State of Iraq

[breadcatcher101]

I didn't know Iraq was a state, is this one of the 57 or 8 states Obama spoke of ?

I don't think we should have gone in the first place. Now here we are rebuilding a country we laid waste to.

Iraq had nothing to do w/9/11.

We will be there always until the day comes when we decide to just leave.

You can't use 20% 235U to make a weapon. You can, however, use 20% 235U to fuel a nuclear reactor.

Don't get technical, Haplo still wants to believe the lies.

Just look at the crap "in a degraded state figure about half that"...... figure its good for nothing.
Yellowcake?????bloody hell that was one of the biggest jokes in the claims, documented, sealed and monitored by the weapons inspectors for over a decade before the invasion.
Old corroded leaking 6 inch shells left over from when Saddam was a good friend.
So corroded and degraded that it took repeat tests before they could even get any positive result for the chemicals at all.

As they say down it Texas or is it Taiwan, "fool me once shame on me fool me again long after the facts are well established and the topic has been done to death please pity me as I have difficulty facing reality, if I try to fool you too due to my difficulties please don't laugh too much"

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - your link talks about the internal sunni/shia feud that took place in 2006. It has nothing to do with the topic - being the start/cause of war.

Now lets look at the article. The Samarra bombing took place on 22 February. The article claims by link that Gen. Casey lies about sectarian violence. However, in the article it links to - this is stated clearly:

The general acknowledged that Iraq is facing sectarian tension and sectarian violence, but said it's "focused primarily in the center of the country around Baghdad." Even there, the situation is not as dire as media reports suggest, Casey said.

The article is dated March 19th, and states General Casey "recently" toured Baghdad. Even if he had visited the area 2 weeks prior to the article, on 5 March, the sectarian violence was mostly over by 27 Feb.
To claim that Casey somehow should have "seen" firsthand the bodies in the streets during days when he wasn't present is idiocy.

On to Rumsfeld - you state he lied.

The October 2010 Iraqi War documents leak shed new light on the events of February–March 2006. In particular, the logs reveal that U.S. soldiers immediately reported an "explosion of retaliatory killings, kidnappings, tortures, mosque attacks, and open street fighting," even as U.S. commanders including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were downplaying media reports of a surge in killings. The previous "official" death toll for post-bombing sectarian fighting, of 3-400, was based on information from the Shiite-led government and the Sadr-run Health Ministry, which was directly involved in atrocities according to the logs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al...WikiLeaks_data

So Rumsfeld based his view not on the info from the grunts (which he can't interview em all ya know), but on official information from the Iraqi Health ministry. Did he lie? Or did he in good faith repeat information that he was given from an official Iraqi source? Given the date of his statement - there is no way that the on the ground data would have been confirmed and then forwarded up the chain to his level by then. So what is the man to go on?

Then you state Bush and Cheney as well are "traitors to the nation and should be hung as such". Funny - nothing in your article related to either of them. Nor have you provided anything that shows they knew ahead of time that the intel they were given was false, nor what they would gain by stating falsehoods. How did they commit treason?

Everyone here gets that some folks on here don't like those in the previous administration. Some of us don't like the folks in this one. That is fine. But if your going to make accusations, try at least to back them up with something reasonable.

Also - can you pick a less left leaning source than the Daily Beast? I mean, their causes are the environmental impact of oil drilling and plastics, immigrant and gay rights. That's like half of the left's agenda right there. I was suprised I didn't find more anti-capitalism stuff to go with it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Mookie - your link talks about the internal sunni/shia feud that took place in 2006. It has nothing to do with the topic - being the start/cause of war.

So what. They still lied. One documented example of a history of lies.

Now lets look at the article. The Samarra bombing took place on 22 February. The article claims by link that Gen. Casey lies about sectarian violence. However, in the article it links to - this is stated clearly:



The article is dated March 19th, and states General Casey "recently" toured Baghdad. Even if he had visited the area 2 weeks prior to the article, on 5 March, the sectarian violence was mostly over by 27 Feb.
To claim that Casey somehow should have "seen" firsthand the bodies in the streets during days when he wasn't present is idiocy.

Defending these treasonous bastards is idiocy.

On to Rumsfeld - you state he lied.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al...WikiLeaks_data

So Rumsfeld based his view not on the info from the grunts (which he can't interview em all ya know), but on official information from the Iraqi Health ministry. Did he lie? Or did he in good faith repeat information that he was given from an official Iraqi source? Given the date of his statement - there is no way that the on the ground data would have been confirmed and then forwarded up the chain to his level by then. So what is the man to go on?

Again, one example in a track record of lies.

Then you state Bush and Cheney as well are "traitors to the nation and should be hung as such". Funny - nothing in your article related to either of them. Nor have you provided anything that shows they knew ahead of time that the intel they were given was false, nor what they would gain by stating falsehoods. How did they commit treason?

Because screw them, that's why. These things happened on their watch, and source after source has shown that it was with their knowledge and complicitness. If you have to ask that question at this point, you're either willfully blind or a partisan. Either way, it's not worth wasting time rehashing now.

Also - can you pick a less left leaning source than the Daily Beast? I mean, their causes are the environmental impact of oil drilling and plastics, immigrant and gay rights. That's like half of the left's agenda right there. I was suprised I didn't find more anti-capitalism stuff to go with it.

Don't attack the source. Attack the statement.

Actually, don't. You're not changing my mind on this, and it's clear I'm not changing yours.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I am glad we went.

Man, do you have any idea how hallow those words are?
I have to ask, Did you go Iraq? Did you serve in the military? Where you there when the **** was hitting the fan? Where where you stationed at?

Don't ever use the word, "We" in that context if you didn't participate in something like that. When it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, *I* sure as hell won't be saying, "im glad we went". I have no right to.

There's ONE Thing that has really peeved me off with the general public every since i got out of the military. The whole, "We're gonna kick their ass!" or, "I'm glad we went!" mentality. REALLY?!!?? What do you mean, WE? Where where you again? Like the whole thing is a god damn football game, as they sit on their asses, watching CNN, and waving the American flag around like its a set of cheer leaders pom poms.

Another big FAD i always get a kick out of, is the "I support our troops" yellow ribbons some jerkoffs place next to their gas caps on their vehicles. You support our troops eh? REALLY? HOW? By buying a bumper sticker on amazon? Displaying your do nothing flag waving patrotism to assuage some guilt? Way to support the troops there......


You'll have to excuse me, I've had that sentiment bottled up in me for about 14 years now. As an aside, its my opinion that anyone who supports a war (any war) should be made to serve in it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Platapus

You can't use 20% 235U to make a weapon. You can, however, use 20% 235U to fuel a nuclear reactor.

And "highly radioactive items" can't be used to make any sort of fission weapon. The worst you can do is use them for an RDD.

Platypus - you read well from Wiki - but you needed to read a bit further.

Reactors usually use 235U enriched 3%-5%. Anything under 20% is considered low enriched uranium (leu).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriche...nium_.28LEU.29

Anything at 20% or above is considered weapon usable. Anything at 85% or higher is considered "weapons grade". Weapon usable is - as you say - for an RDD (aka dirty bomb).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriche...nium_.28HEU.29

Now - in Juneof 2004 we removed 2 tons of LEU and 1000 HEU devices - or 1000 sources of fuel for dirty bombs. See USA today link from previous.

In 2008, we removed the 550 tons of yellowcake that the IAEA knew about. The problem - the IAEA did NOT know about the 2 tons of LEU or the 1000 HEU devices prior to the invasion. In other words, Iraq prior to the invasion had nuclear fuel - both LEU and HEU, that was undeclared. The HEU could have been used by terrorists to create bombs if they got a hold of them.... the LEU was not even supposed to exist!

Atomic bombs can also be built using less uranium, down to around 15 to 25 kgs of material, according to experts.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5...ke-atomic-bomb

However - that is based on weapons grade stuff. According to the ever so handy Nuclear Weapons FAQ, 245kg would be needed using a berelium neutron absorbtion sphere. FYI - berelium is common enough to be easily acquirable....

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfa...ml#Nfaq4.1.7.1

So - 245kgs of 20% enriched U235 - out of 2 tons of the stuff? I don't know how much is needed for specific enrichment (as it varies with technique and Iraq had previously used more than one). It may not have been enough for a bomb.... but it would have been enough for part of one.....

Yes - Uranium at 20% can be used to make a fissionable weapon. And 1000 dirty bombs would kill people too......

1000 HEU devices - or 1000 sources of fuel for dirty bombs

Wow did they raid a hospital?

[Armistead]

Cheny's worth in Haliburton went from $241,498 to over $8,000,000.

Mission accomplished.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Seems the US can't learn that you can't replace cultures with war. It's impossible to change a mindset that's been around 1000 years with war, it can't be done.

There is wisdom in these words.

[August]

Well I for one am glad that we took out Saddam and his regime. The man was just waiting for a chance to stick it to us just as soon as we took our boot off his neck.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

Well I for one am glad that we took out Saddam and his regime. The man was just waiting for a chance to stick it to us just as soon as we took our boot off his neck.

Was he worth 4500 american soldiers?

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Was he worth 4500 american soldiers?

Considering how many he might have killed if given the chance? Yes.

He should have been finished off in '91...

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You'll have to excuse me, I've had that sentiment bottled up in me for about 14 years now. As an aside, its my opinion that anyone who supports a war (any war) should be made to serve in it.

No excuse necessary. Your entire post is well said, and echoes my feelings as well.

My kid is looking at tour #4 in [a current zone of conflict] coming up [sometime in the future] - so I'm a little sore on the "yellow ribbon" pandering, too.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by August

Well I for one am glad that we took out Saddam and his regime. The man was just waiting for a chance to stick it to us just as soon as we took our boot off his neck.

out of curiosity - how do you imagine he was going to stick it to ze Americans after you took the boot off his neck? Invade kuwait again?

[Skybird]

Nobody denies that Saddam at one point of time had chemical weapons, actually he has used them, against the Kurds and the Iranians. Point is, he got rid of them years ahead of 2003. The reason told to the public why this war was necessary, said he still had them. And that was a lie.

It was also said by the Bush administration that Saddam and Al Quaeda cooperated. That was also a lie. Representatives of the regime and Al Quaeda have met and one point, only to find that they have nothing to agree over. Which is no surprise for anyone knowing the stuff: Al Quaeda hates despots and corrupted pseudo-Muslims like the Saddam regime.

It also was implied that Saddam had his hands in 9/11. That is a lie.

Then there was this hilarious thing that became known as the "London missile memo", a diploma paper by student from ten years ago that was just copied and sold as latest government intel, saying that Saddam's MRBM now could reach European cities in less than 30 minutes. Maybe the best joke of them all.

Only the allegation that Saddam still has chemical weapons, was an explanation for the war given ahead of the war. When the weapons were not found, the Al Quaeda issue was published, and the 9/11 link became more focused on. The original lie had not worked, now one needed another one to justify the war.

Explanations given before a war, are reasons that may be right or wrong. Explanations given AFTER a war, are always just lame excuses.

And a final reminder on the fact that the Wolfowiotz paper planned and demanded the Iraq war of 2003 already one decade earlier. During the Clinton years, the paper disappeared in a drawer. When Bush junior entered office, the war already was decided from all beginning on when he took out that paper again.

My all time favourite which ruined Colin Powell's respectability forever: the moment he pathetically held up that unsecured vial of poweder sugar at the UN, lecturing over how dangerous a piece of Anthrax it was. What a disgrface for a man who before enjoyed quite some respect in the world and maybe was the only person respected in the whole administration. He later indicated in an interview, just some years ago, that he deeply regret that he accepted to stage this act, if I remember correctly.

If you have the opportunity, watch that 2 hopur docu from 2006 or 2007, "No end in sight", which in Germany ran under the nice title "War of the amateurs". It was on TV and at the movies, and initially was freely available on internet, but now is payware DVD only. But you can check youtube on whether or not I may be wrong. That film spoke vomes about the early inention of Bush, and the diletantism shown by the adminstration. It went so far as too actively hinder better preparation. Idiots, totally unscrupellous idiots fed from the pockets of backstage cliques and business lobbies.

The failure over realistic Afghanistan policies and Kathrina showed that their incompetence was no single case, but a basic feature of this government crew.