peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 October 12, 2004 QuoteYou've actually read this thread and the responces to that question already -- no? Do you mean the part where the potential for Hussein to have gotten "fissile materials" on the black market from, say, the former Soviet Union, or other parties, was glossed right over? Yeah, I read that part. -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
nigel99 151 #27 October 12, 2004 PJ the report is based on the fact that PRIOR to invasion the UN was monitoring these sights - now entire BUILDINGS have disappeared. Bush has goofed this one and there is no defending it...Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #28 October 12, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #29 October 12, 2004 fox news?!? hmm now let me see.... isn't that the same channel GWB used to cheat his way into office. didn't fox news claim he had won the election when he hadn't at all oh and next thing he is president. oh then he was fighting his fathers(or should i say familys) war again,the main country the world has to watch out for is the united states they seem to be claiming they run the world already!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #30 October 12, 2004 "The IAEA said in its letter that U.S. and Iraqi officials have not reported dismantling any sites relevant to Iraq's nuclear program. Anti-proliferation agreements say that the United States, which administered Iraq until June 2004, and the Iraqi interim government, which took over from the United States in June, must inform the IAEA of any import or export of such materials and equipment." So the USA may be in breach of non-proliferation treaties by their inability to maintain a secure grasp of dangerous materials in Iraq (yep the coalition is responsible for the security of the country they occupied, Geneva conventions folks). All the time I thought the coalition invaded becuase they feared that dangerous materials would be passed to terrorists. How ironic. >edit< I guess we're okay as long as its not any of those nukular thingies that worry some folks so much.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 October 12, 2004 Quotefox news?!? hmm now let me see.... isn't that the same channel GWB used to cheat his way into office. didn't fox news claim he had won the election when he hadn't at all oh and next thing he is president. oh then he was fighting his fathers(or should i say familys) war again,the main country the world has to watch out for is the united states they seem to be claiming they run the world already! Oh, a Michael Moore(on) fan I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #32 October 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou've actually read this thread and the responces to that question already -- no? Do you mean the part where the potential for Hussein to have gotten "fissile materials" on the black market from, say, the former Soviet Union, or other parties, was glossed right over? Yeah, I read that part. -Jeffrey He probably couldn't get fissile materials from the same people that he didn't get missile parts from. I wonder why he was trading oil for missile parts. Probably for the missile program that he wasn't developing. He seems like such a nice guy, he can be trusted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #33 October 12, 2004 OMG the sky is falling!!! Iraqi official denies nuclear material vanishing Science minister says U.N. inspectors welcome to visit facilities http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6228800/ -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #34 October 12, 2004 QuoteIraq's nuclear equipment is missing... Wait a minute, I'm confused... The Democrats have been saying that President Bush lied about his justification for going to war against Iraq, saying that it had no weapons of mass destruction, nor any programs to make them. And now they're saying that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb! There are two possibilities here: 1) They're lying about President Bush's motive for war, or; 2) They're lying about the nuclear equipment. If there wasn't any effort by Hussein to build a nuclear bomb, then there wouldn't be any of this equipment that they now say is missing. Which is it? It can't be both ways. I wish the anti-Bush people would make up their minds! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #35 October 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteIraq's nuclear equipment is missing... Wait a minute, I'm confused... The Democrats have been saying that President Bush lied about his justification for going to war against Iraq, saying that it had no weapons of mass destruction, nor any programs to make them. And now they're saying that Iraq was working on a nuclear bomb! There are two possibilities here: 1) They're lying about President Bush's motive for war, or; 2) They're lying about the nuclear equipment. If there wasn't any effort by Hussein to build a nuclear bomb, then there wouldn't be any of this equipment that they now say is missing. Which is it? It can't be both ways. I wish the anti-Bush people would make up their minds! You could try reading the article before jumping in with a silly response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #36 October 12, 2004 Funny how according to the liberals Iraq didn't have the ability nor the equipment to produce nuclear weapons. The liberals in this thread alone trying to explain this is absolutely hysterical. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #37 October 12, 2004 QuoteYou could try reading the article before jumping in with a silly response. hmmm...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #38 October 12, 2004 QuoteYou could try reading the article before jumping in with a silly response. What about it is silly? I think it's a valid argument. I said the same thing when I heard it. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 October 12, 2004 QuoteYou could try reading the article before jumping in with a silly response. What is silly is your attempt to try and dismiss my argument simply by calling it silly, without any supporting explanation or counterpoints.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #40 October 13, 2004 For god´s shake, it is not so complicated. What has been stolen is some material that can be used to develope a WMD but mostly it is used for civilian purposes. When the U.N. inspectors where there they were closely watching to make sure it was only used for civilian purposes. Now that they have been stolen, you can bet it will be given the other use by however have them. So Bush lied when he said that there was WMD and Bush lied when he said that there was plans to make WMD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #41 October 13, 2004 QuoteBush lied when he said that there was plans to make WMD. Not the comprehending sort, huh? You have no clue what that was designed for. You're pawning off your opinion as fact. Not a good idea. Only makes people come off uneducated. That equipment could have very well been used to make nuclear weapons. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #42 October 13, 2004 >Not the comprehending sort, huh? Attack the idea, not the person. The usual one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #43 October 13, 2004 You didn´t follow the link, right? you should have read the web page before posting. Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace Where do you get from this that its only purpose was to make WMD or that they were being used for that task? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #44 October 13, 2004 QuoteWhere do you get from this that its only purpose was to make WMD or that they were being used for that task? Where did I say that? Here, since you insist on misquoting me I'll paste what I said. I said, "That equipment could have very well been used to make nuclear weapons." And now we'll look at a quote from the very article you quoted. "Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq" Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #45 October 13, 2004 "Grey cells that could have been used for solving the unified field theory are disappearing from by brain (because of this thread)."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #46 October 13, 2004 Quote"Grey cells that could have been used for solving the unified field theory are disappearing from by brain (because of this thread)." Got a cold there, Paul? ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop806 0 #47 October 13, 2004 QuoteAs it turned out, the top priority after the invasion was to secure oil fields. If this is about the evil America invading Iraq for the oil...I say this: Where is the oil?? Have you paid for gas lately? Have you watched oil prices rise steadily? That's what's so funny about the liberals: Make outrageous charges about this war, that THEY fully supported as well...and then come up with stupid conspiracy theories about oil, etc. Then, they have a fit about the US trying to drill for oil in the ANWR...oh, but let's not forget..that they (including Mr. Kerry himself) drive around in SUV's, and fly corporate jets, etc... Now, let's talk about security...but wait, that's another topic.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #48 October 13, 2004 See . . . even more grey cells gone, totally gone!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #49 October 13, 2004 QuoteFunny how according to the liberals Iraq didn't have the ability nor the equipment to produce nuclear weapons. Yes, and now they're all worried about who now has the equipment to produce nuclear weapons -- which Iraq "didn't have," -- now that the nonexistent equipment has "disappeared." Amazing how liberals can be worried about the disposition of things they say never existed. Well, whatever's efficacious at the moment for use in trying to discredit the opposition, I guess... -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
nigel99 151 #50 October 13, 2004 I don't think many anti-war people on dz.com have denied that in the past Saddam a) Had WMD at some point b) Had WMD facilities at some point This article clearly states that the articles in question had UN seal on them PRIOR to the war to show that they had not been tampered with accessed without UN approval... There is no discrepency with the anti-war argument WMD facilities that had been disabled by the UN and subsequently monitored proves that they were "safe" facilities and not a threat.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
