hadn't noticed- Sadaam has been trying for over 10 years to get a nuke and he HAS a delivery system. So, to say he is not a threat to the US is just plain retarded. Remember a few months back when some guys tried to sneak some weapons grade uranium into Iraq? Well that was a sample for Sadaam. Get it? No you probably dont because your too busy thinking about what to wear to the anti-war rally.
Anyway, read this- maybe then you might get it:
Click to expand...

I'm certaintly not against the war but I would like to see some fucking evidence of WMD before we go to War. Going to war without any support whatsoever, that will just make things worse. I know we are going to war anyways but I would feel much better knowing they have WMD than going to war because we think they might have them. We are going to be in a world of shit if we attack with no convincing evidence. Trust me on that one.
Your saying he has been trying to get a nuke for 10 yrs? How the fuck do you know? Are you part of the CIA? Your just some fucking bodybuilder who knows nothing of what the hell Saddam is thinking. I really can't take anyone seriously who has no fucking evidence and just speaks out of his ass. I'm sorry but if he really wanted to get a nuke it wouldn't take him 10 fucking years to get it. If he has WMD we will find them. Simple as that!!

Iraq:US has no evidence:
http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/29/sprj.irq.aldouri/

Iraq rejects Al-Queda Links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2705491.stm

The only link they have is the letter "Q"!!
 
Last edited:
"Believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme."
"Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations des troyed most of Iraq's wea pons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now. According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'. Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.' He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

"The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme. Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked. 'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'"
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
 
Analysts: No evidence of Iraq, al-Qaida cooperation

But in congressional testimony last year, the CIA said there was a "low" possibility that Saddam would attack the United States with chemical or biological weapons. The Iraqi leader might take the "extreme step" of assisting terrorists if he were provoked by an American invasion, the agency predicted.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5052710.htm
 
Last edited:
U.S. will struggle to win international support
for Iraq war
Supporting continued inspections were France, Russia and China, which all have veto power, as well as Germany, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Syria, Angola and Pakistan. Only Bulgaria and Spain backed the United States and Britain in focusing on Iraq's failures rather than the inspections process.

"The majority in the council is in favor of giving more time to the inspectors," said French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere. "As long as the prospect ... of the disarmament of Iraq through peaceful means exists, we have to continue."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
 
Stormin' Norman: Don't rush into war

Former US Gulf War commander Norman Schwarzkopf has said a new war with Iraq has not yet been justified.

General Schwarzkopf, who became known as "Stormin' Norman" during the 1991 Gulf War, called for United Nations weapons inspectors to be given more time to assess whether Iraq had any illegal weapons.

"I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said in an interview with the Washington Post.

Interviewed at his home in Tampa, Florida, the 68-year-old retired general said he would like "better information" before he supported an invasion of Iraq.

"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought," he said.

"Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the US Government has."

'Nervous' about Rumsfeld

US President George Bush, speaking in his annual State of the Union address late on Tuesday, said he would present fresh evidence to the UN next week about Iraq's weapons programme.

General Schwarzkopf praised his former comrade-in-arms, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, but said he was "somewhat nervous" about comments made by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army," he was quoted as saying.

"He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him - or else."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2705275.stm
 
nordstrom said:
If war which minimizes civilian casualties results in removal of sanctions, tyranny & creates economic growth why the fuck do people who claim to care about other's well being oppose it?
Click to expand...

If what you're interested in is bettering the lives of oppressed peoples,
you don't have to go half way around the world to find a place to do it.
If you have 50 Billion to spend on bettering peoples lives, look closer to home.
The following photo ON the Texas/Mexico border:
smshack.gif
 
Norman Bates said:
All these articles conjure the fear of Iraq turing the whole world into a big graveyard.
If Iraq has really that much WMD than it should not be a problem to show some evidence next week,as it was promised by GW lately.
So after proving that Iraq is indeed a danger and has broken the resolutions it is clear that the war is going to take place.
But sofar all i have heard were some weapons inspectors saying that nothing was found sofar and that more time is needed.
Additionally, a report was shown a few months ago as prove that didn´t prove anything.
So, until some real evidence is shown, i still think that this war is not necessary.
Click to expand...

He hates America and will use any opportunity to fund or in some way assist terrorist attacks on us IMO... this is a preventative measure- if he hasn't been involved in a terrorist attack on us yet, which i find unlikely, then it seems fairly obvious that he will be in the future. Why close the barn door after the horse has already been stolen?
 
If Hussein survives that conflict by some miracle, he would be stupid to found any terrorism, because that would be sureley his end. All opposition to the invasion will be instantly gone if he does something stupid like that.
He hates Israel , too, yet he hasn´t shot any Anthrax / VX missiles, which he had during Desert Storm, at Israel.
 
Norman Bates said:
If Hussein survives that conflict by some miracle, he would be stupid to found any terrorism, because that would be sureley his end. All opposition to the invasion will be instantly gone if he does something stupid like that.
He hates Israel , too, yet he hasn´t shot any Anthrax / VX missiles, which he had during Desert Storm, at Israel.
Click to expand...


I agree that he would not overtly attack the US... he is not that stupid- he would like to stay alive and stay in power, and he knows that would be his end. What is possible though, is that he will fund or in some way assist, harbor, whatever terrorists who plan and carry out attacks on America in the future- if he hasn't already. That would be difficult for us to prove.

Also for purely humanitarian reasons i think we have an obligation to go in. Any ruler who abuses his people the way he does should be removed from power if at all possible. And if we secure oil as a result of the invasion then all the better... i think reliance on foreign oil will be our undoing sooner or later.

It is difficult though as i am biased in favor or America and you are biased in favor of... Germany if i remember- which has decided against backing us, and has come out criticizing our actions. They have decided to nip at the heels of the giant because they have neither the influence nor the responsibility that we do IMO, and can therefore afford to...
 
You don´t really believe that this war is for humanitarian reasons?

So many dictators behave much worse than Hussein, yet you don´t even hear about them in the news.
Some of them were even installed with western help.

This war is about oil, revenge for daddy , GW´s reelection and getting more permanent bases in the middle east.

And yes, I´m biased against invading countries for these reasons.
Also, i don´t think that invading other countries for personal gain is very responsible.
 
How do I know Sadaam has been trying to get nukes for 10 years? Because I am talking out of my ass? NO stupid, crack a back now and then would ya!

Read this and more from Washington Times: The first and largest section of Iraq's report to the United Nations details its attempts to develop nuclear weapons, with more than 2,000 pages devoted to efforts prior to its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. No formal evaluation of the content is expected for at least a week.

Did you pay attention at all when just months ago they caught some guys smuggling weapons grade uranium into Iraq from Turkey? What was that, just for a uranium slip n' slide?!?

Suddam's son said that if the U.S. attacked Iraq, they would retaliate with nerve gas. But wait a minute.......I thought Iraq didn't have WMD. Could they by any chance be lying?????????

It is sad when Sadaam can play the American public so easily.
 
BigRedCat said:
How do I know Sadaam has been trying to get nukes for 10 years? Because I am talking out of my ass? NO stupid, crack a back now and then would ya!

Read this and more from Washington Times: The first and largest section of Iraq's report to the United Nations details its attempts to develop nuclear weapons, with more than 2,000 pages devoted to efforts prior to its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. No formal evaluation of the content is expected for at least a week.

Did you pay attention at all when just months ago they caught some guys smuggling weapons grade uranium into Iraq from Turkey? What was that, just for a uranium slip n' slide?!?

Suddam's son said that if the U.S. attacked Iraq, they would retaliate with nerve gas. But wait a minute.......I thought Iraq didn't have WMD. Could they by any chance be lying?????????

It is sad when Sadaam can play the American public so easily.
Click to expand...
I did a simple search for the uranium that was caught. Is this the same story you are talking about?

Turkish Uranium Smuggling Story Turns a Damp Squib
The Hindu 30sep02
Washington (PTI) -- The sensational story that Turkey had seized two men trying to smuggle 35 pounds of uranium, the largest yet captured from illegal hands, has turned out to be a case of mistaken weighing.

What was seized, it now appears, was 3 ounces of uranium, not 35 pounds. The 35-pound estimate came from the fact that the Turks weighed not just the uranium inside a container but the lead container as well.

Most of the reported weight was not that of the uranium but of the container!

Acting on a tip-off, Turkish police stopped a cab in the southern province of Sanliurfa that borders Syria and is about 155 miles from the Iraqi border and arrested two men on smuggling charges.

The lead container with uranium inside was hidden under a seat in the cab.

The seizure implied the radioactive material was bound to Iraq to enable Saddam Hussein build a nuclear bomb.

The initial report about the weight of the uranium gained credibility only because in 1998, the Turks had seized 10 pounds of unprocessed uranium and six grams of plutonium smuggled from the former Soviet Union.

I also found this:
"It is extremely unusual for highly enriched uranium to be found on sale."
Also do you know if it was "enriched uranium"? Can you confirm this? If not there is nothing to worry about.

Also some where else I found that the number that was smuggled was 1.7kg which would not have been enough to manufacture a whole bomb: at least twice as much would be needed

Maybe Saddam's son is saying that he will retailate with nerve gas to scare us into not attacking them. They had a chance to use NBC devices in 1991 but never did

:confused:
 
Hmm looks like your arguement is dwindling BIGREDCAT:

Turkish uranium suspects released (!!!)
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) -- Turkish authorities Sunday released two men accused of attempting to smuggle a quantity of uranium, saying the amount in their possession was only a fraction of what officials originally estimated.

Turkish officials announced Saturday they had seized a box filled with nearly 35 pounds (15 kilograms) of uranium. But Muzaffer Dilek, the mayor of Sanliurfa, a Turkish city near the Turkey-Syria border, said Sunday that the material amounted to only 140 grams -- about five ounces.

The two men arrested with the material were released due to lack of evidence and have since disappeared, Dilek said.

The material is being taken to a nuclear research facility in Ankara to determine its composition, Turkey's Ministry of Internal Affairs said. That analysis was expected to be complete by Monday.

The men, who were riding in a taxi with the box, were stopped en route from Sanliurfa to the nearby city of Gazi Antep in southeastern Turkey, police said. The driver of the taxi was interviewed and released. Authorities displayed the material, which they said was worth $5 million and originated in the former Soviet Union, to reporters in Sanliurfa.

Turkish officials said they did not know whether the uranium was refined weapons-grade material or naturally occurring uranium, which would have to be refined before it could be used in a weapon. However, they said they did not believe the material posed a radiation danger.

U.S. officials and technical experts are in touch with Turkish authorities about the incident.

"If this is real, it is frightening," said a U.S. official familiar with the discussions. "But it is best now that we all look at this with a fair amount of skepticism until we know what it is that they have."

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright suggested the men could have been trying to swindle potential buyers. But he said investigators should try to determine both the source and the intended purchaser.

The U.S. official said such material "isn't exactly easy to come by" and added, "There are a lot of unscrupulous people out there who claim to be selling fissile material and weapons-grade material who turn out to be frauds. That is why until we know more I would be more skeptical than anything else. But we are hurrying to learn as much as we can."

-- CNN Senior White House Correspondent John King and Producer Fatih Turkmenoglu contributed to this report


http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/29/turkey.uranium/index.html
 
Last edited:
And your arguement keeps shrinking, and shrinking, and shrinking.

Report: Seized Material Not Uranium
ANKARA, Turkey -- Atomic energy officials said Monday that a substance seized by police near the Syrian border was not weapons-grade uranium as Turkish officials first reported, according to the Anatolia news agency.


Atomic Energy Institute chief Guler Koksal said the material was harmless, containing zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese.

The announcement ended days of speculation that the substance might have been destined for neighboring Iraq, which the United States accuses of trying to smuggle in nuclear material for a secret weapons program.

Police, acting on a tip, recovered the material in a taxi last week in Sanliurfa province, near the Syrian border. Two Turks who were trying to sell the material as uranium were released from custody.

The seizure alarmed intelligence agencies around the world when the Turkish police said it weighed 35 pounds last week. On Monday, police said the material weighed only 5 ounces.

The disparity occurred because authorities initially included the weight of the lead container in which the material was placed, police said.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0,0,1420147.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
 
INTERESTING, LOOKS LIKE ONE BIG HOAX!!!

That incredible shrinking uraniun
from Joe Conason's Journal

By now you may have heard the reassuring news that the "weapons-grade uranium" seized by the Turkish police was only a tube full of harmless metal powder. Or you may not, because the story has had a quickly deteriorating half-life from the sensational headlines of a few days ago, and not every news source has caught up. The first ominous reports said that more than 15 kilos of highly enriched uranium, worth $5 million, had been seized on its way to Iraq in a taxi. Then the amount involved dropped to a few grams that might not be enriched. (The heavier reported weight had included the tube-shaped lead container, which had strange writing on it that said "Made in W. Germany" and "youranuom.") Yesterday, a scientist at the nuclear research center in Istanbul gave a final analysis to the Anatolia News Agency: "We see that the substance is composed of zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese in shape of sand. It is definitely not a radioactive or hazardous substance."

Meanwhile, the two men arrested with the lead pipe were released and have "disappeared." So the chances that the origins of this hoax will ever be revealed are now conveniently small. Was it the work of a pair of clever Turkish con men? (Swindling Saddam's agents sounds like a very unhealthy idea. Wouldn't they examine the goods before handing over the $5 million? Wouldn't they shoot someone who tried to sell them a handful of useless metallic dust?) Or was it a disinformation scheme concocted to further certain political aims?

A clue appeared two days ago in Kommersant, a Russian publication whose correspondent revealed what he had learned on the Debkafile Web site, which claims to have sources at high levels in various intelligence and military services (particularly the Israeli Mossad). According to Debkafile, "the uranium seizure resulted from a joint operation by the [Russian] Foreign Intelligence Service and the CIA which began at the start of August." How interesting. After they played this hoax so big, why aren't the media more curious about the perpetrators?
 
Drunken_Weasel said:


I don't NEED to get drafted for that, I am slowly making progress.. But, If I either enlist, or get drafted.. I will surely become in shape faster...
Click to expand...

People...there will never be another draft unless all hell is literally breaking through, and Iraq is like a little cute bunny wabbit.

This should have happened several years ago, but Clinton didn't want to go in that direction. Simply story really: We kicked Sadam's ass. We give them all the $$$ they needed to get their economy and country back up. Why? I have not a fucking clue. That has to be the most retarded fucking thing I've heard. You destroy the person that you're going to war with and then you say here take this money and don't let me see you try anything again. Yeah...right. He should have been taken out of power the first time around, but hey, shit happens. Sadam broke the treaty years ago and Clinton didn't act on it. No one took it seriously until what happened last year. So now, should we go to war? Sure. This time let's make sure that he's either accidentally killed, along with his crazy ass son, or just make sure that he's taken out of power for good. Can't he be arrested for breaking international laws??
 
Freakmonster- here ya go smart guy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Saddam have nukes?
Iraq's former nuclear program director tells Metcalf 'yes'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: In addition to being an MIT-educated nuclear physicist, Dr. Khidhir Hamza was the director of the Iraqi Nuclear Program until 1994, when he defected from Iraq to the United States. Now the president of the Council on Middle Eastern Affairs in New York City, Hamza sat down with Geoff Metcalf to discuss his first-hand knowledge of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Having been in personal contact with Saddam Hussein during his time in Iraq, Hamza also makes disturbing projections about Hussein's future and propensity to use weapons of mass destruction.

By Geoff Metcalf
Q: I recently saw a story about Iraq deploying those "super-cannons" we didn't think they had. U.S. troop buildups are mounting in apparent anticipation of some kind of new U.S. offensive against Saddam Hussein. How much time do we have before we are compelled to do something to get rid of Hussein?

A: Actually, until he gets his bomb. And that is projected by German intelligence to be by 2005. That gives us a window of about three years.

Q: I remember back in '91 during the Gulf War. I had been told by some people that we blew up some key nuclear facility of your old boss, and allegedly it happened by accident.

A: I don't believe it was by accident. What happened was, if you mean the nuclear weapons site, the bunker for explosives was sighted by a U.S. pilot who suspected that it looked like the bunkers used in the U.S. for testing bombs – explosives, regular explosives. So he dropped some load. He had some extra bombs, and he dropped them on the site. And that was the only part that was really accidental. Many of the sites were not known to the U.S. Those that were known were bombed thoroughly.

Q: I've been saying this for years, and I want to ask you since you were there and you worked for this madman. If or when Hussein has the capacity to deploy any weapon of mass destruction, how long will it take him before he pulls the trigger?

A: It depends. First, what weapons systems he has complement each other. Chemical, you can use them in the field battles. Biological, he can use in terrorist acts, using them against his enemies, like he did with the Kurds. He experimented on them with biological weapons. The anthrax scare in the U.S. – he's possibly the source of it. The nuclear [capability] he will use to keep his regime in power if you attack him and there is imminent danger of his removal from power. That is his death, for him and his family. Then he would probably use the nuclear. Also, he would use it to entrench himself and threaten his neighbors and have a safe base of operation for terrorism for threatening the region, for imposing his will on his neighbors. So there is a whole range of options in front of Saddam, since he is going for all these weapons.

Q: The Pentagon actually played a computerized war game before the last invasion 10 years ago. One of the questions fed to the computer was: "What would we do if Saddam possessed a nuclear weapon?" And the computer, after chewing on it for a while, came back and responded, "Nothing."

A: What can you do with a man with nuclear weapons? The only thing you can do is threaten him with removal or devastation, an attack, a counterattack. A very realistic threat of a counterattack would probably stop him from using it. But, if he used it, the damage is done. The only option that would remain is vengeance. But the damage would have been done. That's what he asked us to do at the time: Make him one nuclear weapon. We dragged our feet, and we didn't do it. And now he admits to that program, called "The Crash Program."

Q: There were two guys, and you may have worked with them – Jaffar Dhia Jaffar and Hussein Sharhistani.

A: Yes.

Q: Jaffar is still there in Iraq, isn't he?

A: Yes.

Q: Is he heading up the nuclear weapons program now?

A: No, he is not. He has been more or less sidelined since the Gulf War. Actually, what happened was the U.S. inspectors showed that he was running more or less a bogus operation. He was promising Saddam enriched bomb-grade uranium for 10 years, and he didn't deliver a single gram of that. When the inspectors looked at his operation, they found it not to be up to standard, and there are several missing links that he did not even develop. So Saddam got angry and put him aside.

Q: It is amazing he is still alive ...

A: Yes.

Q: … because he was in trouble before, and Saddam threw him in the slammer, right?

A: Yes. Actually, we believe he did this deliberately. He was in 20 months, tortured for a couple of months, then "rehabilitated" in the other 18 months and then released. When he came out, we believe, he developed a plan to make it look as if he was doing enrichment of uranium. He was assigned the job of enriching uranium. I was assigned the job of making the bomb. He never delivered. We think he played a very sly game with Saddam, and Saddam can do nothing about it because a lot of Saddam's money was transferred through Jaffar's program to foreign accounts. And Jaffar probably knows about it.

Q: What happened to the other guy, Hussein Sharhistani? Because he dug in his heels and sat in jail.

A: He sat in jail and refused to come out. So he suffered 11 years of jail, and the Gulf War saved him.

Q: How?

A: It provided the cover for him to escape prison. He managed to escape in 1991, and he is now in England.

Q: I know you don't accept everything in the Daniel McGrory book, "Brighter than the Baghdad Sun" (read previous Q&A with Daniel McGrory), but what about the claim that Iraq had duplicated the Oak Ridge project?

A: That is true. Jaffar actually improved on the Oak Ridge magnet through CENR, the Center for European Nuclear Research in Geneva. Jaffar was working in CENR four years before he returned to Iraq in 1974, so there were some developments in magnet technology that allow enrichment of uranium on a larger scale. Jaffar wasn't going back to older technologies; he has a better mind than that. He thought that the thing advanced enough to put it back in action, and he tried to develop a program – an upgraded Oak Ridge facility in Iraq. Of course, he couldn't. It is too complex for Iraqi science or technology.

Q: We know that Saddam is working on developing bad stuff (nuclear, biological and chemical) and that if or when he gets it, he will probably use it. Where is the stuff he has buried? Is it deep underground?

A: Actually, Iraq doesn't bury a lot. It buries some, which was later found out by inspectors, but mostly it leaves things in houses, hospitals; there are some depots used. But Saddam found out after the war, and actually from some information he had before the war, that digging usually alerts satellites and airplane surveillance. So, usually, Saddam avoided digging. For example, the missiles – very few of them were found during the search of the U.S. Air Force – were hidden among trees and in schools. So you have a system where, actually, it is not buried but is among us; it is everywhere. They say one of his mistresses died from radiation sickness because he hid some radioactive material in her house.

Q: The search for enriched uranium, I recall that – and believe me, I am not a scientist; I don't know jack about this technical stuff – there were or are apparently two methods of trying to come up with enriched uranium. Jaffar was supposed to be working on something not typical. What are they doing now, because that is the one thing Iraq is still missing, right?

A: Oh, yes. Iraq has the whole missile design done. It is complete. Low-powered weapons of probably two to four or five kilotons, but there is a workable weapon design in Iraq right now. So what Iraq needs is the nuclear fuel inside, the nuclear core. That has to be enriched uranium to weapons grade, which is 90 percent, and Iraq does not have the technology so far. It has the elements of the technology but has to put it together – build the installations and start the production. Germans estimate that by last December, Iraq had 25 percent of the program together for enrichment. It will have it fully operational this year, and probably productive in the next, and should have enough for three bombs in 2005.

Q: Iraq has more oil than good sense, so why in the world don't they just buy the enriched uranium from anywhere else?

A: Oh, we tried! Don't you think we didn't. Actually, we used to get offers. I was an adviser to atomic energy from 1985-1987, and I would sit down in my room next to the chairman, and we would get this mail continuously of offers to sell uranium and plutonium. You don't know what is bogus and what is not. In many cases, we would get black marketers to come to Baghdad, and they'd have some sample in their bags, and they'd say, "This is enriched uranium. I can get you as much as you want. Give me some deposits so I can go ahead and make a deal and bring you some more." So we'd take it and analyze it, and it turned out to be low enriched uranium. In one of the cases, depleted uranium, and there was no fuel in it at all.

Q: A big concern was and has been that in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, with the Russian Mafia running things, that some bad guys might be selling stuff to Iraq.

A: Yes, there are something like 180 cases documented of smuggled material or attempted smuggled nuclear material. Iraq has actually played a part in this. They have formed hundreds and hundreds of front corporations set up inside the ex-Soviet Union – that is Russia now – that do import/export stuff like that which are run by Iraqi Intelligence. They have this contact and they have the old weapon technocrats who are still there and still powerful inside Russia. So they have the contacts, they have the organization. The only problem is they cannot get it in large enough quantity. And once the Russians find out, Iraq loses a very powerful ally in Russia, who is trying to get Iraq off the hook in regard to sanctions. So Iraq is playing it very low now. But once sanctions are lifted, then Iraq is no longer afraid. I think it will go much more aggressively after that. Right now, I don't believe Iraq is in the Russian market for uranium or plutonium.

Q: Iraq came close on their own under the guise of a nuclear power plant they finessed out of the French. It was in the '80s. In fact, you were still there working for Saddam.

A: Yes.

Q: You got close, but before you could fire up the plant, the Israelis had other thoughts – fortunate, preemptive thoughts.

A: Yes. Actually, I was the one who went to France and signed for that reactor in 1974. We started the negotiations in 1974. In 1975, we clinched the deal for that reactor. So it was a personal blow when the Israelis hit it. But this is not hitting the head of the snake; this is hitting at the periphery of the program. The reactor is removed. But Iraq trained, because of that reactor, some 400 technologists. By removing the reactor, you are releasing 400 technologists into Saddam's hands to divert them into another program, which is secret and underground. So the 400, Saddam managed to turn in six years to 7,000.

Q: 7,000!

A: By 1987 we had 7,000, instead of the 400 nuclear technologists, working in this huge program – the U.S. found out later how big it is – to make enriched uranium and to make nuclear weapons on a much larger scale now.

Q: Didn't you have two huge buildings at opposite ends of the country that were mirror images of each other?

A: Oh yes. According to another recent defector, in recent years Iraq is increasing this duplicate program. Every building has a backup to it. The backup becomes operational as soon as the first building is compromised. So Iraq has a backup for everything right now. Even if inspectors go back in and find one or two buildings, others become operational immediately.

Q: If or when someone is successful in killing that demonic, demented s.o.b. – and he is dead, taking the long dirt nap – then what? What fills the vacuum of Saddam Hussein?

A: It depends how you take him out. If you take him out in an assassination or an air strike, one of his family will take over.

Q: Hey, his son Uday is even crazier than Saddam is.

A: True, but it is now Kursay, the younger one. Uday is crazy, so he is put aside, and Kursay is now prime to be the successor to the throne. But Kursay is just as bad as his father, if that is possible.

Q: What percentage of Saddam's efforts is directed to the nuclear program? I got the impression it is the nexus of his weapons-of-mass-destruction effort.

A: It is the largest program. I'll give you some sizes. For example, at the onset of the Gulf War, we had about 7,000 workers in the nuclear, 400 in the biological and another 400-500 in the chemical. That should tell you where the emphasis is. The difference is that the nuclear program is a complete pyramid. You can design and build there. The biological is more or less a contracting entity. If they need a building, they bring in a contractor. If they want equipment, they'll buy it or contract to atomic energy or someone to make it for them. Atomic energy is a complete entity. You can start from thinking of what you want to do – to having an establishment that produces what you want it to do. It is the only one of its kind in the Middle East outside of Israel.

Q: Have they abandoned the red herring of nuclear power plants?

A: They never went into it seriously. It was a cover, like I said.

Q: Thinly veiled.

A: Yes. I mean, we talked to international atomic energy about getting us reactors to build power plants. But they don't make sense. Iraq is awash in oil and gas, and why would it need to generate electricity by burning uranium instead of oil? It doesn't make sense. It is the same senseless claim made by the Iranians now. They want to convince the U.S. that their negotiations with the Russians to buy power plants is OK, because it is the fuel of the future. It doesn't make sense. Iran has enough oil for the next century or two. Why should they start right now to use nuclear fuel?

Q: What was the reaction, because you were there when the Israelis turned your would-be nuclear power plant into a smoking hole in the desert.

A: We were sickened, because we knew what comes next. We were sickened, because actually, the reactor was under international control. We had inspectors every six months coming in to see how we were using it. We had a fixed camera at the core of the reactor. Anything that went in or went out was actually photographed. And we had the French sitting there all the time around the reactor for at least the first two years for maintenance and getting things going. So with the reactor gone, we had to go and build our own, without international supervision. So Saddam would be breathing down our necks, which he did, with, "Where is it now? There is nothing to hinder you now, nothing to hold you back now." There were no longer inspectors and all that.

Q: On the other side of the coin, you did score a coup when you were putting in that French nuclear power plant. At least you had access to all those nuclear technicians.

A: Oh, yes. Initially, it was needed. Initially, it produced for us the cadre we needed to go to the next stage. The French and Italians also trained for us people in the complete nuclear fuel cycle – from making fuel, processing it into nuclear material, to extracting uranium and all kinds of processes that you need in nuclear technology. We had acquired knowledge of the full fuel cycle because of the reactor, and that is what we got out of it, really – not the building.

Q: What if the Germans are wrong and we don't really have three years? What if that one to two kiloton puppy you say he "might" have now is bigger, and there are more of them? What if Saddam Hussein becomes a for-real imminent threat? Then what?

A: The Germans also say that is a possibility. The Germans say without outside assistance, without getting uranium from the Russians or anywhere else, with only solely Iraqi capability, local indigenous program, Iraq could make it in three years. But, if it gets assistance – say a Russian scientist comes in and helps us build the plans better and faster or get some fuel from the Russians, nuclear fuel – then yes, he could have had it by now. It's been three years without an inspection!

Q: If you were talking to Condoleezza Rice or George Bush right now, what are you going to tell them?

A: Take him out now. There's no other solution, no fix for this problem. Take Saddam out now, and replace him with a democratic regime, a pro-U.S. regime.

Q: How big a mistake was it to let him hang around this long? At the time, after the Gulf War, the rationale was, "Well, the evil we have and know is better than the evil we don't know. We would create a vacuum with the removal of Saddam, and we don't know what would fill that vacuum." Those arguments – I thought they were hollow at the time – but those same arguments are the ones that exist today.

A: Yes, but by not taking him out, you allowed Saddam to remain in power, so he remained a threat to his neighbor. That incited Iran to go after nuclear weapons also, and biological weapons. So it created, by leaving him there, an arms race. And it created a more dangerous situation in the region and less prospect for peace, also, in the region. So leaving him there is really leaving a headache, a problem. Look how much money you spend on airplanes and air strikes and surveillance for 10 years – 11 years by now.

Q: If Hussein has the capability to deploy – and everyone is concerned he might hit Israel – but what if he went after Iran? I mean, this guy perceives of himself as some kind of 21st Century Nebuchadnezzar anyway. I mean, you guys fought an eight-year war with Iran.

A: That is why Iran is hopeful right now in terms of allowing the U.S. back. The Iraqi opposition – an American plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam – is in place. Iranians are agreeing right now.

Q: Hey, that was the talk last week. More recently, their former President Rafsanjani is saying Iran ought to nuke Israel.

A: Well, that is just talk. But Iran is actually – because I know the head of the Iraqi opposition was there a couple of times – the present government is allowing the U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition to operate from inside Iran, and if a strike happens to enter Iraq through the Iranian border. That is because they are wary of what happens next with Saddam.

Q: Saddam is between the rock and the hard place. Iran doesn't like him, obviously we want him sucking dirt soon, so is it better from a strategic position for him to go after Iran rather than posture. I mean, if he hits Israel, he has to know what is going to happen.

A: That's what he keeps telling the U.S. – that "I am your only hope at blocking Iranian expansion and creating an Islamic state that would take over the gulf." And the expansion of the Islamic state – Iraq is the only shield against it. That's why he keeps the Iranian opposition inside Iraq operating from inside Iraq doing hits inside Iran. He wants to create the aura of being the protector of the region against Iranian encroachment. You have this game he is playing – he's trying to convince the U.S., and that's probably what has kept him in power so far. The U.S. has not gone seriously after him in the last 10 or 11 years.

Q: You have had personal contact with Saddam, which is why I have to ask you this: I am under the impression – and I feel this is a huge mistake our state departments have made for decades – that we are trying to view an adversary, in this case Hussein, like he is some competitive CEO in a board meeting, and we can sit down and either negotiate or appease him. In my estimation Saddam Hussein is evil incarnate. We cannot negotiate, appease or mitigate with evil like this. You've got to kill it.

A: Yes. You're finding that out the hard way. Everything they agreed with him on – including Kofi Annan, who said, "I can do business with Saddam. Saddam is a man I can do business with." Remember that?

Q: Kofi Annan is worse than an empty suit.

A: I'm including a figure like Kofi Annan finding the hard way that Saddam doesn't keep his word. He is tricky, he's treacherous and he is very dangerous.

Q: But isn't there a huge cultural disconnect? I mean, he really hasn't been out of Iran all that much throughout his life.

A: No, he has not. He spent a couple of years during Nasser's era out of Iraq and stayed in Egypt. That's about the only trip outside of Iraq he took.

Q: What would be the impact on the geopolitical balance in the region if Saddam were no more? One of the concerns in attempting to keep together that fragile coalition in '91 was "balance." Apparently, we're not even going to try to do that again. How destabilizing would it be to Iran, Jordan, Syria, all those countries in and around the neighborhood, if Hussein goes away?

A: If Hussein goes away, it depends how he goes away. If he is replaced by a democratic system, like you are trying to do now in Afghanistan, and nurtured that system to take hold – and not just be a weak government that could be toppled easily by a military coup – if you have a real democratic system there, then you have a transformation in the region that has to happen. It will influence Iran and what's going on inside Iran to get out from the really oppressive religious clergy government.

Q: Yes, but Dr. Hamza, in Afghanistan, for good or ill, there was an opposition force in place. Saddam has killed most of his opposition, hasn't he?

A: Oh, no. You still have the Kurdish region, which is one-fourth of Iraq, the Kurdish opposition in the north. And you still have a large expatriate group living outside Iraq, which is ready to go back and work its way into power.

Q: So what happens next? Recently, we have seen stories about the U.S. moving all kinds of troops into the region all around Iraq. And what about these "super cannons"? I remember seeing a movie about that Canadian guy Bull who supposedly got whacked by the Mossad for playing with Saddam.

A: Yes, Gerald Bull. Actually, what happened was small and large cannons he developed. The small one was already deployed and tested.

Q: How big are these "small" cannons?

A: One is about 150 feet long and something like 3.5 feet wide. It is supposed to take a missile, or the warhead of a missile, and with some kind of controlled system to maneuver it, and with the large one, send it to Israel, or to Tehran for example. It is meant to replace the arduous process of making missiles, or the engines of missiles with their fuel and all that. But it is a fixed target.

Q: It can't be easy to hide one of these beasts, let alone try to move one.

A: Exactly. But one of the reasons Gerald Bull was brought in to make this was how little money he asked.

Q: How much is "how little money"?

A: The whole thing was less than $20 million. The technology he provided Iraq on guided artillery shells – how to guide them and make them more precise to hit a target – was that he modified Iraqi artillery in such a way to make it much more effective.

Q: These are not laser-designated type munitions, are they?

A: No, they are not. He just improved the trajectory and aerodynamics of the munitions.

Q: It always fascinated me about artillery. I was an Army officer for a long time, and we'd call in 105 mm howitzers, and we had to adjust fire to a target. Eight-inch guns from the Navy were much bigger but were a lot more accurate.

A: Exactly, and Bull was an aerodynamic engineer, so he was talking about shaping things, putting fins on them, putting small jets on the side to control the direction, stuff like that.

Q: According to a recent report I read, when the attack comes – the inevitable attack on Iraq – one of the first things targeted will be these new super cannons, so they're not going to last real long. He only has three or four of them.

A: Yes. Iraq kept some units and probably put them back together. Also, they could manufacture some, a little bit, but they wouldn't be as good as the imported units from England and Germany.

Q: I have been both annoyed and frustrated in reading stories about where we are moving troops, when we expect to strike and so forth. I hope this is at least partly misinformation and deception, because it is galling to think Saddam is getting good intel from CNN again.

A: It would be impossible not to tell him, because with the troop deployment, with the gathering of the winds of war, it is impossible for him not to know. This is not a small-scale operation.

Q: Given the fact that we're moving, we're getting ready – and we will come knocking on his door pretty soon and real loud – is it even physically possible for him to accelerate his nuclear program? I know you and Jaffar were getting heat from him before, "Hurry up, hurry up, hurry up."

A: Yes.

Q: So he has someone else to whip now, but I'm sure he's bugging these guys.

A: That's what worries me: the possibility that the Russians might look the other way when Saddam tries to purchase nuclear material from there, and they can claim he smuggled it or bought it in the black market and they don't know. They might give him underhanded help in developing his nuclear weapon.

Q: But what is the strategic advantage to Russia to do that? I can't see any.

A: He is their ally. If Saddam is in power in spite of U.S.-backed opposition …

Q: They want and need oil. He has oil.

A: Yes, but then the resources of Iraq will be at Russia's disposal instead of the U.S. If the U.S. succeeds in removing Saddam, then the U.S.-backed opposition will replace him, and it will be at the disposal of the U.S. instead of the Russians. That's the difference for the Russians.

Q: Then Russia could get in bed with the Iranians.

A: Oh, yes. They are a little bit with the Iranians. Don't forget they are building their nuclear reactor. They are giving them enrichment technology despite the U.S. objection. They are sending their scientists to work there. So the Russians are hand-in-glove with the Iranians now to a degree.

Q: You indicated there is opposition: the Kurds in the north, the expatriates in Europe or wherever. Are these guys coordinated? If or when the vacuum is created and Saddam is taking the big dirt nap, is there any mechanism whereby something can replace him even as a transitional entity?

A: Yes, I think the same thing that you did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It was also factioned and squabbling groups with no hope of putting them together, if you remember the talk before the war. Now somehow they managed to get together. The U.S. is the glue here. The U.S. can put the alliance together and make it hold with U.S. pressure and U.S. presence. It has proven to work in Afghanistan; it should work in Iraq also.
 
FreakMonster said:
INTERESTING, LOOKS LIKE ONE BIG HOAX!!!

That incredible shrinking uraniun
from Joe Conason's Journal

By now you may have heard the reassuring news that the "weapons-grade uranium" seized by the Turkish police was only a tube full of harmless metal powder. Or you may not, because the story has had a quickly deteriorating half-life from the sensational headlines of a few days ago, and not every news source has caught up. The first ominous reports said that more than 15 kilos of highly enriched uranium, worth $5 million, had been seized on its way to Iraq in a taxi. Then the amount involved dropped to a few grams that might not be enriched. (The heavier reported weight had included the tube-shaped lead container, which had strange writing on it that said "Made in W. Germany" and "youranuom.") Yesterday, a scientist at the nuclear research center in Istanbul gave a final analysis to the Anatolia News Agency: "We see that the substance is composed of zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese in shape of sand. It is definitely not a radioactive or hazardous substance."

Meanwhile, the two men arrested with the lead pipe were released and have "disappeared." So the chances that the origins of this hoax will ever be revealed are now conveniently small. Was it the work of a pair of clever Turkish con men? (Swindling Saddam's agents sounds like a very unhealthy idea. Wouldn't they examine the goods before handing over the $5 million? Wouldn't they shoot someone who tried to sell them a handful of useless metallic dust?) Or was it a disinformation scheme concocted to further certain political aims?

A clue appeared two days ago in Kommersant, a Russian publication whose correspondent revealed what he had learned on the Debkafile Web site, which claims to have sources at high levels in various intelligence and military services (particularly the Israeli Mossad). According to Debkafile, "the uranium seizure resulted from a joint operation by the [Russian] Foreign Intelligence Service and the CIA which began at the start of August." How interesting. After they played this hoax so big, why aren't the media more curious about the perpetrators?
Click to expand...



I am betting that this was definitely an American intelligence disinformation ploy...

Anyone agree..?
 
Lift Chief said:



I agree that he would not overtly attack the US... he is not that stupid- he would like to stay alive and stay in power, and he knows that would be his end.
Click to expand...


This is wrong. he has said that he has not missed a second of sleep over this. it doesn't bother him a bit. he said that they are ready for the US, and he knows that iraq and his army will prevail over the US and any who help because Alloh(whatever his gods name is) is on his side. and will help him and his army.
 
BigRedCat said:
Freakmonster- here ya go smart guy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Saddam have nukes?
Iraq's former nuclear program director tells Metcalf 'yes'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: In addition to being an MIT-educated nuclear physicist, Dr. Khidhir Hamza was the director of the Iraqi Nuclear Program until 1994, when he defected from Iraq to the United States. Now the president of the Council on Middle Eastern Affairs in New York City, Hamza sat down with Geoff Metcalf to discuss his first-hand knowledge of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Having been in personal contact with Saddam Hussein during his time in Iraq, Hamza also makes disturbing projections about Hussein's future and propensity to use weapons of mass destruction.

By Geoff Metcalf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the complement of being smart:D
Looks like Geoff Metcalf learned to be 'good boy' or else. A hard lesson at the WND school.

Anyways here is an interview of another Iraqi scientist who was put in charge of Baghdad's nuclear research.

He insists Iraq today has neither the scientific expertise nor the hardware to produce a nuclear bomb.

LOOKS LIKE IRAQ IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT!!


"Bush gives the false image that Iraq is a huge, efficient machine," Khadduri says. "We have been torn apart." As to biological weapons of mass destruction, he says he cannot comment because he doesn't know.

He says he's decided to speak out now to try to counter what he calls "misinformation" from U.S. intelligence sources. He says he's "distressed" at the fate of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis if a U.S.-led coalition strikes.

Khadduri says the Iraqis had not produced a workable bomb by 1990. "We did not have enough fissile material (Uranium 235) needed for the bomb."


"The Gulf War was the end of the development of Iraq's nuclear capability. It began to disintegrate very quickly after that," Khadduri says.



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...571&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
 
Last edited:
"The pressure is going to grow," says Milhollin. "[President] Bush can take the position if he wants that the burden of proof is on Saddam, but from a political point of view, the burden is in fact on the US, to prove this declaration is false."

Published US and British dossiers were far from specific, he notes, about how, when, and where, any Iraqi WMD programs are continuing.

"Our statements have been categorical ... that 'It exists, there are chemical weapons in Iraq.' So how do we know that?" Milhollin asks. "I'm beginning to suspect we don't have [that evidence]. If the US doesn't have it, it means the US has a credibility problem, just like Saddam."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1211/p01s04-wome.html
 
No.. I do not.

We have been lied to SOOO many times.. from UFO's.. to Waco TX.

Why should I believe anything I see on TV.

I think we need to pull ALL of our intrests out of the Mid East.. leave them alone. Let Israel fight it's own war for once.

This war will cost us alot.. and Uncle Scam owes me money right now.. so before we go killing anymore innocent brown people.. I want my fucking tax returns!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jasonhill800
Napsgear POTW : Get 50% Off On GP Nolva (Nolvadex)
Replies
7
Views
435
BodyMonster34
BodyMonster34
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale NapsGear POTW - GP Methan 50 (Dianabol) 50% Off!
Replies
7
Views
200
Ulter
Ulter
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale NapsGear POTW - GP Methan 50 (Dianabol) 50% Off!
Replies
7
Views
228
BodyMonster34
BodyMonster34
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale NapsGear Deal Of The Week - 50% Off On GP Anastrozole (Arimidex)
Replies
8
Views
364
SteveMobsterG
SteveMobsterG
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale NapsGear Deal Of The Week - 50% Off On GP Anastrozole (Arimidex)
Replies
8
Views
331
SteveMobsterG
SteveMobsterG
Top Bottom