Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKS\/\/ulfe on October 12, 2004, 09:33:48 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html
How very odd. I'm sure this can be explained away....
-SW
-
Haliburton has them and is trying to get a good price for them in Iran.
:)
-
But..but...Iraq was NO THREAT to the world! ;)
-
But, but
But a CIA report released last week by chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer concluded that Hussein terminated his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991.
And, but but... WMD, where?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
But, but
But a CIA report released last week by chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer concluded that Hussein terminated his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991.
And, but but... WMD, where?
-SW
He terminated the program AND material is missing?
Make up your mind.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
But..but...Iraq was NO THREAT to the world! ;)
Ripsnort, finaly something! ;)
-
You sure don't read too well Martlet.
That's a CIA report.
I've got computer parts all around me, they aren't a computer though.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You sure don't read too well Martlet.
That's a CIA report.
I've got computer parts all around me, they aren't a computer though.
-SW
So he HAD the PIECES of a nuke program, he was just being a good boy and not using them. :aok
-
He had pieces of something. Not everything nuclear related equates to weapons.
Even if it were for a program, Iran is well beyond where Saddam was.
So, let's invade Iraq!
-SW
-
Errrm... I think that's been done already.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
He had pieces of something. Not everything nuclear related equates to weapons.
Even if it were for a program, Iran is well beyond where Saddam was.
So, let's invade Iraq!
-SW
The "Iraq did/didnt have a nuke program the did/didn't disappear" argument isn't working out for you, so now you change the topic to Iran?
At least start a new thread to hide your true agenda. Don't make it so obvious. Here, I'll help you.
DETH TO AMEREEEKA! BUSCH=HITLER!
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
And, but but... WMD, where?
-SW
Think "pre-emptive". Would you rather find them in your harbor in 2006 had Saddam gone unchecked?
Remember, this is a guy that lit oil wells off in 1991 to make the world pay for forcing him out off Kuwait, he wanted to kill of the planet.
Think "Nutcase".
-
If a program isn't active, it doesn't have one.
Here, I'll help you Martlet:
Originally posted by Martlet
I am sofa king we tawdid
Ripsnort, naturally, you are basing that opinion off of conjecture and improbabilities.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
If a program isn't active, it doesn't have one.
Here, I'll help you Martlet:
Ripsnort, naturally, you are basing that opinion off of conjecture and improbabilities.
-SW
Ahhh, so we're back to "They had the pieces of a nuclear program, they were just being good boys and not using them".
:aok
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Ripsnort, naturally, you are basing that opinion off of conjecture and improbabilities.
-SW
Naturally Israel was basing them off conjecture and improbabilities in 1982, but you were probably still riding a tricycle then....
-
No, you are arriving at that one.
Pressure was applied for them to not use them.
Ripsnort, wow - I didn't know Israel invaded Iraq. I also didn't know there were UN inspectors poking around in Iraq in 1982.
This is amazing, I'm getting one helluva great history lesson here.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, you are arriving at that one.
Pressure was applied for them to not use them.
So they HAD the pieces of a nuke program, but they were PRESSURED into not using them, then they disappeared.
I get it. We couldn't pressure them into letting us their program, but we could pressure them into not using it.
Riiiiiiight.:aok
-
And another thing, we went in there to get rid of - as in prevent them from being used - bio, chem and nuclear weapons... hell, even the agents that could potentially used to make them.
We found very little chemical, very little biological, and no nuclear because the nuclear grew legs and ran off.
How fantastic, we're doing a great job of keeping that stuff out of the hands of terrorists.
-SW
-
Yeah Martlet, it's amazing that it disappeared well after we invaded.
Prior to this, they were pieces not being used.
Now, well who the **** knows.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah Martlet, it's amazing that it disappeared well after we invaded.
Prior to this, they were pieces not being used.
Now, well who the **** knows.
-SW
Nah, what I find amazing is that you believe he had pieces for a nuke program that he wasn't using because he was a good boy, but wouldn't let us inspect them to make sure.
:aok
-
Duelfer report supports Bush's view (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/12/EDGII95N7I1.DTL)
Anyone else read this?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Ripsnort, wow - I didn't know Israel invaded Iraq. I also didn't know there were UN inspectors poking around in Iraq in 1982.
This is amazing, I'm getting one helluva great history lesson here.
-SW
Sorry, it was 1981. Never too late to learn though Wulfe. Stick around, you might learn something.
At 6:35 p.m. local time on 7 June 1981 eight Israeli F-16 Falcons appeared out of the sunset approaching al-Tuwaitha. In 80 seconds 13 bombs blew a hole in the concrete dome of Tammuz-1 and exploded inside, completely demolishing the reactor core, and the reactor building down to its foundations. The attack was carried out before the reactor had gone critical so no radiation was released. It was still some time before the reactor would have begun operation - the enriched uranium fuel had not been loaded in the reactor, and was unharmed by the attack.
Operation Babylon - the Israeli attack on Tammuz-1 was carried out by eight F-16s and six F-15 Eagles to provide air cover. This was the longest range attack in Israeli Air Force history, 1100 km, at the extreme limit of combat range of the F-16 fighter-bombers. Mid-air refueling could not be carried out for the return leg of the mission, since they might be pursued by hostile fighter, so the F-16s had to be "clean" (i.e. in a minimum drag configuration). At the time of the attack it was widely reported that laser guided bombs had been used, given the precision of the bombing: one bomb blew a hole in the reactor containment vessel, the other bombs were lobbed through the hole, only one bomb fell elsewhere (this was repeated for example in [Ostrovsky and Hoy 1990]). In fact laser guided bombs were not used, the drag produced by the laser designator pods was too much. Instead it was simply carried out by precision visual bombing.
The attack was carried out at sunset. There were several advantages to this timing. The attack came out of the setting sun, minimizing the opportunity for Iraqi air defenses at the site to detect them visually. The target easy to spot for visual attack with the near-horizontal sunlight illuminating the light colored dome for the approaching F-16s. But the principal reason that Israel has given for the time of day for the attack timing was that if any aircraft were lost it would permit the Israelis to conduct search-and-rescue missions under the cover of darkness. Also Israel has emphasized that it planned the attack to minimize casualties - attacking the reactor before it began operation and became radioactive, and when its civilian operators were expected to be absent.
Hamza provides a very useful Iraqi view of the attack. One interesting revelation he offers is that the Iraqi missile battery was shut down at the time. The crew had the habit of taking dinner and leaving their post at 6 p.m., shutting off the missile radar. The Israeli attack was timed such that the aircraft came into range of the radar several minutes after it had been shut-off. This clearly indicates that Israel had intelligence about the behavior of the missile crew, and that this was a critical factor in planning the attack.
According to Hamza the French appear to have had foreknowledge of the attack and deliberately vacated the plant. The French had offices adjacent to the reactor but chose to hold a meeting with mandatory attendance at their residential village away from the site at 5 p.m. that day. One of the technicians had refused to attend, and the other Frenchmen were so insistent that a scuffle ensued. Nonetheless, he stayed behind and died in the bombing.
-
Oh, 1981 - you intentionally said 1982 to throw me off?
I was off by a year, oh no - too bad I already knew about the strike.
Maybe you should just go to another thread, you never provide anything of worth.
Martlet, it isn't clear what pieces he had - what I find amazing is you associate nuclear material and parts with the immediate ability to produce weapons.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Martlet, it isn't clear what pieces he had - what I find amazing is you associate nuclear material and parts with the immediate ability to produce weapons.
-SW
Where did I say that?
-
Okay, so then you are for invading Iraq because they may have had a nuclear reactor?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Okay, so then you are for invading Iraq because they may have had a nuclear reactor?
-SW
No, my support of the invasion of Iraq has to do with the information we had at the time, not armchair quarterbacking with 20/20 hindsight. Any idiot can do that. Even Kerry.
-
Now that the intelligence/information has proven to be wrong, and in some instances was known to be wrong and out of date back then, you still support invading Iraq?
When proven to be wrong, you won't change your opinion and begin to question the administration? Only an idiot would do that.
-SW
-
I guess we should be thankful that we're not discussing Vietnam anymore, right?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Now that the intelligence/information has proven to be wrong, and in some instances was known to be wrong and out of date back then, you still support invading Iraq?
When proven to be wrong, you won't change your opinion and begin to question the administration? Only an idiot would do that.
-SW
It's kind of late to go back and change what you did, isn't it?
What would you have them do, give Saddam a big sorry, ship him back, and come on home?
Only an idiot can't see that.
-
Saurdauker is diverting the thread to Vietnam, why don't you give him **** for that Martlet?
Or are you just gonna push his **** in?
-SW
-
No, I would realise our administration ****ed up and vote them out of office.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Saurdauker is diverting the thread to Vietnam, why don't you give him **** for that Martlet?
Or are you just gonna push his **** in?
-SW
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you couldn't defend your own position. I guess I should have been.
Saurdauker, don't make AW cry!
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, I would realise our administration ****ed up and vote them out of office.
-SW
How did they screw up?
-
I am doing quite fine defending my own position.
I was just proving how blind you are so long as someone's position agrees with yours.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Saurdauker is diverting the thread to Vietnam, why don't you give him **** for that Martlet?
Or are you just gonna push his **** in?
-SW
It wasnt a diversion. Just a subtle way of calling you a one trick pony. Now... how could anyone - let alone Martlet - disagree with that?
-
Care to back that statement up Saur, or are you trying just trying to grope me with the others?
Martlet, aside from what I mentioned with regards to intelligence, lack thereof, and known faults - they have just let what we went in there for fall right through their fingers.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Martlet, aside from what I mentioned with regards to intelligence, lack thereof, and known faults - they have just let what we went in there for fall right through their fingers.
-SW
So you must be voting for Nader, then.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Care to back that statement up Saur, or are you trying just trying to grope me with the others?
Youll do it for me.
EDIT: Thats like the third homosexual reference youve made in as many posts. Whats the deal there?
-
I'm not going to play the presumption game. You're too good at it, you play it all the time.
-SW
-
Lord that was weak. Youre slipping. Props for not resorting to "YOURE GAY!!!" though.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I'm not going to play the presumption game. You're too good at it, you play it all the time.
-SW
Translated as: "Crap. There's no way I can climb out of the hole I've dug. EJECT EJECT EJECT"
-
So I'll chalk that up as a, "I don't have a ****ing clue."
It's more entertaining to call you all studmuffins without directly doing it.
-SW
-
Another one!
Martlet, you hear that!?!? Were GAY!! OMFG!!!
-
Yeah right, Martlet goes on to presume who I'll vote for. Absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, and because I don't want to start getting into that - I am weak or don't know what I'm talking about.
You all can't argue for ****. I win, *****es.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah right, Martlet goes on to presume who I'll vote for. Absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, and because I don't want to start getting into that - I am weak or don't know what I'm talking about.
You all can't argue for ****. I win, *****es.
-SW
No, because you backed yourself into an indefensible corner. It has everything to do with the discussion, because YOU said you'd vote people who screwed up out of office. Either my presumption was dead accurate, or you're a hypocrite. Which is it?
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Another one!
Martlet, you hear that!?!? Were GAY!! OMFG!!!
Hey, Dowding is the one with the Barbara Streisand cd.
-
It's a very fine line between letting countries do their own thing vs. applying what we've learned throughout history in order to prevent a possible disaster. Personaly my opinion is such that it's better to err on the side of caution then have to react to an act of war.
Of course the argument can be made that 9/11 was an excuse to go after someone that's been a thorn in the side of the US presidency for a while. We could speculate as to the actual reasons why GW did what he did but it's just that, speculation, unless of course your a vulcan and wanna do a mind meld on the guy.
-
Yeah, I'd vote them out of office.
I will be voting for who I want, it isn't Kerry and it isn't Nader.
Next time, ask me who I will vote for if you want an answer.
I'm not backed into an indefensible corner, you've been in the corner ever since you first posted. Couldn't come up with anything remotely intelligent to say, so you just spewed the typical "I'm **** out of smarts" BOOSH HITLER drivel.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah, I'd vote them out of office.
I will be voting for who I want, it isn't Kerry and it isn't Nader.
Next time, ask me who I will vote for if you want an answer.
I'm not backed into an indefensible corner, you've been in the corner ever since you first posted. Couldn't come up with anything remotely intelligent to say, so you just spewed the typical "I'm **** out of smarts" BOOSH HITLER drivel.
-SW
Your post got an appropriate response.
You try to argue that Bush botched the occupation by losing equipment for a nuclear arms program.
It's pointed out the equipment for a nuclear arms program is pretty good justification for an invasion.
Then you point out that the CIA says there was no program.
Then you tried to change the topic, since that one is obviously not going where you want it to, to "we should have invaded Iran instead".
That's an argument you could make, but it would have nothing to do with this one. That's pointed out to you, so you change tacks again.
Next you claim that Iraq DID have the components for a nuke program, they just weren't using them because they were "pressured" into behaving.
But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since we couldn't even pressure them into conforming with the UN resolutions that forbid those same programs.
Your argument is nothing more than an attempt to push your partisan agenda. It's evident in your flawed defense. Only a fool would deliver facts that negate a former debate to bolster a latter one.
-
My partisan agenda? You are a tool, and you couldn't even follow the thread.
Then you tried to change the topic, since that one is obviously not going where you want it to, to "we should have invaded Iran instead".
I didn't change tracks with Iran, I was comparing a bigger known threat to a questionable one. We should have invaded Iran if we are invading based on potential nuclear programs.
You try to argue that Bush botched the occupation by losing equipment for a nuclear arms program.
No I didn't. That is one of the reasons I won't vote him back into office.
It's pointed out the equipment for a nuclear arms program is pretty good justification for an invasion.
Where?
Then you point out that the CIA says there was no program.
Good for you, you can read.
That's an argument you could make, but it would have nothing to do with this one. That's pointed out to you, so you change tacks again.
It has everything to do with Iraq, it's a far greater danger with an obvious nuclear program.
Next you claim that Iraq DID have the components for a nuke program, they just weren't using them because they were "pressured" into behaving.
And? This contradicts nothing.
But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since we couldn't even pressure them into conforming with the UN resolutions that forbid those same programs.
They didn't have it operational, you must assume it was Saddam's good will that kept it not operational.
Your argument is nothing more than an attempt to push your partisan agenda. It's evident in your flawed defense. Only a fool would deliver facts that negate a former debate to bolster a latter one.
Guess you can't read, oh well - nice try.
-SW
-
My partisan agenda? You are a tool, and you couldn't even follow the thread.
Actually, I outlined it very accurately.
I didn't change tracks with Iran, I was comparing a bigger known threat to a questionable one. We should have invaded Iran if we are invading based on potential nuclear programs.
We're talking about Iraq. You start talking about Iran. Yeah. That's the same topic. Flip flop flip flop
No I didn't. That is one of the reasons I won't vote him back into office.
no you didn't, that is one of the reasons.....?
HAHAHAHAHAHA You contradict yourself in the same comment. At least wait a bit.
Where?
Ripsnort's first comment, that's what caused you to drag out the CIA line, thus negating your initial spinfest.
Then you point out that the CIA says there was no program.
Good for you, you can read.
It has everything to do with Iraq, it's a far greater danger with an obvious nuclear program.
What does it have to do with the initial topic? Saying it does doesn't make it so.
And? This contradicts nothing.
Nope, it just points out your flawed logic.
They didn't have it operational, you must assume it was Saddam's good will that kept it not operational.
No, I'm saying that you selectively pick and choose which CIA intelligence you want to believe. Are they incompetent or not? They were wrong before and right now? Only a fool would believe that we had the influence to halt research, but not get them to stop firing at our planes or allow us to conduct inspections. Pressure only works on some things?
Guess you can't read, oh well - nice try.
I understand your need to continue to defend a position most of us laugh at. Saving face is important to a boy your age.
-
"Following this brief intermission, we shall return to "As the Flip, Flops."
Now a word from our sponser....
"Ever get tired of the same old crud on yer favorite BBS?" :(
"Then try the "New and Improved Skuzz~Away"
Gauranteed to dispell ignorant drivel with a long lasting brighter that bright Threadness" :D
Available in the small "Last~Edited" size or for the heavier drivel try "Lock~Away". :aok
*Void where prohibited by Law, keep children and pets away*
:rofl
-
Now back to "As the Flip, Flops".....
:rofl
-
You called me partisan, you obviously don't even know what that word means.
You were talking about a nuclear program, Iran was way further along than Iraq was. Given that evidence, and reasons for invasion - Iran has everything to do with Iraq.
no you didn't, that is one of the reasons.....?
HAHAHAHAHAHA You contradict yourself in the same comment. At least wait a bit.
You are uber smert. I never said Bush botched the invasion, you did. I did say I wouldn't vote for him because he let those materials slip through our forces hands.
Ripsnort's first comment, that's what caused you to drag out the CIA line, thus negating your initial spinfest.
What spinfest? You are in your own little ****ed up world there.
What does it have to do with the initial topic? Saying it does doesn't make it so.
Iraq's nuclear capabilities have been proven to be nill. That was one of the least concerns for this war. What he did have is now gone. Iran, OTOH, prior to the Iraq war was flaunting it's capabilities to us and we ignored it. Now they may very well have what little Iraq had. They go hand in hand, you just choose to ignore it - just like everything else you don't agree with.
No, I'm saying that you selectively pick and choose which CIA intelligence you want to believe. Are they incompetent or not? They were wrong before and right now?
I do? What intelligence am I not believing right now? The stuff proven to be false? Gee, I guess I should go back and start believing things proven false just so I can stay consistent for you.
Only a fool would believe that we had the influence to halt research, but not get them to stop firing at our planes or allow us to conduct inspections. Pressure only works on some things?
The latter has nothing to do with the former, only a fool would associate the two.
I understand your need to continue to defend a position most of us laugh at.
Who are these "most"? I didn't know you spoke for people.
-SW
-
(http://www.digitalend.com/pics/threadsucks.jpg)