quote:Iraq is already using copies of pirated German equipment to process nuclear material for an atomic weapons program, according to a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who testified before the U.S. Senate this summer. Khidir Hamza, who led a section of the Iraqi nuclear bomb program before his defection in 1994, said the devices may not be discovered even if U.N. inspectors are allowed to return to Iraq. "The beauty of the present system is that the units are each very small, and in the four years since the inspectors left, they will have been concealed underground or in basements or buildings that outwardly seem normal."
quote:"The amount of uranium it already has — conservatively estimated in a German intelligence report at 10 tons of natural uranium and 1.3 tons of low-enriched uranium — is enough for three nuclear weapons," Mr. Hamza said
quote:The key was provided, he said, when German Karl Schaab showed the Iraqis how to build and operate a centrifuge in 1989, and later helped them build a second
quote:"The whole centrifuge method of getting to a bomb is much easier for Iraq than, for example, it was for Pakistan, which took 17 years in going the same route," Mr. Hamza said. "They had to get it in bits and pieces, whereas we got a whole centrifuge and all the plans
quote:Mr. Hamza, who was working on Saddam's weapons program when Israeli jets bombed the French-supplied 40-megawatt Osirak research reactor in 1981, confirmed long-held suspicions that the facility was to have been used to develop nuclear weapons material. Scientists had planned not to divert the existing French-supplied highly enriched nuclear fuel — enough for one bomb — but rather blanket the reactor with natural or depleted uranium, which would produce plutonium. That would have made it possible to continue producing, eventually allowing repeated bomb production.
No wonder the French and Germans are balking at invasion... suppose the invading troops found evidence that the centrifuges were being used to prepare Uranium for bombs to use on Iraq's favorite target of convenience, Israel?
Headline next morning: "Germans helped Iraq prepare for Holocaust II!"
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
How did Proteus put it? Oh, yes: fap, fap, fap.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Fucking Krauts. So unamerican and unpatriotic.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Our friend Herr Doktor Schneider excepted, I hope?
Honestly, I'm not surprised at all. We already know that the US sent plenty of weapons to Saddam to fight Iran, and how that CIA funding helped Bin Laden years ago...
Not that it's an excuse by any means, but the accounts of German or French assistance all mention pre-Gulf War timeframes only. Of course it's completely obvious in hindsight (and probably could've been predicted beforehand), but no one was expecting trouble from Iraq...
(Though didn't Saddam start the war against Iran, by making demands for land concessions?)
I dunno what that German scientist was thinking, though, helping the Iraqis out with a centrifuge. There isn't a legitimate civilian purpose for one of those things, at least of the quality needed to make weapons -- is there?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
^And that has WHAT to do with anything?
Simple truth: he likely has nukes (or is close to them) and we gotta take him out BEFORE some innocent city goes up in a mushroom cloud.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Like Baghdad?
Truth is NEVER simple.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Whenever I see the 'Saddam will have nukes in X days/weeks/months/years' articles I get this strange feeling of deja vu. Mainly because the exact same articles appeared before the Gulf War 1.
I'm not a great fan of Saddam and am generally in favour of taking him out before he does anything unwise but I can't help feeling the constant media scaremongering is counterproductive. Also i can't help feeling that the Franco-German opposition to the war is at least partly because they don't like us or the Americans (well, the politicians don't at any rate)
Posted by Nimrod Pimding (Member # 205) on :
Give me one serious reason Saddam would actually use a thermonuclear device and it would somehow work in his favor.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Give me one reason anyone would attack and destroy the World Trade Center and not expect massive retaliation.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Except Saddam Hussein didn't attack the WTC, a certain Osama Bin Laden did, and he doesn't have any more time for Saddam than you do.
. . . You are aware of that, aren't you? I realise all these darkies look the same to you.
Unless this is all some cunning plan to draw Bin Laden into the open: Upon seeing that hated Iraqi regime toppled, he pops out of hiding to say thanks and you nab him. Nah, Dubya's not clever enough for that. 8)
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Call it "Omegic".
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm not a great fan of Saddam and am generally in favour of taking him out before he does anything unwise..."
The president of the US is actively promoting invading a foreign country w/o provocation, and it's Hussein people are worrying about?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
How do you define "provocation"?
Except Saddam Hussein didn't attack the WTC, a certain Osama Bin Laden did, and he doesn't have any more time for Saddam than you do.
And, as usual, you completely miss the point. People as a whole have a tendency to be irrational and dangerous, especially those people who attack civilians for no real reason. Sadaam qualifies.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And Bush doesn't?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Not that's been demonstrated, beyond the normal human range.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"How do you define 'provocation'?"
Well, I certainly don't define it as "being a nasty fat man w/ a silly mustache".
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
God almighty, change the record, you little twerp. "Miss the point, miss the point, miss the point. . ." You're the one who brought up the World Trade Centre, despite it having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion, which is Saddam Hussein. I imagine your "point" (you're sure fond of those) is that people who are irrational and dangerous - by your standards ar all the same, and should be dealt with the same.
Which brings us, once again, to your standards, as referenced by the "normal human range" you mention. Said normal human range being that occupied by white, Christian, Republican, heterosexual, and (no doubt) male citizens of the United States of America.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"I'm not a great fan of Saddam and am generally in favour of taking him out before he does anything unwise..."
The president of the US is actively promoting invading a foreign country w/o provocation, and it's Hussein people are worrying about?
Good point; maybe we should try and get Bush to challenge Saddam to single combat. and then nuke the arena. Two birds with one stone. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I was telling my roommate the other day about how we should take Bush, Blair, and Hussein, lock them in a room, and let them fight to the death. After that, whoever's left...
And then we both said "gas them" at the same time. It was eerie.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So our options are: Total war or death camps? Lovely.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
After watching another report today, where the reponses went
US: They're lying! Kill them!
and
UK: They might be lying! We might kill them!
...I've been trying to figure our government out. Blair has pretty much been "I agree with Bush, but...". He's the one who kept trying to get him to go to the UN, rather than just charging in.
I do wonder that if perhaps Blair had taken the same position as Russia etc in the "The US is wrong", the US might have not even bothered with the UN and just charged in.
How much of Blair is him saying what he thinks, and how much is him trying to keep the US from going crazy? My opinions about Blair jump all over the place, so I'm not sure. Even if he is saying exactly what he thinks, I still say there's a fair chance that he's kept us out of war so far.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Simon: You don't really need death "camps" to kill three people.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
A Death Tent, maybe.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*hee hee* Fumigation.
--Jonah
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Be sure to reserve a spot for Kim Jong.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And Ozzy B. and his Al-Qaeda posse. Just make sure you put some camera's in the tent, and you have a brand new FOX TV-show!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
"SHARRRONNNNNNNNN!!!" being the cue for the Isaeli PM's guest appearance. 8)
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman:
what the hell.... the cartoonist needs to really know what the hell is going on before he pens that.
fap indeed
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
that cartoonist has an excellent grasp of the situation.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
While Wes has an excellent grasp of his dick.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
fap fap!
anywho, whom did POTUS choose to insult last night.. i had assumed nukes would be flying by now.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: that cartoonist has an excellent grasp of the situation.
The above statement is HORSE. SHIT.
How many people have to explain to you that Saddam is not complying with the UN Inspectors, INCLUDING the inspectors themselves, before you get it into your head that it's a fact?
In any case, come next wednesday, I will be sure to have enough crow in stock for everyone's appetites.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
once somebody who is not a pompous assbag tells me something true, then i'll believe it.
dubya and his cronies are not a good source of info.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, one person who's apparently spouting horse shit is Dubya.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Bush also announced that on Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell would present a special session of the council with "information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will see what we will see.
Good job to pick Powell, since he's several times openly disagreed with Bush on other issues, so the purely anti-Bush people tend to trust him more, (if he's been convinced, maybe you should be) and the Left will have a lot of trouble smearing him with the "Chicken Hawk" libel.. er, label, given his service in Vietnam and other arenas.
Of course, if the House and Senate Democrats didn't believe the evidence was sufficient, why did THEY vote for the resolution for action against Iraq before the US changed course and went to the UN? They can't be that spineless, not Daschle and Hillary.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...given his service in Vietnam..."
Oh, because that was a good idea, too...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't SAY that, Herr Dolt. I just said that they couldn't smear him with that particular label, since that's what they've attempted to do in the past to the rest of the administration.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What, there's a double-jeopardy rule when it comes to corruption in the administration? If you fail to convict one person, none of the others can be charged ever again?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That didn't make any sense, since we're not talking about corruption.
*momspeak* Are you on the drugs? */momspeak*
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Actually, I'll concede that - I wasn't happy about using the word 'corruption,' it was just the closest word I could think of. . . But MY point stands.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)