The phantom nukes of Iraq

[Anathema]

Now we all know Bush is going to attack Iraq (come on, you don't have any doubt of that anymore do you?), let's take a look at his motives.

On 9 september 2002 the International Institute for Strategic Studies announced that Iraq could have a nuclear bomb in half a years time. Ain't that some good news for Bush, because a day later it was announced that the CIA couldn't prove any ties between Hussein and Al-Qaida. A shame indeed, because with such ties the international community would no longer oppose a war between the US and Iraq. But heck, a nuke is just as good, isn't it?

First, timing. The previous inspectors left Iraq in 1998. So Sadam had 4 years time to build him a nuke. Meanwhile, American spyplanes make flights on a daily basis above Iraq. Moreover, it is continuously monitored by satelites. If Sadams nuke is finished within 6 months, the US had been witness of elaborate activities required to build a nuke. In other words, why is Sadams nuke only a problem since 11 september?

Second, evidence. The US has no pictures of nuclear factories or launch sites. They only have indirect clues. The most recent is a Iraqi nuclear scientist who escaped to the west in 1994. Sadam supposedly possesed machines that allowed him to process raw uranium into uranium 235 (required for bomb). How the hell does he know that? And why did he wait till now to tell us? Nobody asked the first question, and the second one is easily answered. His statements aren't new at all. He already made them in august 2001. But then nobody gave any attention to a dissident who hasn't set foot in a Iraqi nuclear lab for over 8 years. But now those statements are pretty damn useful.

Furthermore, the IISS writes in his report: "Iraq does not posses faciliteis to make fissionable material in the quantities required for nculear weapons. Only with significant foreign help could Iraq build such facilities in a few years." That would be countries France or Russia, but they're not as opportunist as they used to be. We can only conclude that Sadams nuclear plans are currently messed up.

Now, they did say Iraq could have a nuke within 6 months. But what does that report mean? Rip a few words out of their contexts and change the difficult words Mr. Bush can't understand in childrens language and cook a nice and hot press release. From the report:

"However, if Iraq could procure fissionable material from foreign sources, then Iraq could produce nukes in several months"

That is the part displayed on the front of every newspaper, and on wich the US government bases all it's reasoning.

The only way Hussein could possibly manufacture a nuke is if he got large amounts of enriched uranium delivered right to him. The US has no proof whatsoever about this, except maybe the proof wich they claim to have, but nobody except the Bush administration has laid eyes on that. That's strange...

Now, Sadam Hussein is a merciless dictator and should be disposed for the good of the people of Iraq. But this whole operation isn't about them. It's about Sadams phantom nukes. If Hussein should be disposed, then so should several other, similar dictators across the world.

[quoudam72]

A shipment of aluminum tubes was recently found in Jordan within the past 14 months. The shipment is said to come from China but is unconfrirmed by both Jordan and China. Iraq once used heavy-gauge aluminum tubing to build centrifuges for refining raw uranium into fuel for a nuclear weapon. Those devices were destroyed during the 1990s by U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq would need to build centrifuges for developing nuclear weapons. These are the 'phantom nukes' that the Bush administration officials say Saddam has hidden. This points to Iraq's ambition to have nuclear capibilites which is not at all so hard to understand because all of Iraq's neighbors have the bomb and who wants to be left out of the club (Iran can go nuclear soon by estimates)? The US is estimating on things that are not really clear as yet but due to the events of the past they do not want to miss again.

[Anathema]

Obviously, Hussein wants to have nukes. But he doesn't have any.

[quoudam72]

Look either you want to talk about it or not. I do not think he has any either. I gave you background information about the present conditions. If you know it or not I agree with most of what you said.

[Anathema]

Ok, sorry if my post seemed like an attack. :-[

There are some clues, but those can be interpreted widely and don't necessarily mean anything.

[rigel6669]

Iraq has no nukes and the inspectors are only there so Bush can contradict the reports that the inspectors made. Whatever the inspectors find or not find, Bush will invade Iraq in february 2003.

[The_Sadukar]

So it also seems to me.

[undsputed]

I agree that Iraq isn't an immediate problem and I think North Korea is where the focus should be. But, having said that, whether Iraq has weapons of any sort (that includes more than the nukes you talk about by the way) doesn't matter. I think he should be removed from power and the only thing making it difficult is people saying stuff like Earthnuker and some other I've seen. If other countries finally became active and got involved in world affairs the US wouldn't be forced to make judgement calls like these. This man should be removed from power regardless of what he is up to. Why? For the people's sake. Even if you claim the US doens't care about them, it is obvious they will benefit. No more starving and a better life awaits them.

Now, chances are another war will be fairly quick and relatively minor anyway. A lot can be accomplished with the loss of a little, at least if we act now. Most likely, some of his own soldiers and generals will turn on him. In addition, there are a very significant amount of rebel forces which will aid us from the inside. But I'm not done yet, the US also plans to gather a nice chunk of the Iraqi army in support of a former general....sorta like a military coup from a general who isn't currently active (actually I think he is in Denmark or somewhere around there.

Having said all that, there was a four year absence of weapons in spectors!!! Do you think they could have found the time to build chemical and biological weapons in that four year period (maybe a nuke but I doubt it). The problem here is chemical and biological weapons, not only nukes. Maybe the weapons they had before they kicked inspectors out just disappeared....but I doubt that. Let's be serious and not kid ourselves. When they say they disposed of weapons which we know already existed Before inspectors were kicked out, I don't think we should just say "okay."

The problem of saying there is nothing there without any support for that comment is when we finally know for sure, many more would have died that could have otherwise been prevented.

[Anathema]

I agree that Iraq isn't an immediate problem and I think North Korea is where the focus should be. But, having said that, whether Iraq has weapons of any sort (that includes more than the nukes you talk about by the way) doesn't matter. I think he should be removed from power and the only thing making it difficult is people saying stuff like Earthnuker and some other I've seen. If other countries finally became active and got involved in world affairs the US wouldn't be forced to make judgement calls like these. This man should be removed from power regardless of what he is up to. Why? For the people's sake. Even if you claim the US doens't care about them, it is obvious they will benefit. No more starving and a better life awaits them.

If you bothered to read my post you'd have known that I think Sadam should be removed from power. Bush' motives for this entire actions are political, not humanitary, in nature. Because honestly, you'd think nothing is better for your popularity then a victory or two on your name, not?

There's also a lot of oil in Iraq. Don't give me that bullsh1t "we don't need their oil". Iraq has the 2nd largest oil supply in the world. Saudi Arabia is the very largest in the whole world, but the US has reasons to distrust them, seeing as how 20 % of their budget is transfered to Al Quada. Establishing a pro US government in Iraq would mean ensuring a secure oil supply for decades to come.

Now, chances are another war will be fairly quick and relatively minor anyway. A lot can be accomplished with the loss of a little, at least if we act now

Bullcrap. This isn't anything like Afghanistan. The US will have to take the capitol Baghdad, wich will cost numerous lives (mostly civilian).

[The_Sadukar]

Now, chances are another war will be fairly quick and relatively minor anyway. A lot can be accomplished with the loss of a little, at least if we act now

Bullcrap. This isn't anything like Afghanistan. The US will have to take the capitol Baghdad, wich will cost numerous lives (mostly civilian).

about Afghanistan, as far as I know they are still fightting down there mayby not the US. but the native clans are once agin at war.

[Dude_Doc]

How do you know that? People will hide, and probably evacuated before one US troop sets his foot there. The US has many strategical weapons, and when the majority realises that more troops are coming, and that even if they can handle one or two fronts, their whole country is surrounded. When Saddam is out of the way, al Quaeda will have trouble of getting info and supplies. And since they opperate in the Middle East, al Quaeda should soon also be done with. Hell, the majority of all Middle East citizens is to stop battles and rebuild their once mighty civilization. They aren't battle-hungry, they are just misslead. They trust their dictator because they have never had any choices, no one said "you are free, do what you want with your life". They will realise that democracy is the best way for everyone. And the US has oil enough, they have Alaska. They import from other countries. The only thing is world control, and the US hasn't that kind of power, they want everyone on this planet freed from boundaries that dictators created because they were out for control. And calm down, the US will deal with other power hungry dictators... after all, they helped with resigning Hitler from power during WW2, right?

[IxianMace]

And since they opperate in the Middle East, al Quaeda should soon also be done with.

Done with as in completely eliminated as an organization? I seriously doubt it. Just because Al Quaeda apparently have their main base of operations stationed in the Middle East, that doesn't mean that they don't have other operatives scattered across the globe. Taking out the command and control facilities of an organized group is one thing, eliminating every single operative within that group is another. Until every Al Quaeda operative has been found and dealt with in the appropriate manner, the threat will still be there, if only residual.

[undsputed]

"Bush' motives for this entire actions are political, not humanitary, in nature. Because honestly, you'd think nothing is better for your popularity then a victory or two on your name, not?"

Maybe that is true Earthnuker, and I know oil plays a role, but do you really think the loss of American lives will get the Preseident reelected by the American public. If you know anything about Amnericans, then you'll know we really hate losing any soldiers. When two people get killed in friendly fire, that makes the news.... So that argument has some major problems.

The only way it would help Bush politically is if Iraq was easily defeated, but you said that wouldn't happen. And on that subject, I wasn't referring to Afghanistan. If you remember the first gulf war in the early 1990's, that was a walk in the park. The Iraqi soldiers weren't prepared to die for Saddam....in fact, they surrendered all over the place.....some defecting. I doubt, aside from any weapons he has developed, that Iraq is stronger today then they were ten years ago.

It is highly likely that soldiers and, especially important, officers, will again defect and make this much easier than some of you are thinking. And I mentioned the ex-general being hidden in Euorpe.....possibly Netherlands or somewhere around there.

About Al-queda, there do have people all over the world. They are in Seattle, Buffalo, Flordia, and I just saw a report where Canada believes sleeper cells exist within its borders!

[Anathema]

Of course you won't like losing soldiers. Who does? In fact, I remember seeing a poll on CNN. When 50 Americans are killed in Iraq, about 80 % voted yes. With 100, only 60. And with 500 it was about 40. Interesting that Iraq civilian casualties were not included in the poll ::)

The first Gulf War was a field trip, indeed. But that was in open terrain, with plenty of opportunity to use high tech weaponry (it was kind of a test period, really. It was the first real opportunity to try out a lot of new stuff for the army). I honestly don't see how you could take a city without a lot of casualties, both on your own side and on the civilians. Szun Tsu saw this, who said that if you were forced to fight a war in a city you already lost.

[Caid Ivik]

If he has some, no matter, Israel would quickly hit back, US Army presence is considerable too. Also, there is no connection between him and terrorists. But if he has no, it's better, because it ensures our domination on Middle East. March on Bagdad is a nice plan, it would prevent any such plan. Death of civilians is bad thing, but Saddam IS hostile to West, also close to nuke. Like when White Guard attacked Russia to stop bolshevik revolution.

[Anathema]

I fail to see the resemblance between Sadam and the reds.

[Caid Ivik]

Because you are a socialist ;)

But usually they are both called evil dictatures.

[VigilVirus]

LOL, what is a non-evil dictature? I mean, dictatures always are characterizes as such, because of the always present corruption and misuse of power.

[Anathema]

Because you are a socialist ;)

But usually they are both called evil dictatures.

But that's different. Sadam is already well settled in Iraq, and they failed to stop the reds.