Saddam's Nukes

[pjc]

Saddam's Nukes

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

WMD: Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn't fit the media's neat story line that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003.

Read More: Iraq (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1801&cid=1825) | Global War On Terror (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1801&cid=1827)

It's a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad.

In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel — thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region.

This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a "significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."
Seems to us this should be big news.

After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S.

This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon.

This is clear, since Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff. (The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to have known about the yellowcake in the 1990s, but did nothing to force Saddam to get rid of it. It's duplicating its error today with Iran and North Korea).

That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade.

The American Thinker Web site reported four years ago on the scary math behind Saddam's uranium hoard: 500 tons of yellowcake, once refined, could make 142 nuclear weapons.

But yellowcake wasn't all they found at Tuwaitha. According to the AP, the military also discovered "four devices for controlled radiation exposure . . . that could potentially be used in a weapon."

By the way, this should put to rest the canard peddled by the American left and by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking yellowcake from the African country of Niger.

Given what we know, including comments by officials in Niger's government, Iraq did make overtures to buy uranium. And it's quite possible all or part of the 550 tons came from there.

What's more, if Bush hadn't acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria — with its close ties to Saddam — on the way to having a nuke.

Of equal concern is why the media ignored this good news coming from Iraq. It seems to be of a piece with how they've treated other recent positive developments in Iraq (see editorial below).

We ask again — why aren't you seeing and hearing more about this? The reason is simple: The mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years.

[Next-Gen]

Wow. Good story PJ

[Mike @ pit b]

I would think it would be the top story at Fox News.

[pjc]

I would think it would be the top story at Fox News.

I heard numerous times today on Fox Radio.

[steveG]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting Pat.

And don't worry boys. As soon as the likes of the Today Show are done covering the dangers of hot water and tips on how to look good this season they'll move onto the less important world-interest events.

[fathead]

It is obvious the media is slanted, but the White House has to have some of the worse P.R. people in the world. It seems to me that if you have a group handing out misinformation, you would keep reiterating the points until it is is finally disceminated. Don't talk about other issues without bringing this stuff up as well.

[Mot51560]

Isn't this the yellowcake uranium that everyone knew was being stored there legally under international law?

[pjc]

It is obvious the media is slanted, but the White House has to have some of the worse P.R. people in the world.

I sum it up to the "Texas, IDGAF persona".

[pjc]

Isn't this the yellowcake uranium that everyone knew was being stored there legally under international law?

Umm, only after Saddam was deposed.

He denied it prior and had willing,American traitors to collaborate the charade.

[Mot51560]

Umm, only after Saddam was deposed.

He denied it prior and had willing,American traitors to collaborate the charade.

Not true it was found after the gulf war. The UN and IAEA knew it was there its well documented.

[Laurie]

I absolutely hate the media, and the way they report things. And I'm not suprised they would
hide this story. They only thing I don't understand is why the republicans trying to get elected
aren't using this information to show that Bush was right that they had Weapons of Mass destruction.
And that all of Congress knew they had them.

[dan200]

I absolutely hate the media, and the way they report things. And I'm not suprised they would
hide this story. They only thing I don't understand is why the republicans trying to get elected
aren't using this information to show that Bush was right that they had Weapons of Mass destruction.
And that all of Congress knew they had them.

I would like to know where I can get balanced news coverage of politics and those running for president. I don't know who to believe anymore and I still wanna run away to Mexico.

dan200 pulling out hair.

[Infidel Racing Team]

........... I still wanna run away to Mexico.

dan200 pulling out hair.

Dan,

Be careful what you wish for...Because you might get it;)
With the exception of Religion , My points of view are as right wing as they come here in Mexico.....If you think I am a liberal wait until you deal with the PRD in Mexico. Composed basically by ex Marxists and old PRI members. They rule the masses, but not the money....yet. That is why Democracy is a danger in 3rd world countries:o

This stack of Yellow cake is not news, it was reported after the gulf war...It was well know Saddam had it

[EQuin]

This stack of Yellow cake is not news, it was reported after the gulf war...It was well know Saddam had it

Yes, this article from msnbc.com supports that:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/:

"...Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts...."

"...Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said...."

And that article also claims that the reason why the news media haven't reported much about it is because the U.S. government wanted to keep it a secret as long as possible to keep terrorists from attacking the stockpile or convoys transporting it:

"...The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal...."

The controversy surrounding the yellow cake (concentrated natural uranium) is not that we knew or didn't know Saddam had it (everyone knew he had it, but unless you possess the knowledge and equipment to turn it into high-grade nuclear enrichment not much can be done with it), but that some accused Saddam of buying even more of it from the country of Niger after the 1st Gulf War. When former ambassador Joe Wilson refuted that accusation, his wife's identity, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was leaked as retribution, and the Valerie Plame scandal erupted in Washington.

[EQuin]

As for the "lies" about WMD's and their reason for going to war, who knows? But personally I think everyone honestly believed he really did have WMDs and that he was hiding them. I'm half-way through a book titled "Battle Ready" by Tom Clancy and Retired USMC General Tony Zinni that talks about Gen Zinni's military career from Vietnam to the Iraq War. It gives a really good glimpse as to what people believed about Saddam's WMDs and why they believed he still had them.

As most of us already know, Saddam became increasingly uncooperative with the UN inspection team when it came to document the destruction of WMDs in compliance with the UN resolution. Gen. Zinni says in the book that because of this, most everyone believed he still had them, and rightly so. It wasn't until later that we realized he had destroyed most of them (not the yellow cake since it can't be used for nuclear weapons or even a dirty bomb unless it's enriched). As the book goes on to say, Saddam was hiding the logistics, documents and material that would allow him to start it all up again once the heat from the UN subsided. Gen. Zinni says in the book that containing Saddam, however, was comparatively easy and that the subsequent invasion was not really needed to contain him. He continued to say in the book that U.S. policy later shifted to regime change as a way to ensure further compliance with the UN mandate, but that the problem with that was that there was no plan for the post-war reconstruction of the country once the regime change took place.

Anyway, for those interested in this piece of history, I highly recommend the book. So far it's been really good and informative.

[JrSyko]

Yes, this article from msnbc.com supports that:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/:

"...Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts...."

"...Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said...."

And that article also claims that the reason why the news media haven't reported much about it is because the U.S. government wanted to keep it a secret as long as possible to keep terrorists from attacking the stockpile or convoys transporting it:

"...The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal...."

The controversy surrounding the yellow cake (concentrated natural uranium) is not that we knew or didn't know Saddam had it (everyone knew he had it, but unless you possess the knowledge and equipment to turn it into high-grade nuclear enrichment not much can be done with it), but that some accused Saddam of buying even more of it from the country of Niger after the 1st Gulf War. When former ambassador Joe Wilson refuted that accusation, his wife's identity, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was leaked as retribution, and the Valerie Plame scandal erupted in Washington.

So it looks like this is just another example of PJC posting something to "support" his political agenda that is just as slanted and misguided as the stuff he so often rallies against? Nice work! :-)

[EQuin]

So it looks like this is just another example of PJC posting something to "support" his political agenda that is just as slanted and misguided as the stuff he so often rallies against? Nice work! :-)

LOL! Now, I understand PJC's posts (as informative as I find most of them to be) are not too popular among some who share differing political views around here. But no, I really didn't mean for my post to make it sound like that at all. Although now that I've re-read it, I suppose it could be taken that way. I was simply agreeing with the other post that the news about the yellow cake wasn't necessarily new and that the U.S. did its best to keep the matter a secret to prevent attacks on the convoys transporting it out of the country, which should explain the lack of media attention on the matter before it left the country.

My other post about retired Gen. Zinni's book explains how many, including 4-star generals like himself, honestly believed that Saddam had WMD's because he was so uncooperative with the UN inspectors. So the claim that Bush "lied" about WMD's is somewhat tenuous in my opinion considering that Saddam's own actions (lots of stalling, refusing to allow UN inspectors access, hiding stuff, etc.) led most everyone to believe he still had them.

[Mark Newhan]

LOL! Now, I understand PJC's posts (as informative as I find most of them to be) are not too popular among some who share differing political views around here. But no, I really didn't mean for my post to make it sound like that at all. Although now that I've re-read it, I suppose it could be taken that way. I was simply agreeing with the other post that the news about the yellow cake wasn't necessarily new and that the U.S. did its best to keep the matter a secret to prevent attacks on the convoys transporting it out of the country, which should explain the lack of media attention on the matter before it left the country.

My other post about retired Gen. Zinni's book explains how many, including 4-star generals like himself, honestly believed that Saddam had WMD's because he was so uncooperative with the UN inspectors. So the claim that Bush "lied" about WMD's is somewhat tenuous in my opinion considering that Saddam's own actions (lots of stalling, refusing to allow UN inspectors access, hiding stuff, etc.) led most everyone to believe he still had them.

Equin,

Good to hear from you... its been a while. I believe that the world took Saddam at face value. He had stated goals about his nuclear ambitions. The man invaded two of his neighbors, gassed the Kurds, kepted his own people down and would have eventually gone after Israel, another stated goal. Allthough the world body had "contained" Saddam, ousting him was a stated goal of Bill Clinton and had the support of nearly all of congress. By that virtue Bush was merely implimenting the Clinton doctrine. If Saddam was playing a chess match, then CHECK MATE!!!

I love listening to Zinni... Might have to read his book.

[pjc]

Not true it was found after the gulf war. The UN and IAEA knew it was there its well documented.

Key on...

By the way, this should put to rest the canard peddled by the American left and by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking yellowcake from the African country of Niger.

[pjc]

So it looks like this is just another example of PJC posting something to "support" his political agenda that is just as slanted and misguided as the stuff he so often rallies against? Nice work! :-)

Don't be bitter because you are wrong again Travis.

What's next, will you label the IBD as part of the big, right wing conspiracy?

[JrSyko]

Don't be bitter because you are wrong again Travis.

What's next, will you label the IBD as part of the big, right wing conspiracy?

How am I wrong? You posted something that attempted to prove they found yellowcake uranium in Iraq post war and there is some crazy cover up by the media to hide the truth when in reality they knew it was there all along.

[pjc]

How am I wrong? You posted something that attempted to prove they found yellowcake uranium in Iraq post war and there is some crazy cover up by the media to hide the truth when in reality they knew it was there all along.

Forget the media bias, it dosn't exist, right Mr. Moonbat..

Let's key on what I thought was most important in the article:

"After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S."

and

"Given what we know, including comments by officials in Niger's government, Iraq did make overtures to buy uranium. And it's quite possible all or part of the 550 tons came from there."

And do you discount:

"What's more, if Bush hadn't acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria — with its close ties to Saddam — on the way to having a nuke."

[TreyP]

An interesting article almost to the day in 2003.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html

[pjc]

An interesting article almost to the day in 2003.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html

Nah, the media (Time Magazine of the Dinosaur Media Death Parade) has no bias. None! Now move along, there is nothing to see.

What about that last point in my previous post Trey?

[TreyP]

Nah, the media (Time Magazine of the Dinosaur Media Death Parade) has no bias. None! Now move along, there is nothing to see.

What about that last point in my previous post Trey?

Yep typical BS from the resident lunitic, dismiss something because it doesn't fit your world view. Blame it media bias and try pass it off as false without showing why it is wrong.

Your concept of debate is so funny and shows the weakness of your argument. Why not address the point instead of changing the subject?

[pjc]

Yep typical BS from the resident lunitic[sic AGAIN], dismiss something because it doesn't fit your world view. Blame it media bias and try pass it off as false without showing why it is wrong.

Tray, it is widely accepted that TIME magazine has a left, political bias. They have even stated so.

Now back to my third reference: (I'll underline it so you can ignore and deflect again so easily)

"What's more, if Bush hadn't acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria — with its close ties to Saddam — on the way to having a nuke."

Whadayathink?


Your concept of debate is so funny and shows the weakness of your argument. Why not address the point instead of changing the subject?Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel good. After all, we don't want to inflict too much trauma on your self esteem.

[TreyP]

Tray, it is widely accepted that TIME magazine has a left, political bias. They have even stated so.

Now back to my third reference: (I'll underline it so you can ignore and deflect again so easily)

"What's more, if Bush hadn't acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria — with its close ties to Saddam — on the way to having a nuke."

Whadayathink?

Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel good. After all, we don't want to inflict too much trauma on your self esteem.

Nice deflection again...

But let's go with your question or attempt at it.

Iraq was years from a true nuke solution, the limits put on Saddam limited him from ever doing it.

Iran is now close to a nuke (according to the latest intel) and stronger fbecause of Bush.

Libya has been out the picture for years thanks to Uncle Ronnie.;)

Syria and Saddam were enemies that has been noted for years.

I really have to know where you get your information, it has to be some really wacked out places. Come on share these fun zones so I can have info to your world. I need a place of amusement.

[pjc]

Iraq was years from a true nuke solution, the limits put on Saddam limited him from ever doing it.


Says who?

Start here to grasp reality "http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm".


Iran is now close to a nuke (according to the latest intel) and stronger fbecause of Bush.


That's not what the left says.


Libya has been out the picture for years thanks to Uncle Ronnie.;)


Nope, Libya capitulated just a few years ago.

Go here to affirm your stupidity: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/2004/libya-040120-pla-daily01.htm


Syria and Saddam were enemies that has been noted for years.


Not. You are making things up.

So more facts to ruin your day: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/060604.php


I really have to know where you get your information, it has to be some really wacked out places. Come on share these fun zones so I can have info to your world. I need a place of amusement.

From facts Trey, something you avoid at all costs to keep your flawed opinions from traumatizing your self esteem.

[TreyP]

Says who?

Start here to grasp reality "http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm".



That's not what the left says.



Nope, Libya capitulated just a few years ago.

Go here to affirm your stupidity: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/2004/libya-040120-pla-daily01.htm



Not. You are making things up.

So more facts to ruin your day: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/060604.php



From facts Trey, something you avoid at all costs to keep your flawed opinions from traumatizing your self esteem.

If you had'nt posted the contined ad hominem I might of read your referances and taken your post seriously. But it has shown me (again)that you are not worth my time and you are basically just a worthless piece of skin. Enjoy your hate and miserable life. It really must suck to be you..

[pjc]

If you had'nt posted the contined ad hominem I might of read your referances and taken your post seriously. But it has shown me (again)that you are not worth my time and you are basically just a worthless piece of skin. Enjoy your hate and miserable life. It really must suck to be you..

Trey your weak rebuttals are truly insulting. I did my best to present you with honest data and simple, referenced fact but your intolerance for anything that goes against the grain of your conjured up opinions stood in the way again.

Do come back as I do not consider revealing your abhorrent bias, intolerance, narrow mindedness and juvenile arrogance as not too much of waste of time.

[R_TAYLOR]

Heres an example of bias. The New York Times reported Obama supports the Supreme Court decision on the DC gun owners second ammendment rights. What was not stated in the same article was Obama a year ago was in favor of the DC gun ban.

[DSRacing]

Trey,

Though I'm really not interested in getting involved in the bantering between you and PJC, I will recommend www.globalsecurity.org as a excellent reference for military information not covered in the daily news.

Syria and Saddam were enemies that has been noted for years.

Your quote is accurate, but the old saying of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." refering to Israel, does apply. Both Syria and Iraq were working towards the same goal.

Up until last September, when Israel bombed it, Syria was quietly working away on a North Korean designed nuclear reactor. The construction started about the same time pressure was being put on Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/syria/2008/syria-080424-dni01.htm

[TreyP]

Trey your weak rebuttals are truly insulting. I did my best to present you with honest data and simple, referenced fact but your intolerance for anything that goes against the grain of your conjured up opinions stood in the way again.

Do come back as I do not consider revealing your abhorrent bias, intolerance, narrow mindedness and juvenile arrogance as not too much of waste of time.

Try again, more ad hominem and the fact that you just don't get it. You are the one that asked for debate and the simple fact is you don't even know what it is. If and when that you can act like an adult and engage in simple discourse I am willing to try to engage.

Continue being the internet bully that you have perfected and enjoy sheep that follow you. But nothing you post or say will stand up to scutiny in the real world. I think you are afraid to see your world shattered by real debate.

[pjc]

Try again, more ad hominem and the fact that you just don't get it. You are the one that asked for debate and the simple fact is you don't even know what it is.


Trey, we come from diferent schools (thanks God). Your idea of debate is regurgitating your opnions that we continuously prove wrong. On my side I provided links to accurate and simple data when you asked for them.


Continue being the internet bully that you have perfected and enjoy sheep that follow you. But nothing you post or say will stand up to scutiny in the real world. I think you are afraid to see your world shattered by real debate.

Uh oh, I have been attacked. By Trey!
-WAJ

[TreyP]

Trey,

Though I'm really not interested in getting involved in the bantering between you and PJC, I will recommend www.globalsecurity.org as a excellent reference for military information not covered in the daily news.



Your quote is accurate, but the old saying of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." refering to Israel, does apply. Both Syria and Iraq were working towards the same goal.

Up until last September, when Israel bombed it, Syria was quietly working away on a North Korean designed nuclear reactor. The construction started about the same time pressure was being put on Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/syria/2008/syria-080424-dni01.htm

Actually that is one of my bookmarks for intel. Always has some good info.

[pjc]

Actually that is one of my bookmarks for intel. Always has some good info.

Try reading it.

[TreyP]

Trey, we come from diferent schools (thanks God). Your idea of debate is regurgitating your opnions that we continuously prove wrong. On my side I provided links to accurate and simple data when you asked for them.



Uh oh, I have been attacked. By Trey!
-WAJ




Public exhibit of a defendent gone mad. It is fun watching you bury yourself.

[R_TAYLOR]

Equin,

Good to hear from you... its been a while. I believe that the world took Saddam at face value. He had stated goals about his nuclear ambitions. The man invaded two of his neighbors, gassed the Kurds, kepted his own people down and would have eventually gone after Israel, another stated goal. Allthough the world body had "contained" Saddam, ousting him was a stated goal of Bill Clinton and had the support of nearly all of congress. By that virtue Bush was merely implimenting the Clinton doctrine. If Saddam was playing a chess match, then CHECK MATE!!!

I love listening to Zinni... Might have to read his book.

Saddam did all that and convinced his own Generals he had WMDs because he was afraid of his neighbor Iran.He wanted them to think he MIGHT have WMDs.Also, after the US went after Saddam, the suicide bombings in Israel virtually came to a stop.Saddam was paying $25000.00 to any one willing to attack in Israel.Now they have to do it for free and hope those 72 virgins are waiting. He had WMDs and used them.Only a fool would beleive he didnt.Fool me once shame on me....nevermind

[pjc]

Public exhibit of a defendent gone mad. It is fun watching you bury yourself.

That's a good little Moonbat..

[TreyP]

That's a good little Moonbat..

Try again...yawn

[EQuin]

Equin,

Good to hear from you... its been a while. I believe that the world took Saddam at face value. He had stated goals about his nuclear ambitions. The man invaded two of his neighbors, gassed the Kurds, kepted his own people down and would have eventually gone after Israel, another stated goal. Allthough the world body had "contained" Saddam, ousting him was a stated goal of Bill Clinton and had the support of nearly all of congress. By that virtue Bush was merely implimenting the Clinton doctrine. If Saddam was playing a chess match, then CHECK MATE!!!

I love listening to Zinni... Might have to read his book.

Good to hear from you, too! You make some excellent points above. And if you love listening to Zinni, you should definitely get his book. He goes into detail about his Vietnam battles which helped shape his career and military strategies as a general.

[Co-Dog]

It makes me laugh when I see or hear discussions on WMD's and Iraq.

Of course he had WMD's. We're holding the receipts!!!!! Duh.

The problem that this administration failed to acknowledge (and fired anybody who did), was that he used all of them on the Kurds. It just didn't seem possible, as we provided him with a lifetime supply. Nonetheless that is what happened.

Yellowcake is not a WMD, period. We've known about this for years, well at least those of us paying attention. There was even talk of him re-enriching uranium. I have worked with some of the top physicists in the world on various projects for the government and the private sector and asked their opinions regarding uranium technology. The one constant among all of the physicists I have spoken with, is that there was no possible way for Saddam to acquire everything he needed to become a threat. He could get some of what he needed easily, but not everything in any kind of reasonable time frame. There's a lot more to this nuke stuff then us layfolk realize. I trust the words of these remarkably intelligent individuals more than any page on the internet or garbage spewed from the media. It has taken Iran more than 30 years to develop nuclear weapons even though we provided them everything they needed to enter the nuclear age in the 70's. Think about that for a minute.

Is Iran a threat?? They should be by now. Once again we've got the receipts. Is there a pattern here?

[FarrisMotorsports]

So because I have about 10k gallons of diesel and a bunch of fertilizer in my shop, does that mean that I should be accused of being a bomb maker?

Saddam had it and was buying it for a reason....probably more political than motivational. But, just because he had a few elements doesnt mean he had WMD's. Thats like saying I have bombs i my shop.

[kenaroo]

So because I have about 10k gallons of diesel and a bunch of fertilizer in my shop, does that mean that I should be accused of being a bomb maker?

Saddam had it and was buying it for a reason....probably more political than motivational. But, just because he had a few elements doesnt mean he had WMD's. Thats like saying I have bombs i my shop.



Just their way of justifying the invasion and war in Iraq that didn't have to happen.

sending more money off shore to Haliburton than ever

[R_TAYLOR]

So because I have about 10k gallons of diesel and a bunch of fertilizer in my shop, does that mean that I should be accused of being a bomb maker?

Saddam had it and was buying it for a reason....probably more political than motivational. But, just because he had a few elements doesnt mean he had WMD's. Thats like saying I have bombs i my shop.

If you were a murdering nutcase like Saddam then yes you would have a bomb in the garage.He used wmds.Its part of history.

[TreyP]

If you were a murdering nutcase like Saddam then yes you would have a bomb in the garage.He used wmds.Its part of history.

Also a part of history is that we (US) supplied him with those WMD's.

[Roddd]

Also a part of history is that we (US) supplied him with those WMD's.

Uh oh, I guess we should bomb ourselves now? Did we gas Kurds or did he?

[TreyP]

Uh oh, I guess we should bomb ourselves now? Did we gas Kurds or did he?

Thats the question isn't it? We supplied the gas and technology, along with the Germans, so we (the government) are an accomplice in the crime. Might be worth prosecuting the people that supported that crime.

http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

[pappawheely]

It makes me laugh when I see or hear discussions on WMD's and Iraq.

Of course he had WMD's. We're holding the receipts!!!!! Duh.





http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG

[pjc]

Oops, there you go with facts again PW.

Now what did you say Trey?


http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG

[R_TAYLOR]

Thats the question isn't it? We supplied the gas and technology, along with the Germans, so we (the government) are an accomplice in the crime. Might be worth prosecuting the people that supported that crime.

http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

Iraq was at war with Iran in the 80s.Yes we gave him weapons.Remember the hostages held for over 400 days after Iranians entered our US Embassy.Who would you have supported in that war? I have two guns in my closet though I have never shot anyone.

[pappawheely]

So even when you use diplomacy it's bad. I know, it doesn't matter what happens if it's during a Republican administration it's all evil. Why don't you hear a peep out of anyone on the left about the war in Bosnia? The one where we "targeted civilians", and "invaded a country that meant us no harm".

[JrSyko]

Oops, there you go with facts again PW.

Now what did you say Trey?

You're not one to talk about "facts" PJC.

[pjc]

You're not one to talk about "facts" PJC.

How's dat? Please explain with examples so that we can be fair. :)

[Co-Dog]

So even when you use diplomacy it's bad. I know, it doesn't matter what happens if it's during a Republican administration it's all evil. Why don't you hear a peep out of anyone on the left about the war in Bosnia? The one where we "targeted civilians", and "invaded a country that meant us no harm".

I'm not sure I understand what you mean in regards to the use of diplomacy. Our current version of diplomacy is, "You better stop or we're gonna kick your ass!........On second thought, we're gonna kick your ass because of what we think you might do!" If that's diplomacy, then diplomacy is bad. As a Libertarian, I get to straddle the fence. The view from the fence allows me to see that it doesn't matter which of the two is in power. If your skin isn't white, your a potential target, as our government is affirmative action equal opportunity killing machine.

The only difference I detect in relation to the party in power, is that Republicans kill for greed (you're safe if you don't have anything they want), and fabricate ridiculous reasons when the truth, in many cases, would have been sufficient to justify the actions.

When the Democrats are in power, they just like to go play with all the cool new toys that the Republicans bought. You just can't really tell how things work without live targets. When the toys break, they whine about the wasteful spending. They don't give any good reason for their actions, thus no peep out of anyone. Pretty hard to call BS when you don't have anything to work with.

If Libertarians were in power, there still would be no diplomacy as we tend to believe that everybody should mind their own business. Nothing good has ever come from meddling in other people's and other countries affairs (Look at every country we've invaded in the last 50 years). The rules would be simple, you do whatever you want in your house/country, but the second you cause a problem on my doorstep/country, you had better get your affairs in order, because your death cures the problem. (Look at every country that has brought their problem to our doorstep in the last 200+ years) The track record is indisputable. . . We've never lost a battle when it was started at our doorstep. We've had our asses handed to us on a regular basis when we go invading (if we don't win, it counts as a loss). I'm not saying that Libertarians would run this country any better. They most certainly would not, as most of them are friggin' nuts (myself included). I think its time that we stop pointing fingers, grow up, and reevaluate the way we handle our business.

[pappawheely]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean in regards to the use of diplomacy. Our current version of diplomacy is, "You better stop or we're gonna kick your ass!........On second thought, we're gonna kick your ass because of what we think you might do!" If that's diplomacy, then diplomacy is bad. As a Libertarian, I get to straddle the fence. The view from the fence allows me to see that it doesn't matter which of the two is in power. If your skin isn't white, your a potential target, as our government is affirmative action equal opportunity killing machine.

The only difference I detect in relation to the party in power, is that Republicans kill for greed (you're safe if you don't have anything they want), and fabricate ridiculous reasons when the truth, in many cases, would have been sufficient to justify the actions.

When the Democrats are in power, they just like to go play with all the cool new toys that the Republicans bought. You just can't really tell how things work without live targets. When the toys break, they whine about the wasteful spending. They don't give any good reason for their actions, thus no peep out of anyone. Pretty hard to call BS when you don't have anything to work with.

If Libertarians were in power, there still would be no diplomacy as we tend to believe that everybody should mind their own business. Nothing good has ever come from meddling in other people's and other countries affairs (Look at every country we've invaded in the last 50 years). The rules would be simple, you do whatever you want in your house/country, but the second you cause a problem on my doorstep/country, you had better get your affairs in order, because your death cures the problem. (Look at every country that has brought their problem to our doorstep in the last 200+ years) The track record is indisputable. . . We've never lost a battle when it was started at our doorstep. We've had our asses handed to us on a regular basis when we go invading (if we don't win, it counts as a loss). I'm not saying that Libertarians would run this country any better. They most certainly would not, as most of them are friggin' nuts (myself included). I think its time that we stop pointing fingers, grow up, and reevaluate the way we handle our business.
We only lose wars when the politicians get involved.

[Infidel Racing Team]

We only lose wars when the politicians get involved.

As long as your commander in chief is a civilian , Politicians will always be involved.....

You can opt for a military coop much a la Pakistan and have Colin Power rule the nation, but that aint America, right?

[Mark Newhan]

CoDog,

It sounds to me as if you think that if we just stayed home the world would be peaceful. That might be the case, however as long as there powers within our borders that will not allow us to use our natural resources to run our nation we will be involved in "international affairs". As long as these same organizations will not allow us to manufacture the goods that we consume we will be involved in "international affairs". Your concept would ultimately lead to more "isolationalism" if we cut off the aid to the world, allthough I think that we spread way too much "international welfare". We should have learned over the past60 years that allthough welfare was intended tobe a hand up, it has turned into a hand out, which has never empowered anyone. Barrack wants to increase the hand out... give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach him to fish feed him for life, right! The U.S. can speak with some authority on how throwing money at "poverty" has never cured it. We have spent enough money on social programs that everyone on welfare could be wealthy.

We also have the enemy within that see fit to victimize anybody that makes bad decisions. There are those that find it their duty to attack the companies that provide goods and services, in spite of the fact that the "victim" does not feel that they need to educate themselves on proper methods of using said products. These are just a couple of things that are tearing apart the country.

The Libertarian philosify is great when exercised within your household. It is a personal responsible issue, which I believe in. It just not work in a world setting, unless we intend to throw out the forces within this country that will not let us use our own resources.

The other issue that we face is Comunism. We "invaded" countries to stop the threat of Comunism. Korea, Viet Nam as well as smaller conflicts were a direct result of comunist proliferation of these nations. after WWII there was in excess of 50 Comunist countries, today there are just a handfull. Historically comunism is a repressive force, unless you are in government. When the people have no power, they have no way to support themselves because the government has the power. People want to be free to pursue liberty. It is the birth right of all Americans to have Liberty, which is why the U.S. is such a magnet to those who have never had it. That is why people are DYING to get here. The generation that have forgotten why their forefathers braved death to get here have gotten soft and have become an enemy of the constitution. They minipulate its meaning to serve their own power hungry agenda by stripping the rights that you were born with.

Anyway I just wanted to respond to your points. The reality is that most Americans are closer in their views then they think. They just follow the "leaders" that they have a few things in common with as there is not a politician that represents the majority. One belief will push them to support a candidate and it is a shame when things such as abortion, gay marriage and trumped up enviromental concerns will have such an impact on those who believe that they are open minded. Thanks U.S. media!!!!

[pappawheely]

As long as your commander in chief is a civilian , Politicians will always be involved.....

You can opt for a military coop much a la Pakistan and have Colin Power rule the nation, but that aint America, right?


As usual you misconstrue my statements with bombastic hyperbole. The commander in chief is usually not the problem. It is the liberals in congress. They were running around saying Iraq was another Vietnam. They were dead right. Just like in Vietnam the liberal politicians and the media were doing everything in their power to undermine the troops, hinder our ability to acheive victory and poison the publics support for our armed forces. I'm sorry but that is NOT patriotism.

[Co-Dog]

It sounds to me as if you think that if we just stayed home the world would be peaceful.

I was being simplistic in my examples just to make a point. I do understand the complexity of these issues in the real world. Isolationism is as fatally flawed as the Imperialistic path we now travel.

We "invaded" countries to stop the threat of Comunism. Korea, Viet Nam as well as smaller conflicts were a direct result of comunist proliferation of these nations.

People that want to get here, will get here, just as my ancestors did. It is unfortunate that the system has been altered to look like it's broken and doesn't work. It works exactly how those in power want it to work. I'll go on a rant about that some other time. Our violent attempts to stop Communism were ALL catastrophic failures with incredible losses of life. All that was needed was a good 'ol Republican prevarication from an actor giving an Oscar winning performance. Star Wars was perfect!! I'm no Reagan fan but I give credit where its due. The point being that all we had to do is hang out and use our American ingenuity. Didn't cost us a dime! I take that back, I think they spent something like 9 billion on Star Wars. Something that never existed in reality. Don't know where the money went and I don't care. It seems like a raging bargain in comparison to the 300+ billion we've spent, only to have our asses handed to us once again. War does not end in a tie, you win or you lose. When profiteering became part of the equation the end result becomes blurred, it's a win for the profiteers and a loss for everybody else.

Anyway I just wanted to respond to your points. The reality is that most Americans are closer in their views then they think. They just follow the "leaders" that they have a few things in common with as there is not a politician that represents the majority. One belief will push them to support a candidate and it is a shame when things such as abortion, gay marriage and trumped up enviromental concerns will have such an impact on those who believe that they are open minded. Thanks U.S. media!!!!

Thank you for your opinions and comments. It always gives me hope when I get to exchange thoughts with Thinkin' People. There are some reading this that are unable to pick up what I'm putting down, even though it should be clear to the most casual observer. Their numbers are great and they are killing this nation while waving the flag all the way. Of course those same people will read this statement and fail to recognize that they are the subject.