Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Apr 16, 2004, 06:59 pm

I would hope that at least some of you have been reading that it appears that nuclear materials from Iraqi facilities are showing up in other parts of the world. The allegation goes that the US aren't properly ensuring the containment of these materials. The story has been reported in a few places, but is sourced from the IAEA (UN).

We further know that one of the Bush premises for the invasion of Iraq was to prevent this kind of material falling into the hands of terrorists. Now, while no one is currently saying it has, it appears to be obvious that this is quite possible.

We know that as the legitimate occupying force in Iraq, it is most definately the responsibility of the United States and Britain to secure these materails and to prevent their proliferation.

How is this explainable by the Bush administration, apart from to admit they have failed?

And in any case, what excuse is there for this failure, there simply put, is none.

What I am curious about, is who exactly will take responsibility for these materials if they show up in a dirty bomb somewhere? Who will Bush blame, who will the people of the United States blame?

PatrickHenry · Apr 16, 2004, 07:12 pm

Sources? I haven't heard this one...

Apr 16, 2004, 07:21 pm

(AP) Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrap yards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings. The information was also sent to the U.N. Security Council in a letter from its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, that was circulated Thursday.

The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States, which is leading the coalition administering Iraq, officials said.

The United States has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA since invading Iraq in March 2003 on the premise that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

No such weapons have been found, and arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials.

According to ElBaradei's letter, satellite imagery shows "extensive removal of equipment and in some instances, removal of entire buildings," in Iraq.

In addition, "large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq from sites" previously monitored by the IAEA.

In January, the IAEA confirmed that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as yellowcake that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor.

Yellowcake, or uranium oxide, could be used to build a nuclear weapon, although it would take tons of the substance refined with sophisticated technology to harvest enough uranium for a single bomb.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/...ain612333.shtml

PatrickHenry · Apr 18, 2004, 12:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterWolf,)
(AP) Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings.

The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States

The United States has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA

arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials.

In addition, "large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq from sites" previously monitored by the IAEA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/...ain612333.shtml<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
PW This is bad news It could very well be that terror agents associated with the NWO or independent agents are getting their hands on this stuff with the purpose of building "dirty bombs". We have had media attention (read threats) on the DB issue and it would be useful to the "Terror War" to have a smoking gun to show the public.

I am afraid...

Apr 18, 2004, 01:11 am

In this case, I hope the IAEA are simply wrong.

Mia · Apr 18, 2004, 06:01 am

me too.

Impenitent · Apr 18, 2004, 10:45 am

wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that...

Ralph38449 · Apr 18, 2004, 11:11 am

I too hope that they are incorrect.
Yet the chances that they are right are great. If a large croud with a minnimal poliece forces stops and stands around for a while then pickpocets have a field day.
That means that with too few trops in Iraq and small groups who now the location of this stuff existing, we have a problem.
Let me clearify. You know where something an enemy wants is. You know someone who will use it against the enemy. What do you do? You give it to them. Plain and simple.

PatrickHenry · Apr 18, 2004, 02:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I didn't see WMD in the news story (which see). But why will the Occupation "Authority" not respond? Why, if hazardous radiological materials are, or were formerly, located in Iraq, why are they not secured? I think if the spinners could make this into a "Bush Was Right!" story they would have done so.

PatrickHenry · Apr 18, 2004, 02:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ralph38449,)
I too hope that they are incorrect.
Let me clearify. You know where something an enemy wants is. You know someone who will use it against the enemy. What do you do? You give it to them. Plain and simple.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
This is clarifying? State your premise, sir, so we can debate. Who did what?

Impenitent · Apr 18, 2004, 04:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I didn't see WMD in the news story (which see). But why will the Occupation "Authority" not respond? Why, if hazardous radiological materials are, or were formerly, located in Iraq, why are they not secured?

:rolleyes: because the idiots on the left were SCREAMING "LOOK NO WMDS!!! NO WMDS!!! BUSH WAS A CRIMINAL!!! NO WMDS"

:rolleyes: and what does that get you? dirty bombs made from iraqi radiological materials... what do you think a WMD IS?!?

I think if the spinners could make this into a "Bush Was Right!" story they would have done so.

:rolleyes: don't worry, they will... and guess what? the OTHER WMDS will surface right before the election... conspiracy conspiracy!! bush will laugh his way through a second term with a republican house and senate as well... and guess who gets to fix the courts then...

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Apr 18, 2004, 04:31 pm

Impenitent,

If you really are so ignorant as to what the radioactive materials were doing in Iraq, then, I'd suggest you go and do soome reading. Otherwise your going to look more than a little foolish.

Mind you, you could explain carefully how the radioactive materials in question mean Bush was right. I'm sure many of us can explain in painful detail why your assertion is simply fallacious.

Sigh.

Impenitent · Apr 19, 2004, 09:50 am

simple... as I said before "dirty bombs"... if anyone sets off a dirty bomb the radiological material will be traced back to iraq...

remember the first trade center bombing or the OKC bombing? remember the recent bombing in spain? imagine those with yellowcake... fallout for the people... more terror...

the blame bush haters from the left will continue to blame and hate bush for not stopping iraq with their WMDs that they said didn't exist and when they do exist the left will try to blame bush for not stopping them...

now show me where I am wrong...

Apr 19, 2004, 03:24 pm

Well, let's see. If you are refering to the documented materials, that were under UN seal. The sites were documented, leftovers from the Iraqi nuclear programs. When the US invaded, it failed to secure these sites, the US knew that it should have done so. In some cases it was reported it was US troops broke into the sites. They had a responsibility to guard these sites.

These were not the Iraq WMD Bush was tryin to make out existed. These were known, fully documented, and sealed and had been so for what, 10 years?

Now you see why it is Bush's failure.

PatrickHenry · Apr 19, 2004, 04:09 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,
if anyone sets off a dirty bomb the radiological material will be traced back to iraq...
remember the first trade center bombing or the OKC bombing? remember the recent bombing in spain? imagine those with yellowcake... fallout for the people... more terror...
the bush haters ... will try to blame bush for not stopping them...

My fears run more along these lines, Impenitent. US fails to secure bad stuff from Iraq, a country they control. Then a radioactively enhanced bomb goes off in the US. Everybody has different ideas on who the perps are. Most people buy the official story of al-Qaeda (I don't). Then this story kicks in:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...20/185048.shtml
Excerpt from everybody's favorite tabloid, NewsMax.com

Quote:
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government. End Quote

Are we ready for the end of the useless Constitution? After all if it can't prevent mass assaults on America, what good is it? (sarcasm)

Impenitent · Apr 20, 2004, 01:33 am

Quote:

Originally posted by PeterWolf,
Well, let's see. If you are refering to the documented materials, that were under UN seal. The sites were documented, leftovers from the Iraqi nuclear programs. When the US invaded, it failed to secure these sites, the US knew that it should have done so.

:rolleyes: you mean the sites the left wing idiots screamed didn't exist? the ones blix couldn't inspect or find? no WMDs there...

In some cases it was reported it was US troops broke into the sites. They had a responsibility to guard these sites.

:rolleyes: and you KNOW that the WMDs were there when we went in? you KNOW they were not hidden elsewhere or moved to syria? saddam had a responsibility to disarm and the un had a responsibility to make sure saddam disarmed 17 times before we went in...

These were not the Iraq WMD Bush was tryin to make out existed. These were known, fully documented, and sealed and had been so for what, 10 years?

Now you see why it is Bush's failure.

:rolleyes: no, now I see why the left clings to conspiracy theories and lies

Impenitent · Apr 20, 2004, 01:35 am

Quote:

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Impenitent,
if anyone sets off a dirty bomb the radiological material will be traced back to iraq...
remember the first trade center bombing or the OKC bombing? remember the recent bombing in spain? imagine those with yellowcake... fallout for the people... more terror...
the bush haters ... will try to blame bush for not stopping them...

My fears run more along these lines, Impenitent. US fails to secure bad stuff from Iraq, a country they control. Then a radioactively enhanced bomb goes off in the US. Everybody has different ideas on who the perps are. Most people buy the official story of al-Qaeda (I don't). Then this story kicks in:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...20/185048.shtml
Excerpt from everybody's favorite tabloid, NewsMax.com

Quote:
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government. End Quote

Are we ready for the end of the useless Constitution? After all if it can't prevent mass assaults on America, what good is it? (sarcasm)[/b][/quote]

about as good as welfare programs for dead people...

join the army

Apr 20, 2004, 03:30 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Impenitent,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-PeterWolf,
Well, let's see. If you are refering to the documented materials, that were under UN seal. The sites were documented, leftovers from the Iraqi nuclear programs. When the US invaded, it failed to secure these sites, the US knew that it should have done so.

:rolleyes: you mean the sites the left wing idiots screamed didn't exist? the ones blix couldn't inspect or find? no WMDs there...

In some cases it was reported it was US troops broke into the sites. They had a responsibility to guard these sites.

:rolleyes: and you KNOW that the WMDs were there when we went in? you KNOW they were not hidden elsewhere or moved to syria? saddam had a responsibility to disarm and the un had a responsibility to make sure saddam disarmed 17 times before we went in...

These were not the Iraq WMD Bush was tryin to make out existed. These were known, fully documented, and sealed and had been so for what, 10 years?

Now you see why it is Bush's failure.

:rolleyes: no, now I see why the left clings to conspiracy theories and lies

[/b][/quote]

Sigh, you're delusional.

Mr.Vicchio · Apr 20, 2004, 03:34 am

The question boils down to what DO we do in the face of an enemy willing to use WMD. Do we do nothing, do empower our CIA and FBI, do we go true police state, do we collapse.

What are teh risks, what are the dangers, who has a better option?

Apr 20, 2004, 05:04 am

Mr Vicchio,

One of the objects of terrorism is to force change upon the targets of terrorist attacks. Who is winning?

Try going back to some of the things Bin Laden said would occur in the US post 911 and you'll see Bin Laden with reasonable accuracy predicted the changes that the likes of the Patriot Act and it's sequel (already enacted in part) would bring.

To me, what the US is doing is much the same as that now famed Vietnam mentality of destroying the village to protect it.

Apr 16, 2004, 07:12 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	Sources? I haven't heard this one... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 18, 2004, 12:51 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterWolf,) (AP) Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings. The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States The United States has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials. In addition, "large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq from sites" previously monitored by the IAEA. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/...ain612333.shtml<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> PW This is bad news It could very well be that terror agents associated with the NWO or independent agents are getting their hands on this stuff with the purpose of building "dirty bombs". We have had media attention (read threats) on the DB issue and it would be useful to the "Terror War" to have a smoking gun to show the public. I am afraid... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 18, 2004, 06:01 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	me too. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Apr 18, 2004, 10:45 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 18, 2004, 11:11 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Ralph38449 Molten Ash Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 101	I too hope that they are incorrect. Yet the chances that they are right are great. If a large croud with a minnimal poliece forces stops and stands around for a while then pickpocets have a field day. That means that with too few trops in Iraq and small groups who now the location of this stuff existing, we have a problem. Let me clearify. You know where something an enemy wants is. You know someone who will use it against the enemy. What do you do? You give it to them. Plain and simple. Religion shows the weakness of man; when there was no one for man to blame; he created God. He made him to blame him for the way things are.

Apr 16, 2004, 06:59 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	I would hope that at least some of you have been reading that it appears that nuclear materials from Iraqi facilities are showing up in other parts of the world. The allegation goes that the US aren't properly ensuring the containment of these materials. The story has been reported in a few places, but is sourced from the IAEA (UN). We further know that one of the Bush premises for the invasion of Iraq was to prevent this kind of material falling into the hands of terrorists. Now, while no one is currently saying it has, it appears to be obvious that this is quite possible. We know that as the legitimate occupying force in Iraq, it is most definately the responsibility of the United States and Britain to secure these materails and to prevent their proliferation. How is this explainable by the Bush administration, apart from to admit they have failed? And in any case, what excuse is there for this failure, there simply put, is none. What I am curious about, is who exactly will take responsibility for these materials if they show up in a dirty bomb somewhere? Who will Bush blame, who will the people of the United States blame?

Apr 16, 2004, 07:21 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	(AP) Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrap yards. The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings. The information was also sent to the U.N. Security Council in a letter from its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, that was circulated Thursday. The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States, which is leading the coalition administering Iraq, officials said. The United States has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA since invading Iraq in March 2003 on the premise that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found, and arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials. According to ElBaradei's letter, satellite imagery shows "extensive removal of equipment and in some instances, removal of entire buildings," in Iraq. In addition, "large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq from sites" previously monitored by the IAEA. In January, the IAEA confirmed that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as yellowcake that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor. Yellowcake, or uranium oxide, could be used to build a nuclear weapon, although it would take tons of the substance refined with sophisticated technology to harvest enough uranium for a single bomb. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/...ain612333.shtml

Apr 18, 2004, 01:11 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	In this case, I hope the IAEA are simply wrong.

Apr 18, 2004, 02:00 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I didn't see WMD in the news story (which see). But why will the Occupation "Authority" not respond? Why, if hazardous radiological materials are, or were formerly, located in Iraq, why are they not secured? I think if the spinners could make this into a "Bush Was Right!" story they would have done so. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 18, 2004, 02:02 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ralph38449,) I too hope that they are incorrect. Let me clearify. You know where something an enemy wants is. You know someone who will use it against the enemy. What do you do? You give it to them. Plain and simple.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is clarifying? State your premise, sir, so we can debate. Who did what? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 18, 2004, 04:01 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I didn't see WMD in the news story (which see). But why will the Occupation "Authority" not respond? Why, if hazardous radiological materials are, or were formerly, located in Iraq, why are they not secured? :rolleyes: because the idiots on the left were SCREAMING "LOOK NO WMDS!!! NO WMDS!!! BUSH WAS A CRIMINAL!!! NO WMDS" :rolleyes: and what does that get you? dirty bombs made from iraqi radiological materials... what do you think a WMD IS?!? I think if the spinners could make this into a "Bush Was Right!" story they would have done so. :rolleyes: don't worry, they will... and guess what? the OTHER WMDS will surface right before the election... conspiracy conspiracy!! bush will laugh his way through a second term with a republican house and senate as well... and guess who gets to fix the courts then... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 18, 2004, 04:31 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	Impenitent, If you really are so ignorant as to what the radioactive materials were doing in Iraq, then, I'd suggest you go and do soome reading. Otherwise your going to look more than a little foolish. Mind you, you could explain carefully how the radioactive materials in question mean Bush was right. I'm sure many of us can explain in painful detail why your assertion is simply fallacious. Sigh.

Apr 19, 2004, 09:50 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	simple... as I said before "dirty bombs"... if anyone sets off a dirty bomb the radiological material will be traced back to iraq... remember the first trade center bombing or the OKC bombing? remember the recent bombing in spain? imagine those with yellowcake... fallout for the people... more terror... the blame bush haters from the left will continue to blame and hate bush for not stopping iraq with their WMDs that they said didn't exist and when they do exist the left will try to blame bush for not stopping them... now show me where I am wrong... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 19, 2004, 03:24 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	Well, let's see. If you are refering to the documented materials, that were under UN seal. The sites were documented, leftovers from the Iraqi nuclear programs. When the US invaded, it failed to secure these sites, the US knew that it should have done so. In some cases it was reported it was US troops broke into the sites. They had a responsibility to guard these sites. These were not the Iraq WMD Bush was tryin to make out existed. These were known, fully documented, and sealed and had been so for what, 10 years? Now you see why it is Bush's failure.

Apr 20, 2004, 03:34 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	The question boils down to what DO we do in the face of an enemy willing to use WMD. Do we do nothing, do empower our CIA and FBI, do we go true police state, do we collapse. What are teh risks, what are the dangers, who has a better option? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Apr 20, 2004, 05:04 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	Mr Vicchio, One of the objects of terrorism is to force change upon the targets of terrorist attacks. Who is winning? Try going back to some of the things Bin Laden said would occur in the US post 911 and you'll see Bin Laden with reasonable accuracy predicted the changes that the likes of the Patriot Act and it's sequel (already enacted in part) would bring. To me, what the US is doing is much the same as that now famed Vietnam mentality of destroying the village to protect it.