quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm not that worried dusty.... there's a lot of good people that you just don't hear about minding the store....
------------------------------------------------- I sure hope yer right........
I sure as heck do not want to see A-effected bunch of 4 eyed, dual billed, twin tailed, glowing, Pacific Blue Marlin a chasing a certain lure.!!
French Frigate shoals[ north of Kaui Hi.] has a Ruskie problem, did ya know that...??
Posts: 10729 | From: oregon | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"bdgee, times have changed since you worked with Sam in the 1950s."
The name was Norman, not Sam, and is was the 1960s.
"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."
Were that a correct statement, then neither of the Curies would have died from radiation poisoning. The material doesn't suddenly become radioactive when it reaches critical mass. It must first be radioactive in order to form a critical mass. It is possible to receive lethal doses of radiation from materials that can never form a critical mass. Radiation (and heavy, lethal amounts of it) would emanate from the amount of material necessary to reach critical mass (otherwise there is nothing to cause a nuclear reaction) and enough shielding to be safe from it won't fit in a suitcase.
"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 very seriously doubt that the Curies were ever were withing miles of enough fissionable material to form a critical mass or ever had enough to reah the point of fission. There were no man-mad elements then. The things that can become fissionable and can occur naturally are so very rare it requires a Manhatten Project to collect and purify enough to get a critical mass. I think you have confused the terms "critical Mass", fission, and "radioactive"...I don't just think you are wrong, I know you are wrong....minute amounts of radioactive uranium-235 (micrograms), which, along with uranium-238 is what they were working with, with enough time (i.e., exposure) will kill you.....larger amounts, yet still far far short of a critical mass amount will kill you FAST. (Me and old Norman were involved with experiments on that too.....I killed a many a rat that way, in order to determine the shielding effects of some strange things. And we NEVER had anywhere close to a critical mass.)
"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.
And I'll add to that, most neutrons speeding from the sun will pass all the way through the Earth. Gamma rays, which are effectively "by-products" of the radioactivity necessary to for fission, will travel through several inches of lead and way more inches of water. The shielding needed to just be close to an amount of material that can create a critical mass for even a couple of minutes, assuming you are going to be live and functioning a few minutes later is a bunch. A single lead brick (shaped and about the size of a normal brick) weighs 55 pounds and isn't thick enough to protect you from the kinds of material used in nuclear bombs.
I have now run into the second ex-navy submariner who has told me, "I am a former nuclear engineer" and couldn't distinguish between radiation, fission, fusion, and critiacl mass....that has told me that the materials used to form a critical mass was entirely safe up to the point of critical mass, with NO shielding. Allow me to point out that the reaction going on in an atomic pile, fission, creates enormous amounts of radiation and is never (hopefully) allowed to reach a critical mass.....even in quantities smaller than is required for critical mass, of any configuration, it emits huge amounts of very deadly radiation and can kill within seconds. How did the Navy allow their supposed "nuclear engineers" to be so lacking in this vital concern? Radiation can exists absent fission and fission can exists without critical mass, but neither implication can be reversed! In order to achieve fission, you first must have radiation and in order to reach a critical mass, you first have to have fission. A critical mass results in a nuclear explosion (Note that even in the accident at Chernoble, critical mass never happened and many of the workers that went in to cleaan it up died withing minutes from radiation sickness.)
I offer my appreciation for your participation in debate. Interesting! But I also want to point out the post that you responded to was not meant to object to the possible existance of a thing called a "suitcase nuclear bomb", which can exists, but not in a size or configuration that would fit into a hand held suitcase (they could be fit into the bed of a pickup, but you aren't going to "pick it up", not by a long shot). The post was there to demonstrate that the conjecture that Saddam could have stuffed atomic bombs down an oil well isn't possible, even were it possible to build the devise pictured in NR's link. Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The post was there to demonstrate that the conjecture that Saddam could have stuffed atomic bombs down an oil well isn't possible, even were it possible to build the devise pictured in NR's link.
You don't have to put it down a well. Just bury it in the desert.
Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I read your one post about neutron inventor (I was thinking bombs and Sam Cohen) and skipped the word generators, and figured you knew crap. I run into BSers all the time, but for you pretty much know your stuff. Most would have agree with my incorrect statements.
I would argue with your definition of critical mass. "A critical mass results in a nuclear explosion." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant super-critical.
Also you may need to look up the sizes of a suicase bomb. They can build them to be around 24" x 16" x 8". I don't know the size of an oil well hole, but I know a 24" x 16" x 8" is pretty close to my wife's suitcase. As I stated before though a suitcase bomb can not hand held. 350 lbs. is a bit too much for most people to carry.
Don't worry about the Navy. I was not a nuclear engineer in the Navy, just a nuclear tech. After the Navy I became a nuclear engineer and worked up near your neck of the woods. I completely understand the difference in radioactivty, fission, etc. I think that everyone is taught in 7th grade that the potassium in bananas causes them to be radioactive.
-------------------- 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 have a hard time believing that at this late date, people are still clingning to the notion that there were WMD's in Iraq in 2001...
we "interrogated" 10's of thousands... offered rewards etc...
it not just that we couldn't find hiding places, we couldn't find PEOPLE that would have done any of the work... no infrastructure...nada,they just weren't there..
considering how foolish the admin looked without them? i think it's just plain a done deal..no WMD's...
i was much more concerned about them having weaponised smallpox than nukes anyway... even if they had both? the smallpox was a much worse scenario...
sadam was dictator of a small country, he played the part that job requires, including acting tougher than he was even after having his azz handed to him in the Gulf War... that's just the job description... when he invaded Kuwait? he mistakenly thought he had a "green light" from US.... and we didn't go to Kuwait's defense... we went in Saudi Arabias defense.. and the Sauds PAID for it too.... cash....
-------------------- 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 post was there to demonstrate that the conjecture that Saddam could have stuffed atomic bombs down an oil well isn't possible, even were it possible to build the devise pictured in NR's link.
You don't have to put it down a well. Just bury it in the desert.
Get real and grow up. WMDs in Iraq just prior to the invasion didn't exist. Bush lied. It's that simple.
There are techniques of imaging from satalites that will detect things burried in sand that are no bigger than a dinner plate. First, they can detect the disturbance of the soil where recent digging was done (recent being as much as years). then they can use other techniques and "see" if anything is there.
The inspectors have reported that they definately told Bush there was NO evidence of any kind of WMDs and he chose to say otherwise, both before and after the invasion.
There hs never been any evidence of any kind that supports Bush's claims of WMDs and there ia a great deal of excellent evidence that that there were none.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Racer007: The guy kicked out the UN inspectors.
All done period!
Yes, Saddam kicked out the UN inspection team over some incidents he said was U.S. spying (I don't, at that time, think he wanted them to conclude that he had no WMDs in order to keep Iraq at bay), butbefore the invasion, there was another UN team in Iraq working and telling Bush there was no evidence of WMDs or programs to make them. Then Bush announced war and told them to leave Iraq immediately. After the invasion, Bush sent in his own team, They gave him the same reports.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: 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....
Since we're "proving negatives," I'll ask one...
What's the biggest "slam" against the war? No WMD's found...
As far as "suitcases," they could be dismantled to components...
And the pipe size? Who says they have to stick to conventional pipe? Injection would be a much different proposition than extraction...After all, wasn't that Saddam who was building the super-cannon, or whatever? Who woulda thought of that and actually put it into construction?
Actually, I do not think nuke material was flushed. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if gases and liquids were pumped down some wells, though...
The thing is? It *is* a solution that solves lottsa problems, eg the satellite analyses Beedge mentions... yet, I've never seen any authority address it, even in speculation. That simply strikes me as odd...
Am I positing an "out" for Bush? nah. . . for one thing, if they proved the well idea now, just shows more problems for not checking sooner.
Let's say you make you a flow chart of logical possibilities; this leg doesn't even get checked? Makes no sense to me...
posted
Sadam attacked Iran in a preemptive strike. Kuwait was a preemptive strike. kurds were revolting , premptive strike . well if sadam uses the little bush doctrine of preemptive strikes I guess he could be considered inocent.
When you drop four 5,000 pound bombs on a restrant to kill sadam in the opening minutes of the WAR ON IRAQ but when you gather the bits of human remains no dna a matched sadams... WAS that a mistake?
Well one Alquada operative did traveled through iraq a few years earlier so those people eating diner paid the ultimate price for sadams (link) with alquada.
the 911 report has 25 pages ommited ,, those pertaining to soudi arabia. the home of the 911 suicide atackers,,, its a secret. shhh
Posts: 203 | From: Renton, WA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You simply can't stuff things down an oil well like you can a dead body down the 20 foot deep 5 feet in diameter hand dug well in gramma's back yard. Very few things will fit and even if they would, there is already stuff in there and, in those oil fields, almost guaranteed to be under high pressure. Like it was in Kuwait, as demonstrated by the fires during the Gulf War, if you open one of those wells, stuff comes out and it comes out with great force. And assuming you tried to inject some sort of gas into the well, even one that doesn't have it's own positive pressure, the stuff might fill the hole but it can't disappear into the rock. The wells casing blocks it if there is any porous strata above the bottom and the oil bearing stratum at the bottom is already full of oil and gas. So you are limited to the volume of the inside diameter of the casing.
Let's look at the volume available in an oil well. With 3.14 approximating pi and the inner radius of the hole being 3 inches (=0.25 feet), the area of a cross section of the inside of the well is pi times the radius squared or,
3.14 x (0.25ft) x (0.25) = 0.196 sqft, approximately,
and for convenience, we'll round that off to 0.2 sqft foot cross section of the well..
So, if the well is 1000 feet deep, there are approximately 200 cubic feet of space in it; for a 2000 foot deep well, approximately 400 cubic feet, for a 3000 foot deep well, approximately 600 cubic feet, and so on.
Now, there are about 7.5 gallon per cubic foot, so
[(200cuft) (7.5gal/cuft] = 1500 gallons, approximately in 1000 feet of oil well..
I have no figures for the depths of the Iraq oil fields, but it probably isn't much different from those in Kuwait, where the depth of the deepest wells are reported to be about 8 - 9 thousand feet (see http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/cia/19960531/cia_62717_62080_01.html). Using the largest of those, we get that
(9000ft)(1500gal/1000ft) = 13500gallons per Iraqi oil well. approximately.
And that is assuming the space in the well contains nothing to begin with, which means a dry hole..
I don't remember the actual figure Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc. were claiming that Saddam had on store at the time of the invasion, but it was many many tens of thousands of cubic feet of biological and chemical weapons. Now, assuming you could find enough oil wells not under a huge pressures, so that you could pour or force those things into it, how long would it take how many people to pour how many tens of thousands of gallons of them into the oil wells?
We are not talking days or even weeks and we are not talking a miner effort to do it. How long does it take to pick out enough of the wells that can be filled with bio-weapons and chemical weapons and whatever? We'd need to gather and find a way to transport the stuff to the wells, something that isn't going to be done by just any average Iraqi you can find, because of the special care needed to handle this stuff. Once at the well, you have to uncap the well and afterward you have to recap it. Then. since we know there was no evidence of spillage of the stuff or any other of the activities of pouring it in the wells found after the invasion, it all had to be cleaned up and the evidence removed. Could that be done in days? Weeks? He didn't have weeks.
It simply isn't reasonable to assume Saddam hid all those thousands of gallons of poison gas, biological weapons, and nuclear devises we were assured he had in oil wells and it isn't reasonable to assume that the possibility hasn't had sufficient consideration. By now, some of that nerve gas, some of that biological weaponry, or some other liquid or gaseous stuff he had hidden in the oil wells would have escaped or been pumped out and been discovered or some one of the large force of people it took to do it would have taken the rewards offered for information or otherwise let the cat out of the bag and told the story and we'd know..
I'm sorry, but the notion that Saddam had all the nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons the Administration assured us he did isn't reasonable. The only proper conclusion is that the Administration sold us a bill of goods.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Get real and grow up. WMDs in Iraq just prior to the invasion didn't exist. Bush lied. It's that simple.
There are techniques of imaging from satalites that will detect things burried in sand that are no bigger than a dinner plate. First, they can detect the disturbance of the soil where recent digging was done (recent being as much as years). then they can use other techniques and "see" if anything is there.
The inspectors have reported that they definately told Bush there was NO evidence of any kind of WMDs and he chose to say otherwise, both before and after the invasion.
There hs never been any evidence of any kind that supports Bush's claims of WMDs and there ia a great deal of excellent evidence that that there were none.
Bdgee, get your eyes tested, or learn how to read you moron...
..."We'd heard a great many things had been buried, but we had not known where they were, and we'd been operating in that immediate vicinity for weeks and weeks and weeks . . . 12, 13 weeks, and didn't know they were (there)," Rumsfeld said...
..."Something as big as an airplane that's within . . . a stone's throw of where you're functioning, and you don't know it's there because you don't run around digging into everything on a discovery process," Rumsfeld explained. "So until you find somebody who tells you where to look, or until nature clears some sand away and exposes something over time, we're simply not going to know...
How many months did we give Saddam to hide his WMD's before we came knocking on his door?
Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way Bdgee, I am expecting your reply to be that the planes were ordered buried by Rumsfield so they could be later "found" in an attempt to make credible the "myth" that Saddam had WMD's and simply buried them in the desert somewhere.
-------------------- 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 NaturalResources: By the way Bdgee, I am expecting your reply to be that the planes were ordered buried by Rumsfield so they could be later "found" in an attempt to make credible the "myth" that Saddam had WMD's and simply buried them in the desert somewhere.
NR, you bring up an important point.. haven't you wondered why Rumseld didn't have a black ops team bring in something to find?
Bush's own people NOW, clearly say there was nothing there and no programs to develop more.....
all this speculation about burying stuff is contrary to Bush's own reporting....
none of it makes sense...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Have you any idea what it would require to make a jet fighter that has been buried in the sand able to function again?
Have you any degree of respect for facts? If there were any truth to that tale of burrying aircraft in the sand it would have been flashed all over by the administration. We'd never hear the end of it. Instead, even Bush has begung to admit there were no WMDs in Iraq. Why can't you?
"By the way Bdgee, I am expecting your reply to be that the planes were ordered buried by Rumsfield so they could be later "found" in an attempt to make credible the "myth" that Saddam had WMD's and simply buried them in the desert somewhere."
No, not Rumsfield, though I don't believe he would rat on the prepetrator. More likely, if there actually was a plane burried in the sand, it was Cheney's idea. I point out too that even. if a plane was found burried in the sand and we could prove Saddam did it, that, in no way, demonstrates that Saddam had or hid WMDs. It's all pipe dream of the goose stepping Party loyalist.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I can just hear the bearings whining as the sand grinds them away. Then the compresser starts to come apart and throws blades through the sides and belly and into the cockpit at a few hundreds of miles per hour. I ain't gonna drive that thing and I don't wanna be even close when they rev it up.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Ha ha ha....good one, Tex......
I can just hear the bearings whining as the sand grinds them away. Then the compresser starts to come apart and throws blades through the sides and belly and into the cockpit at a few hundreds of miles per hour. I ain't gonna drive that thing and I don't wanna be even close when they rev it up.
Bdgee, you are so blinded by your witch-hunt you missed the whole point. Since you obviously don't get it, I'll explain it for you.
If something as big as a jet plane can remain hidden in the sand next to a place where the military has been operating for 12-13 months, then wouldn't you say it is highly possible that you could find a spot in the desert to hide WMD's that could take years to be found or may never be found at all?
Focus Bdgee, Focus....
You were claiming that something as small as a dinner plate could easily be found..... remember?
By the way doofus...
quote:..."If there were any truth to that tale of burrying aircraft in the sand it would have been flashed all over by the administration."...
quote:Originally posted by glassman: NR, you bring up an important point.. haven't you wondered why Rumseld didn't have a black ops team bring in something to find?
Bush's own people NOW, clearly say there was nothing there and no programs to develop more.....
all this speculation about burying stuff is contrary to Bush's own reporting....
none of it makes sense...
If Bush and his cronies are so corrupt as you people claim and will lie about anything, then I'm pretty sure someone would have made sure we found WMD's. Perhaps they are not the jackboot thugs you make them out to be......
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the aircraft find wasn't exactly covered up by the "liberal media" tho...
why wasn't it big news? because they were inventoried prior to our invasion... iraq was also estimated to have 60 french mirages... they were "discovered" because an informant told them where to find them.... but they knew he had them..
how many Mig pilots did sadam have? LOL..... a couple...
all of this stuff takes trained personnel..
nobody showed up to fight because they knew they would lose....
-------------------- 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: Ha ha ha....good one, Tex......
I can just hear the bearings whining as the sand grinds them away. Then the compresser starts to come apart and throws blades through the sides and belly and into the cockpit at a few hundreds of miles per hour. I ain't gonna drive that thing and I don't wanna be even close when they rev it up.
Bdgee, you are so blinded by your witch-hunt you missed the whole point. Since you obviously don't get it, I'll explain it for you.
If something as big as a jet plane can remain hidden in the sand next to a place where the military has been operating for 12-13 months, then wouldn't you say it is highly possible that you could find a spot in the desert to hide WMD's that could take years to be found or may never be found at all?
Focus Bdgee, Focus....
You were claiming that something as small as a dinner plate could easily be found..... remember?
By the way doofus...
quote:..."If there were any truth to that tale of burrying aircraft in the sand it would have been flashed all over by the administration."...
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: It is not me that is blinded, NR, it is you and Fat Rush and the rest of the Goose stepping fools rattling on about the Party line nonsense.
There were no WMDs. I know it. Bush has admitted it. And you need to give up trying to make dubya honest. It won't work.
There are no WMDs in Iraq.
Ah yes, the old party line about Saddam having WMD's....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way Bdgee, there are many more from where that came, but I figured I'd limit it to quotes made before 2000, since anything dated after that would draw your objections.
After all, the Democrats were only going off the "cherry-picked" intel Bush and his cronies were feeding them.... Right?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's get one thing straight, Bush lied to the congress and to the people. People have a right to expect the President is telliung the truth and acting as if that were true, they reached conclusions not warranted by real facts. It isn't right to try to hold them to things they said on the basis of lies from Bush.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
-Colin Powell; February 24, 2001
"In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-Condoleezza Rice; July 29, 2001
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You haven't the slightest concept of logic, have you?
And you haven't the slightest concept of chronology do you? Those quotes are from BEFORE Bush's time.....
Just exactly what do you think when you read the quotes from your beloved party claiming Saddam had or was developing WMD's in 1998?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There actually was a time when there was a danger of Saddam. But Saddam was out of the terrorist picture before dubya was in office.....he sort of missed the boat and was left behind.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: There actually was a time when there was a danger of Saddam. But Saddam was out of the terrorist picture before dubya was in office.....he sort of missed the boat and was left behind.
Ah, but that danger miraculously disappeared once the republicans took office... I see
Under Clinton in 1999 Saddam is a danger. Under Bush in 2000 Saddam isn't a danger.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but they chose to ignore that fact because they needed a war to hide the facts of the stolen election and to serve as a mechanism to drain the money out of the U. S. Treasury into their control; to set op the takeover by corporations and cartels.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
