Iraqi nuclear facilities remain unguarded.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Apr 15, 2004.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    link

    Yet more proof that this whole BS war, was never about WOMD getting into the hands of terrorist. If it was, they wouldn't be letting this happen.
     
  2. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #2
    didn't someone post in another thread how Iraq didn't have a nuclear wpns program? This proves them wrong.
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    What the hell are you talking about? You really do just make **** up.

    This is yellowcake, uranium ore left over from Iraq's nuclear reactor programme (which were bombed by Israel).

    These facilities were publicly known, as were the materials left over. The yellowcake barrels were sealed and monitored by the UN until the invasion. Then the sites were looted.

    Do some research. Or maybe you could fabricate a story about how the uranium mines encourage camels to have sex, too.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Did you read the article? From said article:
    My emphasis

    I thought you guys knew where the weapons were... They're in the areas south and west of Baghdad? Sound familiar?

    Yellowcake is not a nu-cu-lar weapon. Mining uranium from the ground isn't a nu-cu-lar weapons program.

    Or is 'nu-cul-lar weapons related program activities' all you've got now?
     
  5. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    I also read this in that article
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    So what? Rockets over what, an 80 mile range were banned? Did it say what size rockets those were?
     
  7. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #7
    rockets can be used to fire with this in its head which was also posted in that article.
    kinda wierd stuck out mentioning missile in a report about nuclear power plants. Just kinda put 2 and 2 together.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    It did not. And therefore it is irrelevant. The article provides no "proof" of banned weapons.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    But dirty bombs aren't nuclear weapons. You said nuclear weapons.
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #10
    I don't see that. Where do you?

    It's uranium oxide. I have a chunk of it in my house somewhere. We're not talking about plutonium here, we're talking very low level stuff.

    And you're putting 2 and 2 together alright, but you're coming up with 53.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    John Ashcroft will be at your house shortly. I knew you were one of them! :eek:
     
  12. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #12
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
     
  13. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #13
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm

    The above is old news sorry however in the last paragraph of that story.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Try again. Those were buried since like 1992. Definetly not a nuclear weapon. Not even a nuclear program. You're getting desperate now. Just admit you were wrong about this being proof.
     
  15. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    I'm wrong about it being solid evidence that I thought it was when I first read your post.

    However the potential for him being able to build a nuclear program when nobody was looking was great and it appears that he was established to do just that when/if he ever decided to do so, which he doesn't seem to have gotten the chance since the US invaded and ruined that possibility.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    Notice he's not talking about the yellowcake or the original article anymore, but instead has gone fishing for unrelated "proof" since his initial reaction was so dead wrong.

    Also notice we aren't talking about the topic at hand any longer, which is that nuclear sites still aren't being guarded.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    He lacked any quantity of fissile material. You know you can't build any sort of nuclear weapon unless you have a significant quantity of fissile material, right? And such fissile material is not something you stumble onto in the free market or in a mine. It requires special types of nuclear reactors that produce very small amounts of weapons grade material. Iraq did not have these types of reactors and did not have access to weapons grade elements.
     
  18. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #18
    Perhaps SlyHunter would like to make a comment on what this thread is actually about, namely what's happened since the US took control (if that's what you can call it) of Iraq.
     
  19. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    I read something into that that wasn't there. I then went on looking for sources that continue on the topic that interests me.

    I don't have anything to add on topic because I'm not there I don't know and yes the place should be guarded better. I hope they have a good reason for not guarding it better.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    They don't. It's poor planning.
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    i like your new empiricist policy
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    Then kindly refrain from posting.
     
  23. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    Just goes to show that all gw was interested in was the oil. All major oil facilities were taken over immediately but everything else was just abandoned to the elements.

    I'm sure that if an unconventional weapon is made from any of the materials found that will be "proof" to the neocons that SH was building WMD. Couldn't gw be considered aiding and abetting terrorists by failing to secure such facilities? Certainly there must be something in the Patriot Act that he could be prosecuted under.
     
  24. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #24


    add a smirk and you have george himself...
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    I would have thought that "culpable negligence" should do it.
     

Share This Page