rhino 0 #1 October 11, 2004 Just saw it on the news... Iraq's nuclear equipment is missing... Vanished and they have no clue who has it... foxnews I believe.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 October 11, 2004 Ahhh, come on, post a link or something we can actually talk about! Are you sure the story was even about Iraq and not Iran, because to me Iraq just wouldn't make much sense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #3 October 11, 2004 Positive it was on Iraq... I'm still looking.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jessefs 0 #4 October 11, 2004 Here.... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=4&u=/nm/20041011/wl_nm/iraq_un_nuclear_dc_2 <* Spread the Love! *> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 October 11, 2004 Damn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #6 October 11, 2004 QuoteDamn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. Yet more evidence that the real reason for the war had fuck-all to do with WMD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #7 October 11, 2004 QuoteIraq's nuclear equipment is missing... Vanished and they have no clue who has it... that's not news. that's old news. it vanished long before we invaded.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #8 October 11, 2004 Quote Yet more evidence that the real reason for the war had fuck-all to do with WMD. So . . . then . . . lemme just wrap my head around this . . . you're saying that it's a good thing we went to war when we KNEW where the stuff was, but it's ok that NOW we don't? Seems to me like it would have made a lot more sense to simply order up some surgical strikes against the facilities and not invade at all. Doing it the way we have done it means that now people have facilities at their disposal, but we have no idea where that is.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #9 October 11, 2004 http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=601243§ion=news QuoteSeems to me like it would have made a lot more sense to simply order up some surgical strikes against the facilities and not invade at all. That is what you will likely see with Iran, Seria and North Korea for starters... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #10 October 11, 2004 >That is what you will likely see with Iran, Seria and North Korea for starters... I would agree with Iran, but I think it's unlikely with North Korea. NK may actually have weapons that can reach the US (Anchorage, etc) and they are uncomfortably close to China so I suspect we'll be more inclined to pursue diplomatic means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #11 October 11, 2004 QuoteSo . . . then . . . lemme just wrap my head around this . . . you're saying that it's a good thing we went to war when we KNEW where the stuff was, but it's ok that NOW we don't? Seems to me like it would have made a lot more sense to simply order up some surgical strikes against the facilities and not invade at all. Doing it the way we have done it means that now people have facilities at their disposal, but we have no idea where that is. This must be an UK-US translation error thing because i didn't say it was a good thing. I meant if the stated reason for invading Iraq - that Saddam had WMD and we were in danger - was true then you'd expect nuclear facilities to be secured to prevent materials going walkabout. As it turned out, the top priority after the invasion was to secure oil fields. Quotethat's not news. that's old news. it vanished long before we invaded. Thats not what the report says. Try reading it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #12 October 11, 2004 QuoteThats not what the report says. Try reading it. my BAD? i guess we should all be on the lookout.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #13 October 11, 2004 QuoteDamn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. And you have to wonder why the US didn't want anyone to keep an eye on that stuff. Ah, I see....they were against the invasion and Bush doesn't allow anyone into the country that was against the war. Now that stupid pride has nuclear equipment going ::poof:: on our watch. Noice. So, lets take stock of the situation. This stuff is missing, the weapons dumps were stolen and are now being used against our troops, terrorists now have a foothold in that country, we are spread thin and can't focus on the real danger points in the world causing terrorism to grow, and our allies feel less safe due to our actions and the world as a whole feels that our invasion into Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism. Add to the fact that we look like a fool because there never were WMD there._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 October 11, 2004 Dude...but we're steadfast and determined and stick to our convictions. Plus we know what we believe. All that other stuff doesn't matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #15 October 11, 2004 QuoteDamn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. He can't give it to anyone!!! You all said he doesn't have it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #16 October 11, 2004 Quote He can't give it to anyone!!! You all said he doesn't have it You're confusing a couple of issues. It's possible to have multiple use equipment capable of producing components for nuclear weapons and still not have nuclear weapons. In fact, that's highly likely. I doubt that many would contend that Iraq didn't have equipment capable of creating certain parts since some of that is also good for a number of things. What Saddam clearly didn't have was actual nuclear weapons or any of the fissle material from which to make them. He may have had the desire, but that's a far cry from having the actual capability. I can give monkeys precision milling equipment, but unless I also give them the knowledge and fissle material, there simply isn't going to be a nuke.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #17 October 12, 2004 Quoteand they are uncomfortably close to China so I suspect we'll be more inclined to pursue diplomatic means. I agree... It is strange how some things go BOOM! in the night Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #18 October 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteDamn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. He can't give it to anyone!!! You all said he doesn't have it Nope. It was under IAEA fior years, and then under US control till it disapeared. Mon Oct 11, 4:04 PM ET World - Reuters by Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq (news - web sites) but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. "The equipment -- including high-precision milling and turning machines and electron-beam welders -- and materials -- such as high-strength aluminum -- were tagged by the IAEA years ago, as part of the watchdog agency's shutdown of Iraq's nuclear program. U.N. inspectors then monitored the sites until their evacuation from Iraq just before the war. The United States barred the inspectors' return after the war, preventing the IAEA from keeping tabs on the equipment and materials up to the present day." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #19 October 12, 2004 >He can't give it to anyone!!! You all said he doesn't have it. He certainly had equipment to do some nuclear research. Hell, I have equipment that can be used to do nuclear research in my lab. He admitted to having it, we knew he had it and the UN was watching it. A while back the same thing happened to some uranium he had declared to the UN. The UN was watching it (it was in a sealed vault) but they left when we said we were going to invade. We invaded, opened the vault, left, and it all got stolen. Score: terrorists 2, US 0. Smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #20 October 12, 2004 QuoteDamn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. HAHAHAHAHA! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #21 October 12, 2004 QuoteSeems to me like it would have made a lot more sense to simply order up some surgical strikes against the facilities and not invade at all. Um..*ahem* Seems to me that firing weapons into a sovereign nation is an act of war, and so even if we didn't put troops on the ground, we'd be "at war" with Iraq if we had done that, too. QuoteDoing it the way we have done it means that now people have facilities at their disposal, but we have no idea where that is. I am missing some leap you're making here: Why is it that going to war with Iraq is what is responsible for not knowing where the nuclear equipment has gone off to? If were were not at war with Iraq, we'd have even less presence in the area -- so how would that have given us a better handle on where his nuke stuff was? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #22 October 12, 2004 QuoteAs it turned out, the top priority after the invasion was to secure oil fields. Well gee, forgive us if we learned a lesson from 1991 that that motherfuckin' psychopath Hussein just might order the IGNITION of the oil wells again like he did over a decade ago, fucking with the entire world through the toxification of the atmosphere and the wanton destruction of billions of gallons of oil resources. Yes, we should apologize to the fuckin' nations of the world for making sure that didn't happen a SECOND time... -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #23 October 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteDamn. Good thing we invaded to keep Saddam from giving that equipment to terrorists. He can't give it to anyone!!! You all said he doesn't have it Laugh Out fuckin' Loud!!!!! See? Liberals can't STAND to not have it both ways!! They can't help themselves! Now they're mad at the fact that the war has caused stuff they insist Hussein did not have to go missing!! Un-fuckin' real! To the liberals here: HOW do you explain this?? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #24 October 12, 2004 You've actually read this thread and the responces to that question already -- no?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #25 October 12, 2004 QuoteMon Oct 11, 4:04 PM ET World - Reuters by Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq (news - web sites) but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. OOOH! A "U.N. watchdog agency"!! Let's ask them about the Food for Oil program, and who is now sitting on the billions of dollars embezzled from that fiasco. U.N. watchdogs are the same impotent jerkoffs who couldn't get Saddam Hussein to LET them ("Oh pweeze, pweeze, Mr. Hussein!") inspect for WMD during the 12 years of laughable "sanctions"! They have all the credibility of a street rat informant who's going away for 10-15 if he doesn't give somebody up. QuoteThe United States barred the inspectors' return after the war, preventing the IAEA from keeping tabs on the equipment and materials up to the present day. It wouldn't surprise me if the shit was disappearing while the inspectors were "keeping tabs" on it. If the U.N. is corrupt enough to steal the food-for-oil money, why not sell off expensive nuclear technology?? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
