U.S. Removes Iraqi Nuclear and Radiological Materials; Joint Operation Conducted with U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040706/pl_usnw/u_s__removes_iraqi_nuclear_and_radiological_materi als__joint_operation_conducted_with_u_s__departmen ts_of_energy_and_defense145)


"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Secretary Abraham said. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."


Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility. The DOD airlifted the material to the United States on June 23 and provided security, coordination, planning, ground transportation, and funding for the mission.


so... the first major catch
there were other minor catches... one from a few weeks ago when some radioactive shells were found but the media did not think of this as very important so they didn't bother emphasizing it
but this is a big catch. 1.77 tons. that's huge.

what will the insane left say? "planted evidence"? "zionist conspiracy"? maybe something even more outrageous... it wouldn't really surprise me though.

i like the timing of this thing... as we get closer to the elections, i suspect we will be hearing more and more of similar news

How many dirty bombs does that make?

I'm rather confused. It seems as if this material was not in the form of any weapon. It was just there.

That doesn't really sound like a WMD.

So what? They found radiaoactive material in a nuclear research facility, what a surprise.
It could also be used to build a power plant, and not only weapons. I suppose many countries have these kinds of facilities with similar content.

I heard that the US even has Nuclear bombs!

Yeah, perhaps we should go and liberate them :D

So you're telling us that they've found nuclear material in a nuclear research facility? Now, this may just be me, but what else would you find in a nuclear research facility? Marshmallows? Piggies?

How does having nuclear material count as weapons of mass destruction? It's like arresting me for possesion of a bullet but no gun.

Woo, great find //sarcasm detector promtly explodes

one ton of non-weapons grade uranium? Yeah, what a bombshell that is. Didn't Colin Powell and Tony Blair tell us they could launch NBC attacks within minuets of an order given by Saddam? Don't worry, I'm sure we will find that secret volcano lair from which Saddam was planning on ransoming the world for one.... Million dollars. Once we see the death ray, or moon magnet that Saddam was going to use on the world we will all be sorry we questioned a rush to war that was based on no evidence at all.

If you are going to post a thread called "WMD found. really." then please try to make sure you arn't so much of a conservative screw so that the title can sound ironic, or make sure the linked article shows evidence of WMDs being found.

I'm sure we will find that secret volcano lair from which Saddam was planning on randsoming the world for one.... Million dollars.

Hope he had more luck with that moon model than Dr Evil :p

In responce to SpyMoose's comments I have made the following image in Photoshop!

Enjoy ;)

http://www.bbfree.com/gathering/uploads/post-18-1089197968.jpg

very well done, but shouldn't it be like this?

http://sciforums.*******************/saddam-bald.jpg

Nope, you need his hair, it's like his trademark (next to the moustache, mass murders, palace and zimmer frame)

Aha...I can remember an old one I did on his WMD:

http://www.*******************/gifs/images/gif4.html


And I found Saddam's current hidden location for his dirty nuclear missiles:

http://sciforums.*******************/saddam1.gif

lmao.

could the US not just start collection dust from around burned out tanks and such, and if radioactive declare it as evidence that neclear weapons was used in Iraq.

How much radiation (if any) does depleted uranium shells emit?

it was said Iraq didn't even have a nuclear program... u mean that was a Saddam lie?
did the UN inspectors know about this 1.77-ton radioacive material, made a little checkmark, and moved on?

why is this not on CNN right now!
it's beginning to look like a bloody left-wing media conspiracy!!
they didn't report on the shell found a few weeks ago, they aren't reporting this right now.. what WILL they report about?
oh, wait, i know:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0604/0602/disbleat/dis3.jpghttp://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0604/0602/disbleat/dis4.jpg

and

http://a.abcnews.com/media/WNT/images/abc_wnt_abuse_photo_040519_nh.jpg

please explain this to me :eek:

one ton of non-weapons grade uranium? Yeah, what a bombshell that is
actually it's closer to 2 tons. and it was weapons-grade. not nuclear-weapons-grade, but it's good enough for a dirty bomb. good enough to load up on a UAV or a rocket and bomb away

So you're telling us that they've found nuclear material in a nuclear research facility? ... what else would you find in a nuclear research facility?
Saddam was not supposed to have the 1) nuke facility, 2) nuke materials :m:

are you people for real? how can you dismiss this?

How can we dismiss this? Easy. Unless they planned on hurling the material at US Troops I can't see what harm it can do. Since there is no evidence of a WMD creation process there is no cause for concern. AND if this were true why isn't Bush shouting it from the rooftops say 'Hey bitches, told ya I was right!'

Too little, too late. A dirty bomb is not a WMD, the actual physical threat of a dirty bomb is very small.

...and the only ones that attacked us are still free!

Unless they planned on hurling the material at US Troops I can't see what harm it can do
so in your opinion the existence of a nuclear program is dismissable... and it was OK for Saddam to have it even though there were countless UNSCRs telling him to scrap it?
it would've been "bad" only if US soldiers were attacked with this? is that what you're saying?

Since there is no evidence of a WMD creation process there is no cause for concern
this is WMD, as far as i'm concerned. is a dirty bomb not classified as WMD? so it wasn't installed on a weapon yet.. how hard is that to do? that's the easiest part

why isn't Bush shouting it from the rooftops say 'Hey bitches, told ya I was right!'
maybe he should. i've heard of a project of creating a news network specifically to broadcast army news. if that was in place, the world would see everything teh army was doing, not just what CNN and BBC tells you about what the army is doing (or in this case, does not tell you)

i don't know why he isn't screaming on top of his lungs. maybe he has faith in the media? who knows...
maybe he IS saying something
Rumsfeld talked about the finding of the shells with the Sarin, Mustard gas and deplteded uranium... on several occasions... no body seemed to care or to emphasize it...

so maybe something WAS mentioned but no body in the press bothered to print it

Saddam was not supposed to have the 1) nuke facility, 2) nuke materials
are you people for real? how can you dismiss this?

Did you even read the article you posted, you dimwit?

The nuclear research complex, now under the responsibility of the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, was once a central institution for Iraq's nuclear weapons program before being dismantled in the early 1990s, following the first Gulf War

This is material everybody has known about since the first gulf war. Transporting it out of Iraq is probably is more dangerous than leaving it there.

Here it is. After a 1.2 minute google search, I found this BBC Report (Jan. 2000) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/613099.stm) :

The team, which is expected to remain in Iraq for only a few days, will inspect the materials left under seal in a warehouse when the IAEA and Unscom monitors left the country.
"There's about 1.8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium still left in the country and quite a lot of natural uranium," IAEA spokesman David Kyd told the BBC.
"We've got to check that it's all there and accounted for," he said.
The material cannot be used to make bombs in its current state.

Please get more info next time and then make a bold statement like this.

Still no WMDs...

considering the Russian intelligence that Putin was talking about (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html), this is good news and justifies everything. even though it's not "weapons grade" and no "nuke"

also, let's not forget the sarin, mustard gas, and depleted uranium shells that were found

why are you dismissing this?

A dirty bomb is not a WMD, the actual physical threat of a dirty bomb is very small
what is the definition of "mass" destruction?
what is a "very small" threat?

are you prepared to be attacked by a "very small" rocket carrying radioactive material?


Please get more info next time and then make a bold statement like this.
this may not be a nuke or a rocket loaded with this stuff, but it is getting closer.

Saddam was planning to attack US both inside and outside her borders. he had this radioactive material, UAVs, sarin, mastard gas, depleted uranium shells, and who knows what else (remains to be seen)

somebody had made an analogy of finding the bullet without the gun
i like that analogy. Saddam had both the guns, and, now we find out, the bullets too.

US DoE steals Iraqi uranium

In yet another demonstration of journalistic malpractice, this announcement from the US Department of Energy is reported by the AP (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/157526.html) with no analysis or background information:

Washington (AP) - In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

I'm sure Spencer would prefer we not dredge up this story from the May 22 NY Times, but that's just too damn bad:

U.S. considering moving 500 tons of uranium from Iraq (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html)

VIENNA – The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure location outside Iraq, Western diplomats close to the agency say.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has taken the position that the uranium is Iraqi property and the agency "cannot give them permission to remove it," a diplomat said.

The diplomat said the United States was highly unlikely to be deterred by that position and that U.S. officials had contacted the agency on the matter this year, before the Iraq insurgency flared last month.

Wow, Spencie, what a "major achievement!" You moved less than two tons of uranium out of Iraq - just enough to get a headline about "uranium" associated with Iraq, further confusing The Clueless Bush Base (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1166484/posts?page=51,40), which thinks anything radioactive is WMD - so there are only 498 tons left. Let us know when you get the rest out, OK? Then the Iraqis can charge us for stealing their uranium. And, about that remaining uranium which was looted because you guys failed to guard it, has it been secured or is it still being trucked out of Iraq (http://ancapistan.typepad.com/unfairwitness/2004/04/iraq_exports_ra.html)?

From April 16 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/iraq/main612333.shtml):
Iraq's nuclear facilities remain unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.
[...]
According to ElBaradei's letter, satellite imagery shows "extensive removal of equipment and in some instances, removal of entire buildings," in Iraq.

Oh, well, the Occupation has only had a year or so to secure those sites, so it's good to see that they're finally getting around to it and just in time to keep "terrorists" from making a dirty bomb out of all that radioactive stuff laying around in Iraq! The whole world just got a little safer after Spencer's major achievement.

from http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1121_0_1_0_C

this is WMD, as far as i'm concerned. is a dirty bomb not classified as WMD? You seem to misunderstand that MASS destruction is needed to be a WMD.

The problem is they found a stockpile of stuff which they knew he had, but no signs of it being used in weapons. What exactly did you want him to do with it? Dump it in the ocean? Bury it?

Then you'd be screaming 'Iraqs hidden WMDs found'

Fertilizer can also be made into a weapon; its mere presence doesn't indicate anything other then its mere presence.

So ... how many dirty bombs could that make?

Anyone? Anyone?

Guesses are fine.

(Edit: Nice link, dsdsds ... thanks for clearing it up quickly.)

The Bush administration has been from the beginning and still is desparate to find WMD. The have been exposed in lies and want out of the situation. Until I see very strong evidence I will take all rumors with a grain of salt.

That link by dsdsds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/613099.stm brings up the question why the news wire otheadp posted did not mention details of the history of the find. Perhaps they wanted people like otheadp to take it out of context in support of the American junta's propaganda. Good show otheadp, you have demonstrated your ability to be a dupe.

So ... how many dirty bombs could that make?

Anyone? Anyone?

Guesses are fine.



One very heavy one, Tiassa, one very heavy one indeed.

The threat from dirty bombs is disruption, not destruction. Everyone would be afraid of the (small) possibility to get cancer, that they would avoid the area, cleanup would be expensive, and time consuming. Anyway, this radioactive material was NOT SECRET, therefore, we could not accuse Saddam of hiding potential weapons in this case. There is radioactive material in almost every hospital, should we invade them too?

There is radioactive material in almost every hospital, should we invade them too?

According to the articles posted a lot of this removed radioactive material was from medical industrial and farm equipment. This stuff has legitimate uses, but we are robbing Iraq of this valuable stuff and the media is presenting it as us removing a WMD threat. Yeah, that’s a big liberal bias. :rolleyes:

Apparently the Uranium was in a guarded IAEA warehouse in sealed containers? Does that mean it wasn't even technically in Iraqi hands before we invaded?

One very heavy one, Tiassa, one very heavy one indeed.

I already tipped my punchline elsewhere, but I was hoping someone would point out the small amount of radiological material needed for a dirty bomb, because there's a lot of them there, and it occurs to me that in all that's gone on over the last decade-plus, none of that material was sold to Al Qaeda.

Which, of course, is further evidence that Saddam Hussein was integral to 9/11.

You know ... if the Bush administration believes it, they ought to seek an indictment.

Anyway, back to the topic ... um ... yeah. Okay, that's it. I'm out for now.

Wasn't the actual (original) stated reason for going into Iraq, because Saddam had been refusing to allow any UN weapons inspections since cousin Bill's administration? An agreement broken from the original gulf war? Funny, I remember seeing David Kay (UN) throwing a Wal-eyeed fit in Iraq (on C-span, over the years, only to backtrack, blame Busch, & bullshit later).

Was it not about the fact that the UN had resolved that Iraq (Saddam) had broken the original terms of the surrender in 1991, in combination with 911, that led to the final invasion of Irag?

Where/when did Busch actually say that the US was going to invade because THERE WERE WMD'S?

Didn't he actually say that Iraq would be invaded because Saddam had continously refused to allow multi-national (UN) inspections for WMD'S?

Didn't Saddam refuse to agree to allow for WMD inspections, right up to the day the the US finally invaded Iraq?

No intelligence community said conclusively that there WERE WMD'S. Not once. And even if they had, I have to ask what would you do if you were told these things by the intelligence specialists? Would you hop on a SR-71 Blackbird (or an AURORA) & be the Commando Prez (like BILL) & see for your self? Doubtful.

Yop, HowardStern is right. There were no WMD's and Bush never said there were (if you remember otherwise, doublethink). We went to war with Saddam because he was an evil dictator and we always support democracy everywhere (keep doublethinking...). Not only that, but he was a terrible person and even killed his own people! What a monster! We could not possibly allow him to remain in power (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer)!
(Thanks, HowardStern, for such a great example of doublethink for all of us!)

What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying Colin Powell didn't sit in front of the UN Security Council and present evideince of WMDs in Iraq for hours?

Below is a list of all the times Bush and the administration and British officials declared that Iraq has WMDs. Yeesh.

Nov 2001 Pentagon official Richard Perle: "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."
11 Mar 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "The threat that Saddam Hussein poses is an issue in its own right, because the reason why the UN Security Council passed these resolutions was precisely because we know the threat that there is from the weapons of mass destruction that he has."
26 Aug 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
4 Sep 2002 Senator Joseph Lieberman declares: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."
18 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
19 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the Senate Armed Services Commitee: "There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few -- but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."
24 Sep 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "His weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running... The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."
7 Oct 2002 During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Riner Steinhoff Soccer Complex in Alamogordo, New Mexico, President George W Bush declares: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction."
28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."
31 Oct 2002 During a speech at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: "This is a guy who's used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he's used them."
1 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Pease International Tradeport Airport in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons."
2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the University of South Florida, President George W Bush declares: "He's a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does."
2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Cobb Galleria Centre in Atlanta, Georgia, President George W Bush declares: "He's a threat to America, he's a threat to our close friends and allies. He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them... Not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction."
2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Tri-Cities Regional Tn/Va Airport in Blountville, Tennessee, President George W Bush declares: "He told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction -- 11 years ago he said that. He's got them... We know that this is a man who has chemical weapons, and we know he's used them."
3 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Illinois Police Academy in Springfield, Illinois, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them. He's a man that not only has weapons of mass destruction, he's used them."
3 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, President George W Bush declares: "This is a man who not only has got chemical weapons, I want you to remind your friends and neighbors, that he has used chemical weapons."
3 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Sioux Falls Convention Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them... It's a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he's used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors."
4 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Family Center in St. Louis, Missouri, President George W Bush declares: "He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons; he's got them."
4 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, President George W Bush declares: "This is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, promised he wouldn't have them. He's got them... He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
4 Nov 2002 During a speech at Southern Methodist University, President George W Bush declares: "He has weapons of mass destruction. At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."
7 Nov 2002 During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: "Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."
13 Nov 2002 Condoleezza Rice declares: "He already has other weapons of mass destruction. But a nuclear weapon, two or three our four years from now -- I don't care where it is, when it is -- to have that happen in a volatile region like the Middle East is most certainly a future that we cannot tolerate."
2 Dec 2002 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
9 Jan 2003 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "We know for a fact there are weapons there."
10 Jan 2003 Senate majority leader Bill Frist tells Capital Report: "I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that's been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq."
20 Jan 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons... His regime is paying a high price to pursue weapons of mass destruction -- giving up billions of dollars in oil revenue. His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."
20 Jan 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "It should be noted that biological weapons -- which Iraq and North Korea both possess -- can be as deadly, and arguably more immediate a danger -- because they are simpler and cheaper and deliver, and are even more readily transferred to terrorist networks than are nuclear weapons."
22 Jan 2003 Senate majority leader Bill Frist tells The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: "What is unique about Iraq compared to, I would argue, any other country in the world, in this juncture, is the exhaustion of diplomacy thus far, and, No. 2, this intersection of weapons of mass destruction."
5 Feb 2003 Senator Hillary Clinton declares: "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

Wasn't the actual (original) stated reason for going into Iraq, because Saddam had been refusing to allow any UN weapons inspections since cousin Bill's administration?

I agree with this statement, by the way. I just don't accept revisionism. Yes, the WMD reasoning came a bit later than the other reasoning, but it was definitely used.

The article clearly states that this site was well known, and that it had been taken out of commission over 10 years ago.

"...was once a central institution for Iraq's nuclear weapons program before being dismantled in the early 1990s, following the first Gulf War..."

Additionally, a lot of the materials that were removed from the site weren't even associated with it. The DOD had been gathering any radiological sources they found across Iraq and storing them there.

"The complex was also the consolidation point for highly radioactive sources collected by the Department of Defense with assistance by employees of the Ministry of Science and Technology within Iraq over the last year."

Of course these materials presented a hazard for a radiological weapon (dirty bomb), no argument with that.

I hope everyone realizes that the acquisition of low-enriched uranium as was found in this facility is actually the easiest part of the bomb-building process. The REAL challenge is developing the facilities to enrich those materials and then to manufacture the device. Those processes are extremely complex and costly, requiring millions of dollars worth of high-precision machine tools to make the bomb structure, and a top-echelon engineering staff to design and manufacture the triggering devices.

I have heard nothing whatsoever about finding any facilities even remotely close to that level in Iraq.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying Colin Powell didn't sit in front of the UN Security Council and present evideince of WMDs in Iraq for hours?If was a joke. 'Doublethink' is the ability to know one thing happened, but believe that it didn't because the government told you so. It is rewriting history with the public being willing participants in the practice. Not sure if it was in Farhenheit 411 or 1984. I think it was 1984.

Lol! You mean HowardStern and Gro$$ were just being sarcastic?

(sigh) Okay, I was "had". Still trying to learn the ropes around here, lol.

Nope, just Gro$$ was being sarcastic.

Howardstern is a nutcase.

Welcome to the asylum Pangloss:)

Hehe, okay thanks. Sorry Gro$$.

Persol,

Fahrenheit 451

Everyone,

Was these supposed WMD material pre-documented in the Iraqi reports to the inspectors or to the US just before the war?

"Doublethink" was a "Newspeak" term from 1984

It was just that I had never heard of a book call "Farhenheit 411", though I do remember reading "Farhenheit 451" and yes "Doublethink" was from 1984.

back to the issue though...

I think the issue is dead... perhaps a new question? What would we consider WMDs? Does the construction of whatever weapon actualy have to be complete?

It wouldn't have to be complete IMO, but it has to be a little newer then a facility that was torn apart 10 years ago. A complete weapon would be best, but partial weapons were being worked on just before the invasion took place would work too. New materials would be a good find also (such as the missle tubes) but not nearly as good as the weapons.

Imo the US has to find so called "stockpiles" of Iraqi WMD, which she supposedly had.

Nope, just Gro$$ was being sarcastic.

Howardstern is a nutcase.

Welcome to the asylum Pangloss:)


Maybe I am a nutcase, but I know the facts. I know what led up to the war. You, on the other hand, are a lying piece of Sh*t, or just a mind numb robot for the DNC/Socialist Partyhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif.

Didn't he actually say that Iraq would be invaded because Saddam had continously refused to allow multi-national (UN) inspections for WMD'S?

Uuum yeah, except for Hans Blix and his pack of cronies. Oops. If inspections were the problem here, then I’m thinking we wouldn’t have decided to have the UN withdraw the inspectors so that we could get our invasion on.

I saw (on c-span) David Kay, in Iraq, raising hell on multiple occassions & being refused entry into hidden Iraq bases, and being threatened by Iraq Army regulars. I also watched him testify to congress that he could not carry out the inspections because Saddam's people wouldn't allow it, without at least 24 hours prior notice. This was in the Clinton years, so I'm not surprised that you Socialists have forgotten about that. Besides, I'm sure your mamma's at CNN (The Communist News Network) didn't let you suckle from that udder.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/leaf.gifFREE THE WEEDhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/leaf.gif

I'm not surprised that you Socialists have forgotten about that. Besides, I'm sure your mamma's at CNN (The Communist News Network) didn't let you suckle from that udder.

Now, where exactly are you coming from with any of this? You're awfully aggressive about reiterating your own rather bizarre and as far as I can see, baseless attacks against the posters at this forum.

I saw (on c-span) David Kay, in Iraq, raising hell on multiple occassions & being refused entry into hidden Iraq bases, and being threatened by Iraq Army regulars. I also watched him testify to congress that he could not carry out the inspections because Saddam's people wouldn't allow it, without at least 24 hours prior notice. This was in the Clinton years, so I'm not surprised that you Socialists have forgotten about that. Besides, I'm sure your mamma's at CNN (The Communist News Network) didn't let you suckle from that udder.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/leaf.gifFREE THE WEEDhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/leaf.gif

I could not agree more.

no, wait, it's total crap but you did get the "free the weed" part right.

"where exactly are you coming from with any of this?"

It seems partly tongue-in-cheek, but also a lingering case of Cold War conditioning: It's comforting for some to recoil from the complex, dynamic political realities, toward a simple fantasy of the past, reviving the buzzwords of an era that may seem easier to understand, and have a position on, in superficial retrospect.

Communist?, Socialist? Howard the cold war end 15 years ago, paranoid delusions of being surrounded by commies are not normal anymore.

so... the first major catch
there were other minor catches... one from a few weeks ago when some radioactive shells were found but the media did not think of this as very important so they didn't bother emphasizing it


well actually the media also did not bother reporting about the attempt to planted evidence of WMDs (the attempt failed) largely due to censorship. so i suspect this is more BULLSHIT

Welcome, Uzi. A pity you're not a Zionist. I like picking on them. Do you know any? If so, please invite them: They are woefully under-represented in these "intelligent communities", and it would be more entertaining if otheadp could have more compadres here, where I presently find myself mostly "preaching to the choir".

well actually the media also did not bother reporting about the attempt to planted evidence of WMDs (the attempt failed) largely due to

What attempt?

The successful attempt that resulted in the occupation of Iraq. This included continuously sealed and monitored uranium stockpiles, forged Nigerian yellowcake documents, meteorology trailers ("mobile bioweapons labs"), aluminum tubes, old mustard gas shells, etc. etc. all part of a US/British terrorist plot.

Oh I see. I thought he was referring to something that might have taken place on the ground in Iraq recently. Thanks.

an american attempt to plant evidence in Iraq a few months ago was foiled.

It sounds like you have something specific in mind. Do you have any more details?

I'd be interested in hearing more info on that too, I'd expect that to be a huge story.

I guess it's not such a huge story after all....