quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Pretzel logic.
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: All the more reason why it was our responsibility to make sure he was removed from power...
Doing the right thing and trying to fix our mistakes is pretzel logic eh?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yeah, and then what NR?
in case you haven't noticed? the whole mideast is becoming destabilised....
there was a good reason to do business with sadam.... Iran
Look, first off, the middle-east has been unstable for centuries...
Second, I agree, there was good reason to do business with Saddam, but it became obvious afterwards that we shouldn't have dealt with him.
This begs the question, do we let him keep the power and weapons we gave him, or do we realize the mistake we made, take responsibility for it, and take away his weapons and remove him from power?
Sure, it would be very easy to just walk away and say "Gee, sorry Iraq, but you are gonna have to take care of Saddam yourself" but that isn't the right thing to do, now is it?
As much as I despise saying it, Bdgee is right in that nothing will change the screw up we made when we started dealing with Saddam. However, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves against Saddam was an even bigger screw up.
Leaving Saddam in power as long as we did only allowed him to gain a foothold, and kill off those who would oppose him. If we hadn't pissed around so long trying to make honest deals with a dishonest man through the joke called the UN, there might have been a lot more Iraqis who would have welcomed us as liberators.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
we created the UN, we need some sort of UN, and quite frankly calling it a joke means we failed...
it's interesting how people who support Bush call it a joke when it's convenient, and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US, we are utilizing its resources again...
you either want politics to work or you don't...
simple cost-benefit analyses?? Iraq is gonna cost a trillion dollars and then some... some may say the economy can handle it... but the belt tightening has already started, and we are just beginning to see the true financial impact...
Iraq has never been a threat to US... they died by the tens of thousands in the Gulf war and never recovered...
saying the mideast has always been unstable is a copout....the mideast was moving toward stability prior to 911, and it's never been this unstable....
this whole "EVENGELICAL DEMOCRATIZATION" program is a farce... as proven by the Hamas victory in Palestine...
Iran has a democracy too.....
they will CHOOSE dictators because they want powerful leaders... it's the remaining vestiges of tribal culture
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you pardon or "manage" the investigations of crimes against the Nation by a pack of self serving ego inflated neo-nazis, instead of putting them in prison as examples, you allow then to return under King George, th Deseter and continue to f--- up the world by once again further destablizing the middlew east.
Of course, the real reason they do it has nothing to do with the middle east or who of what is right or wrong or best or anything to do with the middle east. Give a group of conspiritors in an all powerful Administration that didn't mind violating the constitution under Reagan, they return with less respect for the Constitutiond and, with George's War, they have the opportunity to distribute the Nation's treasury out to friends and associate groups and entities that will kick it back to the benifit of the pack of neo-nazis that distributed your money.
That's the only reason we are in Iraq.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Benjamin Franklin exited Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady approached him and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?"
"A Republic . . ., if you can keep it," Franklin replied.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never, when party loyalty was placed above loyalty to the country, has any nation survived.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Al Qaeda Detainee's Mysterious Release Moroccan Spoke Of Aiding Bin Laden During 2001 Escape
By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, January 30, 2006; Page A01
....During the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al Qaeda leaders were pinned down by U.S. forces, Tabarak sacrificed himself to engineer their escape. He headed toward the Pakistani border while making calls on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone as bin Laden and the others fled in the other direction....
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the joke called the UN
this is a sad statement...
we created the UN, we need some sort of UN, and quite frankly calling it a joke means we failed...
it's interesting how people who support Bush call it a joke when it's convenient, and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US, we are utilizing its resources again...
you either want politics to work or you don't...
The UN failed with North Korea, it failed with Iraq and IMO it will fail with Iran. I DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH going to the UN for Iran.
No action or delayed action means Iran armed with nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach Europe.
Surgical strikes are the only solution with Iran.
Don't put words in my mouth.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the joke called the UN
...and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US...
...Iraq has never been a threat to US... they died by the tens of thousands in the Gulf war and never recovered...
So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the joke called the UN
...and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US...
...Iraq has never been a threat to US... they died by the tens of thousands in the Gulf war and never recovered...
So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?
well NR?
what was sadam going to do to US exactly??
spit?
i'm for surgical strikes on Iran too...
BUT?
you first go thru the legal process...
and that involves the UN....
right about now? Bush is wishing he hadn't gone into Iraq without UN support.... and Iran has taken advantage of US weakening the UN....
bdgee is also correct about deals with Iran and Iraq and Libya by the current admin folks... even HAL has done work in Iran Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'
By Jefferson Morley washingtonpost.com staff writer Thursday, February 3, 2005; 8:00 AM
The award for oddest geopolitical couple of 2005 goes to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Houston-based Halliburton.
The story began on Jan. 9 when the Iran News ran a Reuters story reporting that Halliburton "has won a tender to drill a huge Iranian gas field."
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
posted
I appreciate your idea, Tex, but the stuff we are talking about won't fit in an oil well. It is impossible.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing Saddam is right about, this trial is a farce. Everyone knows he committed acts against his own people that will earn his death. He no longer has allies that will help him. The Al Qaeda resistance has evloved beyond Saddam in that Saddam, rather than being seen as leader, is now only a tool used to incite. East versus West is all that matters now.
So, we can pull out and watch Iraq be enveloped into Iran and have a new mega power in the middle east with a major grudge against the Western world. One that will go to war against any nation who tries to control them.
Or, we can stay and watch tensions rise with Iran unitl a war starts. Doesn't matter if it is the nuclear issue that sparks it. Could be that, an attempt to control the Iran malitias that say they are on peace keeping missions in Iraq, or soemthing completely unrelated. Doesn't even matter if they declare war on us before we strike at them. If that war happens it will be seen as the Infidel West attacking Muslims and Jihad will be called. The East will spontainiously combust and Iraq, instead of being the battlefield theatre, will become the American base of operations. All the while the resistance will be irroding the American military IED by IED. Palestine will attack Israel who will call on us for support. And the longer the war goes on the more it will seem that the Christian west is trying to irradicate Islam and that to be a good Muslim you must stand up and oppose it leading to terrorism all over the world.
Don't get me wrong, now that we are in Iraq I believe we need to finish the mission. We owe it to the people of Iraq and the soldiers who died to get the pieces back together. I just don't know if we can do it without starting World War 3. I REALLY don't like the path we are on right now, and NO...I don't know how to fix it.
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How big is well stem? Watch them drill a while. Many dozens are being drilled in town right now, so that will be easy. When they pull it you can see it is small enough for the roughnecks to wrap their hands around. That's the size of the hole in the ground. I used to know, but not any more.....maby 6 - 7 inches in diameter. Then, once drilled, there is the casing insude that can't fit atom bombs in there.....or canisters of poison gas. Nope, it didn't go down any oil wells.
Then go listen to the weapons inspectors. Both groups...the UN ones before Bush forced them out (and called then completely shamful things and names) and the US ones that Buish sent in after the invasion (he wasn't real nice to them either). They all said the US claims of undestroyed previous WMDs and programs to biuld more were bluntly false. Actually that is a lot nicer than they worded it. As to the claims that Saddam didn't have records to prove he had destroyed previous supplies, once again, that was BS from the White House. There never was any requirement that he have any.
The notion that you can build an atom bomb small enough to fit in a suitcase is from the wild imagination of some idiot they has no idea what one contains. And a suitcase won't fit in the casing of an oil well. And an H-bomb has to contain an atom bomb to set it off. Nope, he didn't stuff any atomic devices down any oil wells.
Could he have stuffed nerve gas down an oil well? Not in the form of gas....at least not in this decade. The hole already has stuff in it, some under high pressure, so he couldn't get it in there without forcing it down or it being in a canister. Have to be right tiny canisters, though. Once again we run into the problem of him and a whole army to help having enough time to stuff all those many thousands of litte bottles of gas in those wells, one at a time inside several years time.
It sounds like a witty solution to a quandary, Tex, but it isn't feasible. Anyway, as the weapons inspector told Bush before and after, there were none to hide. So what of the quandary posed by Bush's insistance that there were WMDs and the facts that neither WMDs and programs to produce them or any evidence that they existed are there? It's simple. They didn't go anywhere. Someone spent hundreds of millions of US treasury finds to make you believe a falshood. Guess who?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
tex? why didn't sadam USE 'em if he had 'em??
he was done for...nothing to lose....
he had plenty of warning to prepare....
in answer to your question of how small is possible?
the more technical expertise you have, the smaller possible, to a certain point anyway, there is a lower limit of minimum critical masses... refining the most exotic and powerful materials become extremely expensive and difficult... the source would have had to been US or the USSR.... We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is probably closer to 15 than 11).
This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages) and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 Kt in various versions. The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm.
- The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package was much larger and heavier. It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
as a point of reference? Hiroshima was a 10 KILOton blast.... so these are dirty, but aren't particularly destructuve in the modern sense of nukes....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The notion that you can build an atom bomb small enough to fit in a suitcase is from the wild imagination of some idiot they has no idea what one contains...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I appreciate that you are eager to support the fear tactics of the administration, but that link you provide is just more nonsense of the kind that belongs on the front of one of those "newspapers" that line the checkout lanes in supermarkets. We need to get a little more realistic than the "tabloid science" being fostered to create fear by the Administration.
Have you any idea what the thickness of the walls of the "barrel" (the sort of dull green thing in the diagram you provide) would have to be in order to not split open when an amount of explosive necessary to drive the "Bullet" to a point close enough to the "target" to reach a critical mass"? As the bullet gets closer to the target and radiation grows toward critical mass, it creates a force resisting the bullet (enough to help split the barrel, but well short of a critical mass being reached). The amount of explosive not only must drive the bullet to the target, it must also be a bigger force than is built up as critical mass is approached. That means a cannon barrel thickness of the barrell and more. If you can fit it inside that suitcase, the barrel will be so thin it will split open before the bullet can reach the point of critical mass. Even if you could fit it inside that suitcase, you and me and a team of horses couldn't pick it up. Then there is the problem of stuffing that suitcase into the well casing....it just won't fit.
Another problem I see. Back when, I worked with the inventor of the very first neutron generator, studying neutron fluxes and concentrations (we were charged with certain studies on the feasibility of neutron bombs), I learned a bit about neutrons and neutron generators. You can't contain them and they don't run down wires like electrons or through tubes like a gas, so, as your picture shows, you have to place the neutron generators inside the barrell. In that case, as the bullet travels toward the target in your diagram......oops!......the bullet destroys the neutron generators!
But it's was a good try NR. I hadn't seen that design before....thanks......it's an interesting idea, using neutron generators.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The notion that you can build an atom bomb small enough to fit in a suitcase is from the wild imagination of some idiot they has no idea what one contains...
bdgee, though the drawing is horrible, I completely disagree with the terms used, and the explaination is poor (I am a former nuclear engineer), suitcases bombs are real and extremely easy to hide. I always hated the term suitcase, though, which implies one could walk into the airport with it. But it can easily be moved by a few poeple. The plutonium itself only weighs 20 to 30 pounds. The total weight would be around 250-350 pounds.
Just think, Iraq is slightly larger than California (in terms of square miles), lots of sand to bury the bombs and the poor people that dug the holes. Look at the MIG-25 planes they discovered. Hell if they can bury a squadron of MIGs, they can certainly bury a 350 lb. bomb.
Now I'm NOT saying they had nukes (I don't believe Iraq had any nuke WMDs), but they certainly had gas and such. I also don't believe the Iraq army had plans to sail to the US anytime soon. I try not to get in to politcal arguements, I just had an issue with your statements about the suitcase bombs. Unfortunately suitcase bombs exist, but not like the drawing in the link.
I had a chance to meet Mr. Cohen years ago after a speech, very interesting man.
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes, then when you do, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes. Posts: 1450 | From: TX | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Have you any idea what the thickness of the walls of the "barrel" (the sort of dull green thing in the diagram you provide) would have to be in order to not split open when an amount of explosive necessary to drive the "Bullet" to a point close enough to the "target" to reach a critical mass"? As the bullet gets closer to the target and radiation grows toward critical mass, it creates a force resisting the bullet (enough to help split the barrel, but well short of a critical mass being reached). The amount of explosive not only must drive the bullet to the target, it must also be a bigger force than is built up as critical mass is approached. That means a cannon barrel thickness of the barrell and more. If you can fit it inside that suitcase, the barrel will be so thin it will split open before the bullet can reach the point of critical mass. Even if you could fit it inside that suitcase, you and me and a team of horses couldn't pick it up. Then there is the problem of stuffing that suitcase into the well casing....it just won't fit.
Ok, I can't resist this either. Team of horses? MSN Encarta* Fourth paragraph down. bdgee, times have changed since you worked with Sam in the 1950s.
*I hate MSN, but figured it was reputable to use as a reference.
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes, then when you do, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes. Posts: 1450 | From: TX | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: being in close proximity to unshielded nukes causes death to those that are lucky, and you don't want to know how awful it is....
Not true, it all comes down to critical mass. I can take a blob of uranium, in the form of a sphere it's radioactive. If I spread it out like a string, it's not radioactive. Critical Mass
Look up Madame Marie Curie.
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes, then when you do, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes. Posts: 1450 | From: TX | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the materials are HOT baby.... sheilding is, by it's defintion, very heavy and dense to "stop" the radition.....
It depends on the radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by the dead skin on your body. Beta needs something a bit thicker, like clothing, wood, something like that. Gammas need steel, concrete, poly or water.
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes, then when you do, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes. Posts: 1450 | From: TX | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i dunno squire, Marie died of leukaemia in July, 1934, exhausted and almost blinded, her fingers burnt and stigmatised by "her" dear radium.
it gets worse, with the fisioinable materials...
as GMT in the USN? one of my jobs was to pick up the core in case of a handling accident and hand it off to the next team... i really didn't want to know how bad it would be at the time, but 3 minutes of exposur (within a foot or two) was what i was "allowed" by regs.... and i knew better than to expect to live a "normal" life with that much...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Critical mass eventually killed her. Like the story of the Mexican family that found the "warm rock" and they all died due to various form of cancer. The rock had enough critical mass. Spread it out and there are not enough nearby atoms to cause it to sustain a chain reaction.
I too am ex-Navy, I was a nuke MM (ELT). I can neither confirm nor deny pictures of me on top of the reactor on my submarine.
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes, then when you do, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes. Posts: 1450 | From: TX | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: but i do like my tan
LOL, I wish I could tan, life dealt me the albino dwarf card. J/K
Well let me head back to researching stocks.
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes, then when you do, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes. Posts: 1450 | From: TX | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
