AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums
Iraq Was A Safer Place Without George Bush - Printable Version

+- AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums (https://ai-jane.org)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://ai-jane.org/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: International Politics (https://ai-jane.org/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Iraq Was A Safer Place Without George Bush (/thread-5859.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


- John L - 03-29-2008

Palladin Wrote:Listen here guys,Iraq had a massive quantity of enriched uranium. At Tuwaitha,Iraq. Not enriched enough for a fission weapon. It was roughly assayed out at 33% U235.

Normal ore is around 2 % I think,maybe up to 3.5%,so this stuff had been run through some type of enrichment process extensively.

I KNOW this,my co-workers spent 6 full months at Tuwaitha packing the stuff into always safe containers and flew it back to the USA. It was a massive quantity. It's good right where it is and safe.

I think your figures are incorrect Patrick. Normal ore only has about 7 tenths of one percent U-235. U-238 is 99.7 percent. 3.5% is near the bottom of the cycle for reactor grade. Usually it starts out somewhere between five and six percent.

As for the 33% figure, I can't answer to that, since I was not there, but I can tell you that if it WAS that, it had to be approached with a lot more than just caution.


- Palladin - 03-29-2008

John,

That's accurate,my 3.5% was what is enriched enough to fuel light water reactors. Anyway,,this stuff assayed out near 33%,which means it had significant enrichment already done on it,the quantities are MASSIVE,it took 6 months to handle it all and about 20 of my co-workers were there in early 2004 removing it all.

I know this is fact,I know some stuff I can't state . I assume Saddam had stopped enriching it,but it was there,it was already far along the process(the actual calutrons were brought to Oak Ridge),which means he had nefarious ideas for it's use.

Duh. All these "Saddam didn't have WMD" types miss the point,his goal,based on documents,interviews(to include him) was to outlast the sanctions and inspections regime and crank it back up. The democrats who voted for war with Iraq did so with the understanding he had the stuff ready,so logically what is the difference ? he would have had it,we know from their documents he was dealing with several Islamic nutter terr groups,it's difficult to imagine how we could have just ignored that POTENTIAL NEXUS after 9-11.

IMO,it was inevitable we attacked Iraq,should have been accomplished in 1991.


- track_snake - 03-30-2008

Palladin Wrote:John,

That's accurate,my 3.5% was what is enriched enough to fuel light water reactors. Anyway,,this stuff assayed out near 33%,which means it had significant enrichment already done on it,the quantities are MASSIVE,it took 6 months to handle it all and about 20 of my co-workers were there in early 2004 removing it all.

I know this is fact,I know some stuff I can't state . I assume Saddam had stopped enriching it,but it was there,it was already far along the process(the actual calutrons were brought to Oak Ridge),which means he had nefarious ideas for it's use.

Duh. All these "Saddam didn't have WMD" types miss the point,his goal,based on documents,interviews(to include him) was to outlast the sanctions and inspections regime and crank it back up. The democrats who voted for war with Iraq did so with the understanding he had the stuff ready,so logically what is the difference ? he would have had it,we know from their documents he was dealing with several Islamic nutter terr groups,it's difficult to imagine how we could have just ignored that POTENTIAL NEXUS after 9-11.

IMO,it was inevitable we attacked Iraq,should have been accomplished in 1991.
-----------------
The thing is that Saddam didn't have any WMD:s at the time of the US invasion. And the invasion was motivated by (false) claims that he had WMD:s.

This was a false motivation. If you wanted to invade Iraq and get credit in the eyes of the international public you should have brought forward a true motivation.

It is quite possible that Saddam was planning to get access to WMD:s again in the future. But that is quite another thing and nothing you can prove. Maybe Robert Mugabe also wants to have WMD:s if it should be possible for him? Or the Burmese junta? Or Syria? Or Sudan? Or Hugo Chavez? Or the new rulers in Kosovo?

You never know...


- WmLambert - 03-30-2008

track_snake Wrote:...The thing is that Saddam didn't have any WMD:s at the time of the US invasion. And the invasion was motivated by (false) claims that he had WMD:s.
You quoted Palladin's post - didn't you read it? He specifically states that he and the men of his troops DID remove tons of 33% enriched uranium from Iraq in early 2004. It took 6 months to remove it all. Every single gram was WMD. Do you get it yet?


- Palladin - 03-30-2008

William,

For accuracy sake,I had NO role in the removal of Iraq's uranium. It was about 20-25 of my co-workers from Oak Ridge National Lab,technicians,rad control technicians,etc. They took 6 months to package it all up safely and transport it to the USA. I've seen their slide show and was shown the bombed out Tuwaitha reactor that Israel destroyed and the one nearby we destoyed(perfect hits,too).

Note to Track: The USA had an enemy in Iraq,we don't care much what your opinion was. Impressing the global left or Islam isn't the goal of USA foreign affairs and should not be. Iraq was an old enemy,hostile intent had been repeatedly shown violating the peace treaty,he clearly had the makings of the stuff(WMD) and assisted several Islamic terr groups,it is ludicrous for you to act like since it wasn't in a bomb form we are bad guys in this.

Like the Phillipines,we have the right to take down enemy peoples when they threaten us and we don't need to wait until they get good at it either,we're not as idiotic as Europeans who wait until gas ovens are cooking.


- quadrat - 03-31-2008

WmLambert Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:...The thing is that Saddam didn't have any WMD:s at the time of the US invasion. And the invasion was motivated by (false) claims that he had WMD:s.
You quoted Palladin's post - didn't you read it? He specifically states that he and the men of his troops DID remove tons of 33% enriched uranium from Iraq in early 2004. It took 6 months to remove it all. Every single gram was WMD. Do you get it yet?
No other source, governmental or whatever has ever stated what Palladin claims five years after the invasion, but there he is, the 100% reliable source, presenting evidence Saddam had 33% enriched nukes.

What an utter garbage.


- track_snake - 03-31-2008

Palladin Wrote:William,

For accuracy sake,I had NO role in the removal of Iraq's uranium. It was about 20-25 of my co-workers from Oak Ridge National Lab,technicians,rad control technicians,etc. They took 6 months to package it all up safely and transport it to the USA. I've seen their slide show and was shown the bombed out Tuwaitha reactor that Israel destroyed and the one nearby we destoyed(perfect hits,too).

Note to Track: The USA had an enemy in Iraq,we don't care much what your opinion was. Impressing the global left or Islam isn't the goal of USA foreign affairs and should not be. Iraq was an old enemy,hostile intent had been repeatedly shown violating the peace treaty,he clearly had the makings of the stuff(WMD) and assisted several Islamic terr groups,it is ludicrous for you to act like since it wasn't in a bomb form we are bad guys in this.

Like the Phillipines,we have the right to take down enemy peoples when they threaten us and we don't need to wait until they get good at it either,we're not as idiotic as Europeans who wait until gas ovens are cooking.
--------------------
Well...

Can we agree on one thing? That it has not been stated in international media or by UN weapon inspectors that Saddam had any WMD:s at the time of the invasion.

If you say that some partly enriched uranium was found in Iraq at the site of the earlier bombed-out nuclear facilities it is another thing. A WMD is a missile or bomb that carries a nuclear warhead or something like that. Not some laboratory stuff that could maybe be used in preparing nuclear warheads.

Iraq was an old enemy according to you. But why did Saddam and Reagan get along so pleasantly before? And even Rumsfeld stayed in Saddam's palaces...

When was Iraq transformed from 'friend' into 'enemy? And why?

/track_snake


- WmLambert - 03-31-2008

Sorry, track_snake, but both Kay and the Duelfer report said we DID find mass quantities of WMD in Iraq after the invasion. Just because the media did not report the reports accurately does not mean that you do not have the opportunity to look them up for yourself and read them.

There are now 600,000 documents in the Hummingbord data recently released that underscores the threat that Saddam represented, and the WMD military efforts he had ready to go, more to be remade after sanctions were lifted, AND the verified links to al Qaeda and his support of world-wide terrorists.

Why continue making the charge that Saddam was NOT a threat and that there was no reason to go after the terrorism threat he represented?


- Palladin - 03-31-2008

Quad,

I know it's factual and my guess is it wasn't publicized because it is a classified anti proliferation program. The location of the U is classified.

It took my friends 6 full months to remove the stuff,several still work with me.

Saddam told our investigator he planned to re-institute the programs as soon as he could get the UNSCOM program and sanctions lifted,why wouldn't he have this stuff? The UN documented the stuff properly,it was under THEIR seal,it's internationally known that it was there,now it is in America(the beautiful).


- track_snake - 03-31-2008

WmLambert Wrote:Sorry, track_snake, but both Kay and the Duelfer report said we DID find mass quantities of WMD in Iraq after the invasion. Just because the media did not report the reports accurately does not mean that you do not have the opportunity to look them up for yourself and read them.

There are now 600,000 documents in the Hummingbord data recently released that underscores the threat that Saddam represented, and the WMD military efforts he had ready to go, more to be remade after sanctions were lifted, AND the verified links to al Qaeda and his support of world-wide terrorists.

Why continue making the charge that Saddam was NOT a threat and that there was no reason to go after the terrorism threat he represented?
-------------------------------
If there were considerable stockpiles of WMD:s in Iraq the world media would not go on reporting that there were no WMD:s in Iraq at the time of the invasion. It also depends on what is your definition of WMD:s. That Saddam had plenty of WMD:s before say 1995 is undoubted.

My opinion is that Saddam was an unpleasant leader but not worse than many other. The links to terrorism were weak; Al Qaeda got much more support from Saudi princes and the money they had earned by selling oil at high prices to the West. In total it made no cause for an invasion of a sovereign state. And why the change in US policy towards Saddam after the very friendly period during the 70'ies and early 80'ies? Have you already forgotten the promises president Reagan made to Saddam when he was there? What was the cause for such a fundamental change in US policy towards Saddam with a friend turning to an enemy in a short time?

/track_snake


- WmLambert - 04-01-2008

The complicit media will continue to misreport on WMD in Iraq, which we found after the invasion, so long as there are useful idiots who do not make the effort to do the simple research necessary to understand that what an anti-Bush media says is not always the truth.


- JohnWho - 04-01-2008

WmLambert Wrote:The complicit media will continue to misreport on WMD in Iraq, which we found after the invasion, so long as there are useful idiots who do not make the effort to do the simple research necessary to understand that what an anti-Bush media says is not always the truth.

Using 20/20 hindsight we now know that the extent of Iraq's WMD program was much less than was thought, although we also know that Iraq had everything in place to begin building more modern WMDs within a short time after the UN Inspectors would have "blessed" Iraq compliance.

Whether Bush's decision was right or not, the information he acted upon was believed by too many organizations to be ignored. While it was only one of the reasons the coalition used to remove Saddam from power, at the time it appeared very compelling to many.


- Palladin - 04-01-2008

Track,

The material I know of was not a bomb or ready to be used in a bomb,but it was enriched towards that goal. U starts at <1% 235 isotope(the good stuff),his stuff was 33%,a bomb needs near 90%(I think). Plus other things.

In other words,it would eventually have been a nuclear weapon,when the sanctions were removed and the UNSCOM teams permanently gone. You're prepared to accept that,we would have been rather ignorant to have since we had us a war with Saddam.


- track_snake - 04-01-2008

Palladin Wrote:Track,

The material I know of was not a bomb or ready to be used in a bomb,but it was enriched towards that goal. U starts at <1% 235 isotope(the good stuff),his stuff was 33%,a bomb needs near 90%(I think). Plus other things.

In other words,it would eventually have been a nuclear weapon,when the sanctions were removed and the UNSCOM teams permanently gone. You're prepared to accept that,we would have been rather ignorant to have since we had us a war with Saddam.
-----------------------------------------
Yes. It might have been so. But if the sanctions and UN teams were gone, and Saddam would have developed a bomb, he would probably have used it as a threat against Iran or Israel. As we all know, Israel had the bomb for many years already and Iran would be still more eager to get one if they knew Saddam had.

/track_snake


- Anonymous24 - 04-02-2008

Palladin, Israel would have bombed Iraq back to the stone-age before Saddam would have gotten his hands on anything resembling a real nuke.


- WmLambert - 04-02-2008

Anonymous24 Wrote:Palladin, Israel would have bombed Iraq back to the stone-age before Saddam would have gotten his hands on anything resembling a real nuke.
Israel DID take down nuke sites with their bombers, without bombing the entire nations back to the stone age. Why assume new tactics?


- Palladin - 04-05-2008

Anon,

Would thrill me to see any of these Islamic regimes "bombed to the stone age",BUT,that was not our discussion. Saddam had the makings of an atomic bomb material program,I know it,you still run around acting like he's an innocent and Bush made false claims about Iraq's WMD.

This isn't a debate about the efficacy of using WMD as a cause celeb,your position has been Bush lied about it and that uranium I know about was massive in quantity and well on it's way to bomb use. It's a fact,whether you want to rely on your own pre conceived notions or not,TONS of that sh.it is in America right now,taken from Tuwaitha ,Iraq by my co-workers in 2004.


- stroll - 04-20-2008

WmLambert Wrote:The complicit media will continue to misreport on WMD in Iraq, which we found after the invasion, so long as there are useful idiots who do not make the effort to do the simple research necessary to understand that what an anti-Bush media says is not always the truth.
What did you find then?
Some out of date stock of chemicals, and what else? S1


- track_snake - 04-20-2008

stroll Wrote:
WmLambert Wrote:The complicit media will continue to misreport on WMD in Iraq, which we found after the invasion, so long as there are useful idiots who do not make the effort to do the simple research necessary to understand that what an anti-Bush media says is not always the truth.
What did you find then?
Some out of date stock of chemicals, and what else? S1
------------------------------
It is secret, Stroll...

And by the way it was smuggled into Syria by Russian KGB agents in 2003. Or wasn't it?...

/track_snake


- stroll - 04-20-2008

Palladin Wrote:Would thrill me to see any of these Islamic regimes "bombed to the stone age"
No doubt about it. Wink1