Ok LISTEN TO ME. Iraq didn't have a full scale revolution. Iraq didn't have the suport of the UN. Iraq wasn't a simple operation. Iraq didn't simply require Ships, bombers and fighters. This video is retarded this guy has NO idea what hes talking about.
Supporting Iraqis against Saddam Hussein is as good as supporting Libyans against Qaddafi. Messing with the Iraqi after math & letting Iran controlling the country is wrong. Letting the free Libyans building a new free Libya is good.
@GetOutOfTheTub Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@Mrpastry909 (continuation) You may agree or disagree with “The Bush Doctrine” and the threats posed by the Iraqi regime, but your representatives in Washington voted for it overwhelmingly and that is what democracy looks like. Deal with it.
As for UN 1973, you may agree or disagree with it, but your representatives in Washington did not get to vote on it nor were they asked for their opinion. That is what Totalitarianism looks like. Deal with it."
@Mrpastry909 Here's what I wrote a year ago in response to similar comments: "Are these two wars comparable and if not what are the salient differences? For me, they are not comparable actions. Iraq was about trying to save American lives by enforcing something which came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”, and Libya is about trying to save non-American lives by enforcing something known as UN 1973. (continued)
And don't think that I'm saying that Iraq wasn't justified. Saddam was a bastard and deserved to be taken out. However, it was reckless and short-sighted of Bush to start another war when we already were in Afghanistan. We should have just bombed the crap out of Baghdad and used drone strikes, not invade.
Ronreich1, it's easy to make your argument when you can control what your opponent says and make them say stupid things. Try arguing against someone with a brain.
Here's several things why Libya was a better move than Iraq:
-Libya had a Libyan-led revolution to overthrow Gaddaffi. Saddam's power was secure.
-We bombed the crap out of Libya but didn't invade and left it to the Libyans to stablize the land. We invaded Iraq and put the job of stabilizing it on our shoulders.
Want safety in America, protect Israel, wipe out Muslims?
MUST SEE VIDEO: /watch?v=gV4Cxuu7VwU
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Alexander Solzhenitsyn, novelist, Nobel laureate (1918-2008)
@dragonshead69 yeah.... i am rereading it and it makes a different image now, he could also mean he doesnt agree with their tax policies which goes hand in hand with how you see it. If he means it that way then i too agree with him, because according to our president "80% of americans want higher taxes." And ill be the first to say that statement is completely false... i have yet to meet someone wanting to pay higher taxes.
That makes no sense whatsoever. We started bombing Libya in March and they voted on it in June. I'm not Republican but damn the least you could do is a little research.
@HellohKIDDIE That makes no sense whatsoever. We started bombing Libya in March and they voted on it in June. I'm not Republican but damn the least you could do is a little research.
I can see you are filled with a loathing for freedom.
I suppose a SERF mentality like yours will pop up now and then, but thank GOD, you are in a small small minority. The vast majority of people want to stretch their arms and legs and make something of themselves and this world. What good an education if you aren't allowed to speak freely, make something of yourself, and use your abilities to help others in creative ways?
@SANDST0NE So please..explain why the majority of Libyans are behing Gadaffi...explain why the majority of comments codemn the west for they're barbaric actions. You speak of the vast majority...however you speak falsely. Show me a video of millions of Libyans marchingin support of the rebels. I can show you a video of millions of Libyans marching in support of Gadaffi, does this constitute the "majority?"
But your premise as to WHY is 180 degrees out of sync. It is laughable to think it is because Ghadafi is a good and proper leader... he's a monster...
No... Americans want to leave because the government of Libya is just as likely to be replaced with another terrorist regime as not.
Sounds like all the die hard B.O. lovers I talk with. He is their messiah despite not actually knowing anything about the man, other than he is black, in most cases.
I care less his skin color, the man took over a failing system and has not done one thing to fix it. In fact in almost every case things went from bad to WAY worse and aren't getting any better. He is almost never called on any of his screwups and when he is, he blames Bush and the sheeple love him once again
lybians has done an uprising and they were supressed and murdered so they asked people for help or otherwise gadafi would half killed 50% of lypian population. unlike iraq people didd not ask and it wasnt supported by the un and the world. got it??
@ahmedzs1 Iraq is better off now than when that sadistic bastard was there!
Iran asked, hell they begged us to do something and what did we do? turned our heads and pretended like nothing was happening. There is also about 6 other countries going through the same thing. How come we are only helping Libya.
This low-thinking UncontestedTruth, thinks that by criticizing everyone and everything, he accomplishes something. This one-trick pony has absolutely no realistic solutions to any problem in existence, yet he obviously imagines he has some constructive purpose in life. Tragic really.
Wait.... I think he did mention that if someone fired off a nuke, it would be detected. First off, we don't have that level of wide-scan technology. Second.. millions dead is NOT like someone stealing a TV.
@mollesjohn I have "no realistic solutions to any problem in existence" and you base my ability to solve problems in life on ONLY THIS CONVERSATION? That makes about as much sense as the rest of your arguments. Strawman and lying works wonders for you doesnt it. You dont think we have satellites to detect launches? Just like the rest of your arguments, you are misinformed or just lying. Ever heard of DSP satellites? But whatever. Reality, rules, and facts apparently dont exist in your world.
LOL... I looked it up. DSP doesn't do what we say it does... would that it COULD. I even read in Wikipedia how it detected Iraqi scuds and gave warnings. Uhhh... I remember that war. And I remember the scuds hitting their targets... I don't think a single scud was shot down. Dude, it's military PROPAGANDA... and I bet a lot of scuds were never even detected in the first place.
What we DO have, you won't know about. You are so stupid it is stunning.
@mollesjohn I said we have satellites dedicated to detecting launches. Never said it could shoot the missiles down. But you just make up that its propaganda and that a lot of scuds werent detected. What proof do you have of either or did you just make it up? When did I say it detected every single thing? How can you know if its propaganda?You have done stuff like this repeatedly. I give facts. You give bets. Facts given (what is known) say one thing. You say the opposite. But Im the stupid one.
THINK. Just try it for a change. Think about it... a wide scan, infrared scanner, that can detect and identify missiles. How would it do that? It can detect infrared, find literally tens of thousands of things, but how exactly do they isolate what is a missile and what isn't? That problem is way too hard... nice to dream we could have such a thing, but get real. If we had it, they wouldn't tell you on Wikipedia in any case.
No... actually I am a computer science guy as well as a graphics guy.
Sounds like you don't know, but infrared is HEAT. There are a LOT of things that give off heat. The question is, how is it possible to differentiate between these? You'd need some pretty fancy software that handles a huge amount of input and analyzes it all at the same time in real time.
We just aren't there, and probably won't be for another hundred years.
@mollesjohn Infrared is talking about ice. Just like nightvision goggles help you see in the sunlight.
No fucking joke infrared is heat. Tests show its possible. Why do you believe it is NOT possible? Why are we limitted to only what YOU think we are capable of?
"pretty fancy software"
Like the stuff they spend BILLIONS on making?
So we can see billions of lightyears in space but cant make a scanner that can detect a high spark of infrared radiation thats being shot into the atmosphere? Ok.
I guess what I said went right over your head. I explained the issue, and instead of responding to it, you say tests show it is possible. It isn't.
I might suggest reading up about the history of sonar, or the history of radar... the public had NO CLUE for decades what these things could and could not do. Why? MILITARY SECRETS are the best kept secrets. The fact you think the military is going to report HONESTLY on Wikipedia just shows me how incredibly stupid you are.
@mollesjohn First I didnt go to wikipedia. Check the Los Angeles Air Force Base website. Nice assumption. Second, these arent secrets anymore. The military declassified the info. Do it all the time. Third, if this was a military secret how would you know anything to the contrary? Do you have classified info youre sharing over youtube that says it isnt possible? What is the basis of knowledge for which you claim it isnt possible? Who else agrees with you? Looks like you pulled it out of your ass.
The reason I know it isn't possible? Common sense. I know where we are software-wise and hardware-wise in the area of computer analysis, and we're seriously 100 years away from your claim we can detect missile launches over any significant area quickly enough to warn or prevent a missile from reaching its target.
Can we scan, with the consciousness of protecting SPECIFIC targets? POSSIBLY, but not more than 100 such targets. The weak link is computer analysis.
@mollesjohn Have you seen the best computers money can buy? Do you work with the brightest minds in our military?
So your "common sense" trumps scientific ingenuity? Common sense says we cant have manmade elements. Common sense says we couldnt make a giant metal contraption that weighs thousands of pounds fly.
All praise the infallibility of common sense in scientific matters.
Its not my claim. Apparently we can detect missile launches and warn people. Because WE HAVE BEFORE.
@mollesjohn So you claim knowledge which I have no proof you possess and then say we cant do it.
Where is your info? Just because you do low budget works or what not doesnt mean billions of dollars and the best scientists cant accomplish this just because you dont think so.
A high burst of infrared radiation shooting into the atmosphere and leaving a trail is detectable today.
Why does no source agree with you? I mean literally NO expert. Are there none smarter or better informed than you?
The hardware is just one problem. Even if we had the hardware, which to my mind is in itself ridiculous, there is no way to analyze the signatures over a large area to determine which are missiles. Missiles are by no means the hottest things on earth, so the potential signatures, of which there would be many thousands would have to be analyzed in real time for movement, acceleration, etc.
The wider the area, the more impossible the task... at present, we're not even close.
@mollesjohn Yeah things burning at 5000degrees F shoot up at a vertical angle to reach 160 km into the atmosphere leaving a plume of blazing hot gas behind all the time.
Youre the expert on the hardware and software capabilities of the government. Thats why NASA contracted your services for their vital operations. Thats why you have an overwhelming amount of evidence on your side and not just your inexperienced word. Thats why all the experts agree with you.
Uhhhh... right... Are you begging for people to laugh at you? Stop to think for a second and use your common sense. People that shoot missiles to take out land targets actually try NOT to be detected, and the idea they are going to shoot something 100 miles into the atmosphere puts you alongside a few street people who spend their time constantly talking to themselves...
@mollesjohn Are you serious? Scud Bs (used by Iraq) go about 160km high. Plus there are missiles, unlike Scuds, that can actually leave the atmosphere. So yeah they go 100 miles or more. You dont even know anything about missiles and youre trying to tell me we cant detect them? Well you just invalidated yourself. To make it worse you try to insinuate Im crazy when I have given you fact.
Okay... you just lost the last one or two people who thought you had any cred at all. IRAQ had a weapon that would go 160km high? That is so laughable, I'm left wondering how you can be so incredibly stupid on the scientific front, yet be able to type on a keyboard in coherent sentences...
Were your SAT scores like 0 on math and 600 on english?
LEARN TO USE DISCRIMINATION on what you read instead of being a gullible dupe for anyone and everyone that wants to use you.
The worst problem you have is that ANYONE here can look up yellowcake and its uses. How are you going to stop people from doing that?
...or do you think they will believe your lies and not bother to look it up for themselves? You'd have to count on this, because anyone that makes the slightest bit of effort will end up wondering what your agenda is for which you feel you had to lie.
GOOGLE YELLOWCAKE and check out its uses. Anyone...
@mollesjohn Yeah yellowcake must be enriched but even that has to be converted first. We didnt find any weapons grade uranium. Remember when I said "NOT be capable of creating weapons"? Thats because the reactor bombed in 81 was "unsuited" for plutonium production. It was a LWR. LEU use and not HEU.
Yeah I sure did lie when I said he resigned. Excluding the fact that he resigned. Sigh.... Thank you Mr. Strawman.
I was wrong about 1 thing. I got the numbers mixed up. 1.8 tons of LEU was removed
Poor UncontestedTruth finally looks up what yellowcake is.
On why Harvard is irrelevant..
A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.
"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard.
@mollesjohn Say what? Yellowcake is uranium. I already knew that. This ENTIRE time I have been preaching about enrichment grade. Nothing about my argument has changed at all. So WTF are you talking about?
Who cares what they said about the 4th of July? Since when does that discredit everything other people at Harvard have done? How does it discredit others who concurred what Wilson said?
Beyond that, the fact that the plant was a LWR is just that, a fact.
I'm pointing out to readers how Harvard, although thought of as made up of brilliant minds, are not only less than brilliant, they are downright moronic. A study on how 4th of July parades mold the political landscape?
Just giving people a REAL education about what Harvard is about: nonsense.
Now have a wonderful Fourth, and enjoy the parade.
And avoid people like UncontestedTruth who pretend to knowledge.
@mollesjohn The entire time I have been talking out of my ass. Except nothing I have said is wrong except for the thing I have admitted. Iraq had yellowcake. That is NOT an uncommon substance. The fact that they have it doesnt mean it was used for weapon purposes just like in 81. You said we found WMDs in Iraq. We didnt. Dismiss Harvard if you wish. Still doesnt change anything. So when you lose you make a bunch of strawman arguments and then claim the opposition doesnt know anything. Genius
You don't find yellowcake naturally in Iraq, it isn't mined there. It is an uncommon substance.
Yes, that yellowcake, all 550 metric tons of it, was going to be used by Saddam Hussein to make nuclear weapons. That's what I'm saying. Yes, that is a LOT of an uncommon substance (for Iraq) to have lying around... yes, it was to be used for nukes. Yes, we found WMD material, LOTS of it, in Iraq.
But I bet you repeated to everyone that Saddam was a benign, nice guy. SORRY!
@mollesjohn Uranium is common in the world market. Plenty of nations have it. Much less have nuclear weapons.
The mere existance of yellowcake within a country is not enough to invade and occupy or we would be invading a lot of countries. Possessing yellowcake isnt illegal. We invaded over the claim they had WMDs when they didnt. That is that. Simple and cut.
Yes Mr Strawman I went around telling people how Saddam was such a nice guy because of how nicely he persecuted everyone.
But NOW we know they did. WMDs were there. 550 metric tons. Hard to argue with 550 metric tons of a substance not native to that land whose purpose could only be for nuclear weapons. Of course, you seem to enjoy arguing against all logic, and ask me if I mind, not that it is a challenge...
We invaded with apporval of the U.N, all the major intelligence communities, and Congress (Hillary, Kerry, Biden, etc). We went into Iraq because EVERYONE wanted it at the time.
@mollesjohn Yellowcakes purpose is NOT only for nuclear weapons! Have you not been paying attention?? Holy shit man go look up yellowcake and the different grades again. LEU is NOT weapons grade. Thats the only grade found. That CANNOT be used in a nuclear weapon but in it can be in a LWR plant (hmm correlation?). Yellowcake is NOT a WMD.
UN did NOT support our invasion. People like Kofi Annan kept saying how illegal it was.
Do you know how many countries have uranium? Lets go invade them too
Now I have warned you, and now you not only have stepped in your own B.S., but are neck deep in it.
Have you forgotten already that anyone can Google yellowcake and read about its uses?
You defeated yourself in this debate with your dishonesty; I didn't do it to you.
Happy Independence Day. Freedom belongs not only to Americans, but Iraqis, Europeans, Japanese, everywhere on earth. It is a natural desire of all peoples, and with God's help, we'll all get there.
@mollesjohn Now, the 81 bombing was on a LWR plant. If you would like to look that up and tell me just how dangerous that type of plant can be. Then look up what design principle blueprint was used for its creation.
Im not saying the 550 was ABSOLUTELY going to electricity. Im simply saying nuclear weapons is not the only option. And we only found LEU. Plus it was just yellowcake. In its most basic form. Not even UF6 yet. So thats NOT proof of WMDs. So we cant just invade. BTW I havent lied.
Nuclear weapons was DEFINITELY the objective, when you are talking Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a long history... imperialism, WMD abuse, starving his own people (women and children).
Just prior to our going into Iraq, the U.N. had estimated that Saddam was murdering around 5000 of his own people per month, and Amnesty International concurred-well, until Amnesty International erased all references to Saddam Hussein on their website when Bush was garnering U.N. support
@mollesjohn So basically bottom line the US, UN, any other organization doesnt have proof of nuclear weapons.
Yellowcake isnt evidence of WMDs. So youre statement of "We found WMDs in Iraq." May be a lie or maybe you just didnt know. We did not find any WMDs. Had we, people would be praising Bush left right up down spin around and repeat. We are not doing such a thing.
@mollesjohn Finally. When did Richter go to actually inspect the facilities? How come everyone that actually DID inspect said Richter didnt know what he was talking about? Or Eklund, the IAEA director-general in 1981. He directly "rebutted" (not my words) what Richter testified. Sooooooo.......
In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Oct 1981, both Eklund and Richter wrote articles. I just read both. Richter's is BY FAR the more detailed and compelling, stating facts that Eklund can't refute... things like no IAEA inspector had even been allowed into Iraq for a full five years prior to the plant's being destroyed by Israel. How can Eklund, with ANY authority, claim the inspections were adequate? Israel made the right call. Eklund was obviously paid by Saddam.
@mollesjohn So let me get this straight. You believe Richter, a guy who hadnt inspected the facilities and had been thoroughly debunked by the IAEA director-general, IAEA collegues who had actually inspected, and other outside sources. Not seeing the logic.
Do you have any proof at all that Eklund was paid by Saddam?
Obviously you don't know what "debunked" means. If you are going to use a word, you should know what it means. I read them both about this issue, both Richter and Eklund, and the person who stinks is Eklund, not Richter. I already told you NOBODY from the IAEA was allowed to inspect Saddam's plant. NOBODY.
Now perhaps you need to look up what NOBODY means while you are at it, so you grasp that Saddam was PREVENTING the U.N. from overseeing his nuclear facilities.
"In view of the information presented here it is not necessary to dwell in detail on statements made by a former inspector who actually was never in Iraq... He was careful enough not to mention the necessary, drastic, and easily observable changes of the reactor configuration... He forgot to mention that facilities in Iraq not yet submitted to safeguards would have come under safeguards when they first contained nuclear material;"
By all means dont take my word for it. Look it up.
I can tell that facts won't sway you. The fact that Saddam denied Eklund access, and I mean ANY access whatsoever to inspect ANY of his facilities, for years and years, doesn't raise any flags for you, when Eklund testifies against his own department in favor of Saddam Hussein.
Richter, a highly skilled inspector had no motive to lie. But Eklund could well have been on Saddam's payroll. SADDAM DENIED ALL U.N. INSPECTOR ACCESS!!! Something stinks here.. right now its YOU.
@mollesjohn Eklund didnt testify against the Agency. EVERY SINGLE IAEA PERSON, Eklund, Gruemm, etc. says Richter was wrong. We have IAEA + non IAEA inspectors, people that actually went to the facilites, then theres Richter who NEVER WENT TO IRAQ. The LWR was based on a French design (OSIRIS to Osiraq). The design was SPECIFICALLY unsuited for housing plutonium.
Anyone who proves you wrong is corrupt even without proof? Inspections occurred 1973-Jan 81. Did you actually read the reports?
Hating America and Israel is all you need to know in order to pass qualifications on a left leaning scale of measurment.Simplification is not all ways bad. If you use it in a PC fashion.
@ccsmiley2 Occupied? So stationing our troops in Iraq was "occupying"? The citizens of Iraq rushed to greet and thank the soldiers when they arrived. So, being that you're wrong, do you have any other reasons why they were different?
@SimpleBag1 Yes, stationing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a country thousands of miles away for nearly a decade is considered an occupation. They rushed to greet and thank the soldiers when they arrived, but do they rush to greet and thank the soldiers now?
Our intervention in Libya was incredibly brief when compared to Iraq, with far fewer US deaths.
Besides all that, 2003 Iraq was based on a false premise. In Libya, there were multiple independent sources reporting impending genocide.
@ccsmiley2 Are you saying Saddam Hussein wasn't committing genocide on the Kurds?
Also are you saying that because "Our intervention in Libya was incredibly brief when compared to Iraq", while Iraq had congressional support and Lybia didn't, it's OK with you? Or is it just because Obama did iy???
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.
Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power
@ccsmiley2 Is something wrong with you? I did answer you and you still haven't answered me. Its not crying lol its called gloating because you obviously wont answer when you know your wrong.
It's ironic in a way. UncontestTruth actually ended up educating me on exactly HOW Saddam was going to make nukes, details I hadn't known about previously.
1. Saddam had previous experience with Light Water Reactors and knew with those plus yellowcake, he could make nuclear weapons.
2. Saddam had knowledge of U.N. procedures and inspections and had previous experience of being completely successful in keeping the U.N. from inspecting anything vital.
@ccsmiley2 You can't answer my question can you? I figured as much, you talk a good game till your put in your place by someone with more intelligence. Then you act like a fourth grader and think you did something.
You honestly thought you were somebody, you must be very smart in your own mind LMAO at U
@dragonshead69 You forget the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not supported by the UN, who makes international law. We decided the enforcement of the UN security council resolutions was up to us. It was not. We also decided to take the guise of proactive self defense based on the claims that Iraq contained illegal missile weapons and WMDs. A fallacy. Libya is significantly different. I dont think I need to spell out why. Youre smart enough to discern differences.
@UncontestedTruth No offence, but I live in the US and can care less about the UN criminal coucil and what they think.
Our govrnment had authority from our Congress, which makes it a legal war. No matter how bad you or I believe it was handled.
Iraq and Libya are very different, One large way is Libya was done illegally. No matter it was the right thing to do, that is just plain facts and I would think "Youre smart enough to discern differences"
@dragonshead69 I live here too. You could care less? No offence but you know little of how the world works. Lets talk about the WPA (forget its unconstitutional). This act gives a 60 to 90 day window in which the president can deploy troops WITHOUT congressional approval. Theres also been debate over active vs supportive roles (AKA we arent doing much of anything). The US is part of the UN. A permanent member of the Security Council. Whatever decisions the UN makes is supported by us.
@UncontestedTruth Srry its taken long to respond, I'm lucky enough to have a job, no thanks to our jackass of a president.
Once again I care about USA not the criminal board of the UN. Plain and simple we had Congresional agreement to go into Iraq(right or wrong). We didn't even ask in Libya(right or wrong) PERIOD
I call it as I see it no matter who I like politicaly. To many people,such as yourself, will defend a candidate at all costs even when they are wrong
@UncontestedTruth Also were you aware that in 2008 Iraq sold a stockpile of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium to Canada. Can you guess some uses of yellowcake uranium?
@dragonshead69 Also yellowcake can be used for a multitude of things. Should we attack Canada too? No. Know why? Because for 1 yellowcake uranium isnt a WMD. 2 the uranium must be enriched (good luck finding some) which hasnt been confirmed. 3 even if they have enriched uranium that DOESNT mean they know how to or took the time to develop weapons. But all this is unnecessary because of point 1.
You are correct. 550 metric tons of yellowcake doesn't necessarily mean it will be used for nuclear weapons. Let's see. With 100 metric tons of chocolate icing we could make 650 metric tons of delicious desserts.
I am hearing your sound reasoning.... LET THEM EAT CAKE!
Yummy.
BTW, dragonshead69 is correct. Yellowcake is used to make the MOST powerful WMD on earth, and 550 metric tons of it isn't exactly chopped liver... that's a hell of a lot of WMD material.
@mollesjohn Do you understand the uranium enrichment process or what weapons grade uranium (HEU) is? Apparently not. I wasnt only simply saying "they have uranium but it doesnt necessarily mean it will be used for WMDs." Im saying "they have uranium but it doesnt necessarily mean it CAN be used for WMDs." Does Iraq have WMDs? Nope. Does Canada have WMDs? Nope.
OF COURSE it was going to be used for WMDs. Are you SERIOUSLY going to maintain that Saddam Hussein, with more oil than he knew what to do with, was going NUCLEAR for the electricity?
Oh yeah, that's why Israel bombed their last plant into oblivion, because Israel feared what Saddam would do with all that voltage.
Next you are going to tell me Iran's desire for a nuclear power plant is for purely peaceful purposes.
We found WMDs in Iraq. I don't care if you don't like it.
@mollesjohn The bombing youre talking about was in 1981. Richard Wilson, Harvard professor, said upon observation the plant that was bombed was specifically designed to NOT be capable of creating weapons.
There is only certain type of uranium isotope that is weapons grade. HEU (U-235; extremely difficult to find/manufacture) is weapons grade. It WAS NOT found in Iraq. So no we didnt find WMDs in Iraq. You fail left and right.
And YOU choose the Harvard professor's judgment over Israeli Intelligence's judgment... and you even have to factor in that Israel knew they'd take a huge political hit if they got it wrong... yet...
you actually choose the Harvard professor?
The Harvard professor, says you, actually said Saddam's nuclear plant was SPECIFICALLY designed to NOT be capable of making weapons?
@mollesjohn Yeah because its not like intelligence has never been wrong. Its not like this guy is certified BY HARVARD or anything. Its not like he went AFTER to CONFIRM if Israeli intelligence was correct and said it wasnt. Its not like that multiple experts like Eklund, Gruemm, Koutz, Weinstock all reported the same thing to the UN and the US. Its not like I can give you the actual link to what he said on the actual Harvard website. Wanna keep going? Because this will end badly for you.
Israeli Intelligence... explain to me when they've been wrong. I'm waiting.
See... academia, if you haven't figured it out yet, is where all the morons who live in their world of theory can sit safely behind criticism and don't have to solve a single problem, big or small. At best, they write papers in graduate-speak, at worst, they sit on their tenured hands, give seminars to the young and naive, and take whole summers off with pay.
@mollesjohn When have they been wrong? The ignorance is amazing. Forget the fact that 81 has little to do with 03 or how we didnt find WMDs or how they didnt have the proper materials to create a weapon.
May 31, 2010. Israeli forces invaded a flotilla. They killed 8 Turks and a Turkish American. Why? Bad intelligence. Israel even said so.
How can you dismiss multiple expert opinions? Why are they called experts if they can so easily be dismissed?
U.N. IAEA inspector Richter testified that only part of Iraq's nuclear installation was under safeguard and that the most sensitive facilities were not even subject to safeguards. Naturally, people like your professor would say that Saddam Hussein was incapable of hiding anything, as they would say that Iran was incapable of hiding anything.
Your claim that the U. N. International Atomic Energy Agency guy, Richter, was lying, while your Harvard guy isn't, is interesting.
@mollesjohn Ok tell me how some safeguards or the absense thereof translates into the making of nuclear weapons? I would just like to hear it from you. The IAEA even said the only uranium was lowly enriched and no WMDs. After the little fiasco with Richter, he resigned from his position. Now THAT is interesting.
The New York Times called the [Iraqi documents] a "nuclear primer" because it included about a dozen documents in Arabic that contained "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums.
Professor Richard Wilson claimed all of Saddam's nuclear ambitions were peaceful.
The NYT says the evidence proves Wilson wrong <-- your guy.
@mollesjohn What does that disprove? For 1 the NYT article was in 06. Nothing to do with Wilsons observation about 30 years earlier. 2nd where does that say we found nuclear weapons?
Just pointing out that everything Wilson observed was naive.
And as I said, they found not one, not two, not ten, not 100, but 550 metric tons of yellowcake in Iraq.
I suppose you are the only person left on the planet who doesn't know what yellowcake is used for, and what Saddam Hussein's plans for that stuff were. Thank God we stopped him...
You may get your wish for actionable nuclear WMDs in Iran though... which is what you seem insanely hell-bent on wishing for.
@mollesjohn Yeaaaaah. 550 lowly enriched metric tons.....that can be used in plants only and CANT be used for weapons... and that they sold to fucking Canada. Youre specious argument is becoming more and more ridiculous.Im not hell bent on allowing nuclear weapons. If they have HEU we should take it even if by force. But again you have NO clue of the difference between LEU and HEU. So go do some research and THEN talk.
Yellowcake isn't lowly enriched, it's the raw material and isn't enriched at all.
My God man... it can be refined into plutonium. Where are you getting all this crap you are spewing from?
I thought you said I would be up against it if I went into debate with you, and as I do my research here, I can tell you are lying left and right... why? All to pretend Saddam wasn't about WMDs? We know he was... we know he hid the yellowcake, we found it.
Also, I looked up Richter. He had a three year contract that was almost up when he resigned. He resigned AFTER the plant he was inspecting was blown up by the Israeli jets -- the plant he felt was a threat, the reasons for which he well documented. He resigned to come to testify before Congress here in the U.S. and as one Senator remarked, at "considerable personal sacrifice" to himself.
Your lies keep coming... lies usually denotes propaganda with agenda behind it.
@UncontestedTruth As for yellowcake you have and do agree that it can be used to make a WMD. They also found 11 empty warheads which Saddam claims that he "forgot he had". Now very honestly you can't tell me you believe a dictator proven to be dangerous and sadistic already had purely good intentions for the yellowcake.
Now I do agree it wasn't a WMD yet, but the threat was definitly there
But they did also find large amounts of sarin and mustard gas which is a WMD
You actually believe UncontestedTruth is going to admit that Light Water Reactors can turn yellowcake into weapon grade plutonium? I'm pretty sure he's utterly ignorant of this. He's been getting his information from leftist websites, and he probably believes that crap. If you are expecting him to see reason, forget it. That's not what he's about. His is promoting an agenda, and truth, if it gets in his way, will be ignored by him.
@dragonshead69 I find our conversations more pleasant. Iraq told everyone about the BWs and CWs. They must of told UNSCOM (UNMOVIC) a million times. When they tried to lie "karmic" events revealed the truth. They said they were disarming which inspection proves they were. Another aspect is delivery system. The delivery system found was insufficient for mass destruction. It signifies existance of banned weapons but not WMDs.
@UncontestedTruth The delivery system??? REALLY? Thats what I hear from almost every person I talk to on this subject in the end.
Basicaly Saddam HAD WMD's and when that breaks down point to delivery system or they were old, but none of that changes the fact that he had them. That is all I said.
Personaly I think both Iraq and Libya needed to happen but both were handled wrong
As I said before I call it as I see it and that doesn't matter which candidate I like or not
@dragonshead69 Sarin has a shelf life of, literally, weeks. Mustard gas can last for about a decade maybe longer. After this lifespan, they are ineffective. Weapons found were 15+yrs old. Inspectors said the weapons were ineffective. Saddam HAD illegal weapons this is well documented but none were being devoloped. Ones in 04 had not been, could not be, used. We invade over unusable weapons? Little late to the party. So he had antiques but no he didnt have WMDs. Even Bush himself has said so.
The major problem with liberal morons like UncontestedTruth is that he lives in some imaginary world, far from reality. He keeps far far away from solution-driven thinking, feeling he's safe and secure in his critical thinking, although NOTHING is accomplished by saying no to everything.
Ask UncontestedTruth how to keep nukes out of the hands of tyrants, and he'll probably give you a blank stare... he just doesn't think in those terms... he might even tell you that's not his job.
@dragonshead69 Youre right he had illegal weapons years ago. Are we invading Germany because they once tried to dominate the world? What about France? Iraq told everyone they had some and the UN and IAEA helped dismantle them. You cant punish for ended conflict. Legally, its not a valid point.
Its like dad punishing his 16yr old for something he did when he was 10 and told him about. The main reason we went to Iraq was because of WMDs. That has been said a million times. Bush said this himself
@UncontestedTruth Mustard and Sarin gas has been found repeatedly since the start of the war, you have already conceded yellowcake can be used to make a WMD.
It makes me wonder if you would still be taking a retroactive stance if Obama would have been president at the time or would you now be defending him?
@dragonshead69 I dont defend bullshit. Obama has continued some things he swore to stop (wiretaps Gitmo etc.). So dont pretend to somehow have knowledge of MY thoughts. I dont see how any of the quotes you give are relevant. UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq at the end of 98. More inspections occurred in 02-03. Much of mustard gas and sarin remnants found were in junkyards (not stockpiles), great place to store unstable toxins. It was unusable. No WMDs were found. So says Bush.
@UncontestedTruth This is old and frankly boring. So basicaly you would have left a madman and his sadistic sons to thier vices and I am happy that we changed that. Alot of good has come out of it, not all bad.
You defend Obama with Libya while persecuting Bush for Iraq.
@dragonshead69 So basically I would have preferred someone supply credible reasons for war instead of getting good men and women killed on a bullshit easter egg hunt that doesnt yield any WMDs as they claimed it would.
I defend Obama with Libya because what he did wasnt illegal (WPA and the constitution give him such power) and he didnt lie. He told us exactly what he would do and did it.
@UncontestedTruth WMDs was not the only reasons for going to Iraq and yes you would rather a madman dictator be in charge than a republican bring democracy to anywhere. As shows in you defending Obama
@dragonshead69 Even Rumsfeld said we wouldnt have went if not for WMDs. If THE MAIN reason I punch you is because you slept with my girlfriend, but you didnt sleep with her, then it defeats the purpose does it not? So the time you accidentally broke my tv may be a reason, but if I didnt think it was enough to hit you at the time then its obviously not too important to me. That was just an example for analogy purposes.
I rather they be straight forward then get people killed for BS.
Ok LISTEN TO ME. Iraq didn't have a full scale revolution. Iraq didn't have the suport of the UN. Iraq wasn't a simple operation. Iraq didn't simply require Ships, bombers and fighters. This video is retarded this guy has NO idea what hes talking about.
metallavery 1 week ago
This is quite painful to listen to. Can this program die already?
ZaikiTheLycan 1 week ago
Yeah ... pretty easy to argue when all the other person says is 'I don't care' and 'he's amazing'.
mulberrytoast 3 weeks ago
So to sum up. Obama+Libya+ndaa= a fine start to building a strong dictatorship. Watch next elections will ne suspended via "executive fiat"
NOCTURNOzombie 1 month ago
Supporting Iraqis against Saddam Hussein is as good as supporting Libyans against Qaddafi. Messing with the Iraqi after math & letting Iran controlling the country is wrong. Letting the free Libyans building a new free Libya is good.
FolkeBernadotte2 1 month ago
Thumbs up for Europeans with windmills!!! 2:22
GetOutOfTheTub 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@GetOutOfTheTub Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 month ago
@Mrpastry909 (continuation) You may agree or disagree with “The Bush Doctrine” and the threats posed by the Iraqi regime, but your representatives in Washington voted for it overwhelmingly and that is what democracy looks like. Deal with it.
As for UN 1973, you may agree or disagree with it, but your representatives in Washington did not get to vote on it nor were they asked for their opinion. That is what Totalitarianism looks like. Deal with it."
ronreich1 1 month ago 2
@Mrpastry909 Here's what I wrote a year ago in response to similar comments: "Are these two wars comparable and if not what are the salient differences? For me, they are not comparable actions. Iraq was about trying to save American lives by enforcing something which came to be known as “The Bush Doctrine”, and Libya is about trying to save non-American lives by enforcing something known as UN 1973. (continued)
ronreich1 1 month ago
And don't think that I'm saying that Iraq wasn't justified. Saddam was a bastard and deserved to be taken out. However, it was reckless and short-sighted of Bush to start another war when we already were in Afghanistan. We should have just bombed the crap out of Baghdad and used drone strikes, not invade.
Mrpastry909 1 month ago
Ronreich1, it's easy to make your argument when you can control what your opponent says and make them say stupid things. Try arguing against someone with a brain.
Here's several things why Libya was a better move than Iraq:
-Libya had a Libyan-led revolution to overthrow Gaddaffi. Saddam's power was secure.
-We bombed the crap out of Libya but didn't invade and left it to the Libyans to stablize the land. We invaded Iraq and put the job of stabilizing it on our shoulders.
Mrpastry909 1 month ago
Right! I am around the odd portion of Youtube once again.
ogelioholde921r 1 month ago
So... Bush was better was he? The fact that he WAS a massively incompetant idiot isn't relevant?
totallydead18 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
jewwithbill 3 months ago
just shut up and astop arguing DAM!!
carolinex67 3 months ago
haha!!
carolinex67 3 months ago
obama is a just a vegetable
lhostizy 3 months ago
I have Obama bimbos just like this dizzy bitch where I work!
basenjib123 4 months ago
Comment removed
basenjib123 4 months ago
i hate Obama he is a push over
Blaze1168 4 months ago
I blame Bush and Obama equally for sucking donkey balls.
Shwaggetyshfifty 4 months ago in playlist More videos from ronreich1
This vid has more straw men in it than an Iowa corn field.
6ganey9 4 months ago
Liberal in the Red. See. Blame it on Bush.
I failed my Math Test Blame Bush
I die in Modern Warefare Blame Bush
I have no minutes on my cell phone Blame Bush
Its bullshit. It makes sense. The guy in this is soooo correct. Nice Video.
3077BIODROID 4 months ago
blondie doesnt care blondie is a fucking sheep.
hardkoregamer999 5 months ago
Are you afraid? YOU SHOULD BE VERY AFRAID
Want safety in America, protect Israel, wipe out Muslims?
MUST SEE VIDEO: /watch?v=gV4Cxuu7VwU
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Alexander Solzhenitsyn, novelist, Nobel laureate (1918-2008)
vechorik 4 months ago
@vechorik nice video if only kennedy wasnt killed i wonder how america would have turned out if he lived.
hardkoregamer999 4 months ago
Nevermind my comment lol sorry this is interesting but obama is not awesome
Munsterbling 5 months ago
What kind of crap is this!
Munsterbling 5 months ago
this is the exact point I try to make all the time!!!!!!!!
USN276 5 months ago
Wow, this is interesting.
Interestingenough4 5 months ago
Wow I agree! Both Bush and Obama are retards, both Libya and Iraq are stupid!
fontanaman13 6 months ago
Both "sides" are robots.
"UN Resolutions?" Just as bad as "NATO edicts." Feh!
Dems & Reps both are raping the taxpayer while stomping on the Constitution.
KutWrite 6 months ago
Well maybe if you learn about our corrupt government workings we would be able to vote in a good govermental body.... EDUCATE YOURSELVES......
SpiceyJen 6 months ago
OBAMA IS AWESOME!!!! YOU GOT THAT? LOL!!!!! WINNING!!!!
XistenceisFutile 6 months ago
This is non since I realy don't care because I'm just 18 and don't know any thing about the govement I just hate how they tax every one it's bull
GsmilesJr 6 months ago
@GsmilesJr So... there shouldnt be taxes? hahah
acrc14 6 months ago
@acrc14 I think you misunderstood him or maybe I am???
I took GsmilesJr comment to mean the taxes we do pay are to high and getting higher all the time. If that is what he meant than I agree with him.
TBH I question the sanity of anyone who is willing and happy to pay more into our already high tax system
dragonshead69 6 months ago
@dragonshead69 yeah.... i am rereading it and it makes a different image now, he could also mean he doesnt agree with their tax policies which goes hand in hand with how you see it. If he means it that way then i too agree with him, because according to our president "80% of americans want higher taxes." And ill be the first to say that statement is completely false... i have yet to meet someone wanting to pay higher taxes.
acrc14 6 months ago
I don't care Obama is awsome
CaBr0n76 6 months ago
That makes no sense whatsoever. We started bombing Libya in March and they voted on it in June. I'm not Republican but damn the least you could do is a little research.
dragonshead69 7 months ago
Republicans have no standing to argue about Libya. The voted to fund it.
HellohKIDDIE 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HellohKIDDIE That makes no sense whatsoever. We started bombing Libya in March and they voted on it in June. I'm not Republican but damn the least you could do is a little research.
dragonshead69 7 months ago
but libya and iraq is arab country what do you mean vs
faizolo 7 months ago
WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edgarthereales 7 months ago
Republicans. Against war since January 20, 2009.
Republicans. Against small government since January 20, 2009.
Republicans. Against rappers visiting the White House since January 20, 2009.
Republicans. Against spending since January 20, 2009.
Republicans. Against raising the debt ceiling since January 20, 2009.
Republicans. Against short form birth certificates since January 20, 2009.
HellohKIDDIE 7 months ago
@HellohKIDDIE
No idea what your point, if you have one, is... not that I care much to have sound bite wackos like yourself elaborate on insanity.
SANDST0NE 7 months ago
@HellohKIDDIE That's hilarious because
Democrats were against war until B.O. went to Lybia without congressional consent.
Democrats always wanted budget busting massively large government.
I never heard the one about the rappers so not going to comment.
Democrats always spending and under B.O. progressed at light speed.
Democrats for raising debt ceiling 2 times in 3 years totaling more than Bush's 7 times in 8 years(what kind of sh*t is that???)
dragonshead69 7 months ago
About Libya and the evil Gaddafi:
- cars are sold at the factory price
- people get credit money without interest
- education and helfcare are free
- 25% of population has faculty education
- 15 cents one bread
- their are no people homeless people on the street, everyone has a place to live
- young married people receive a free place to stay from the State
And the list continues...
No wonder the people who rule the "free" world view Libya as a problem.
HazeWaveTV 7 months ago
@HazeWaveTV
I can see you are filled with a loathing for freedom.
I suppose a SERF mentality like yours will pop up now and then, but thank GOD, you are in a small small minority. The vast majority of people want to stretch their arms and legs and make something of themselves and this world. What good an education if you aren't allowed to speak freely, make something of yourself, and use your abilities to help others in creative ways?
Take time to learn what freedom really means.
SANDST0NE 7 months ago
@SANDST0NE So please..explain why the majority of Libyans are behing Gadaffi...explain why the majority of comments codemn the west for they're barbaric actions. You speak of the vast majority...however you speak falsely. Show me a video of millions of Libyans marchingin support of the rebels. I can show you a video of millions of Libyans marching in support of Gadaffi, does this constitute the "majority?"
HazeWaveTV 7 months ago
@SANDST0NE 70% of Americans support a full withdrawal..does this constitute the "majority"?
HazeWaveTV 7 months ago
@HazeWaveTV
But your premise as to WHY is 180 degrees out of sync. It is laughable to think it is because Ghadafi is a good and proper leader... he's a monster...
No... Americans want to leave because the government of Libya is just as likely to be replaced with another terrorist regime as not.
SANDST0NE 7 months ago
I run into brainwashed people like her everyday.
h100083 7 months ago
Sounds like all the die hard B.O. lovers I talk with. He is their messiah despite not actually knowing anything about the man, other than he is black, in most cases.
I care less his skin color, the man took over a failing system and has not done one thing to fix it. In fact in almost every case things went from bad to WAY worse and aren't getting any better. He is almost never called on any of his screwups and when he is, he blames Bush and the sheeple love him once again
Its moronic!!!
dragonshead69 7 months ago
looool typical stupid american blondie there.....
idont care- i dont care- i dont care- and at the last a stupid answer she give
komigennufan 7 months ago
Very true & very funny!
fork1964 8 months ago
lybians has done an uprising and they were supressed and murdered so they asked people for help or otherwise gadafi would half killed 50% of lypian population. unlike iraq people didd not ask and it wasnt supported by the un and the world. got it??
ahmedzs1 8 months ago
@ahmedzs1 Iraq is better off now than when that sadistic bastard was there!
Iran asked, hell they begged us to do something and what did we do? turned our heads and pretended like nothing was happening. There is also about 6 other countries going through the same thing. How come we are only helping Libya.
The UN are a bunch of useless piles of dog shat
dragonshead69 8 months ago
I wanna kill the girl all she cares is about Libya not Iraq
iraq284 8 months ago
Bush and Obama are identical twins.
Democrats and Republicans are two faces of the same monster.
txsray1 8 months ago
This low-thinking UncontestedTruth, thinks that by criticizing everyone and everything, he accomplishes something. This one-trick pony has absolutely no realistic solutions to any problem in existence, yet he obviously imagines he has some constructive purpose in life. Tragic really.
Wait.... I think he did mention that if someone fired off a nuke, it would be detected. First off, we don't have that level of wide-scan technology. Second.. millions dead is NOT like someone stealing a TV.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn I have "no realistic solutions to any problem in existence" and you base my ability to solve problems in life on ONLY THIS CONVERSATION? That makes about as much sense as the rest of your arguments. Strawman and lying works wonders for you doesnt it. You dont think we have satellites to detect launches? Just like the rest of your arguments, you are misinformed or just lying. Ever heard of DSP satellites? But whatever. Reality, rules, and facts apparently dont exist in your world.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
LOL... I looked it up. DSP doesn't do what we say it does... would that it COULD. I even read in Wikipedia how it detected Iraqi scuds and gave warnings. Uhhh... I remember that war. And I remember the scuds hitting their targets... I don't think a single scud was shot down. Dude, it's military PROPAGANDA... and I bet a lot of scuds were never even detected in the first place.
What we DO have, you won't know about. You are so stupid it is stunning.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn I said we have satellites dedicated to detecting launches. Never said it could shoot the missiles down. But you just make up that its propaganda and that a lot of scuds werent detected. What proof do you have of either or did you just make it up? When did I say it detected every single thing? How can you know if its propaganda?You have done stuff like this repeatedly. I give facts. You give bets. Facts given (what is known) say one thing. You say the opposite. But Im the stupid one.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
THINK. Just try it for a change. Think about it... a wide scan, infrared scanner, that can detect and identify missiles. How would it do that? It can detect infrared, find literally tens of thousands of things, but how exactly do they isolate what is a missile and what isn't? That problem is way too hard... nice to dream we could have such a thing, but get real. If we had it, they wouldn't tell you on Wikipedia in any case.
Seriously, learn to THINK logically.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn So is it impossible because you dont understand it or because I brought it up? Seems to be one of those reasons.
So, Mr logic, lets put our thinking caps on. Its an "infrared scanner." Missile propellants give off extremely high amounts of infrared radiation.
Now what does logic tell you?
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
No... actually I am a computer science guy as well as a graphics guy.
Sounds like you don't know, but infrared is HEAT. There are a LOT of things that give off heat. The question is, how is it possible to differentiate between these? You'd need some pretty fancy software that handles a huge amount of input and analyzes it all at the same time in real time.
We just aren't there, and probably won't be for another hundred years.
If you had a VERY SMALL area to scan, yes.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Infrared is talking about ice. Just like nightvision goggles help you see in the sunlight.
No fucking joke infrared is heat. Tests show its possible. Why do you believe it is NOT possible? Why are we limitted to only what YOU think we are capable of?
"pretty fancy software"
Like the stuff they spend BILLIONS on making?
So we can see billions of lightyears in space but cant make a scanner that can detect a high spark of infrared radiation thats being shot into the atmosphere? Ok.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
I guess what I said went right over your head. I explained the issue, and instead of responding to it, you say tests show it is possible. It isn't.
I might suggest reading up about the history of sonar, or the history of radar... the public had NO CLUE for decades what these things could and could not do. Why? MILITARY SECRETS are the best kept secrets. The fact you think the military is going to report HONESTLY on Wikipedia just shows me how incredibly stupid you are.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn First I didnt go to wikipedia. Check the Los Angeles Air Force Base website. Nice assumption. Second, these arent secrets anymore. The military declassified the info. Do it all the time. Third, if this was a military secret how would you know anything to the contrary? Do you have classified info youre sharing over youtube that says it isnt possible? What is the basis of knowledge for which you claim it isnt possible? Who else agrees with you? Looks like you pulled it out of your ass.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
The reason I know it isn't possible? Common sense. I know where we are software-wise and hardware-wise in the area of computer analysis, and we're seriously 100 years away from your claim we can detect missile launches over any significant area quickly enough to warn or prevent a missile from reaching its target.
Can we scan, with the consciousness of protecting SPECIFIC targets? POSSIBLY, but not more than 100 such targets. The weak link is computer analysis.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Have you seen the best computers money can buy? Do you work with the brightest minds in our military?
So your "common sense" trumps scientific ingenuity? Common sense says we cant have manmade elements. Common sense says we couldnt make a giant metal contraption that weighs thousands of pounds fly.
All praise the infallibility of common sense in scientific matters.
Its not my claim. Apparently we can detect missile launches and warn people. Because WE HAVE BEFORE.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Well... perhaps it does take an understanding of computer science. I have that.
In any case, we aren't there, we're not even close.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn So you claim knowledge which I have no proof you possess and then say we cant do it.
Where is your info? Just because you do low budget works or what not doesnt mean billions of dollars and the best scientists cant accomplish this just because you dont think so.
A high burst of infrared radiation shooting into the atmosphere and leaving a trail is detectable today.
Why does no source agree with you? I mean literally NO expert. Are there none smarter or better informed than you?
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
The hardware is just one problem. Even if we had the hardware, which to my mind is in itself ridiculous, there is no way to analyze the signatures over a large area to determine which are missiles. Missiles are by no means the hottest things on earth, so the potential signatures, of which there would be many thousands would have to be analyzed in real time for movement, acceleration, etc.
The wider the area, the more impossible the task... at present, we're not even close.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Yeah things burning at 5000degrees F shoot up at a vertical angle to reach 160 km into the atmosphere leaving a plume of blazing hot gas behind all the time.
Youre the expert on the hardware and software capabilities of the government. Thats why NASA contracted your services for their vital operations. Thats why you have an overwhelming amount of evidence on your side and not just your inexperienced word. Thats why all the experts agree with you.
It all makes sense...
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Uhhhh... right... Are you begging for people to laugh at you? Stop to think for a second and use your common sense. People that shoot missiles to take out land targets actually try NOT to be detected, and the idea they are going to shoot something 100 miles into the atmosphere puts you alongside a few street people who spend their time constantly talking to themselves...
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Are you serious? Scud Bs (used by Iraq) go about 160km high. Plus there are missiles, unlike Scuds, that can actually leave the atmosphere. So yeah they go 100 miles or more. You dont even know anything about missiles and youre trying to tell me we cant detect them? Well you just invalidated yourself. To make it worse you try to insinuate Im crazy when I have given you fact.
All hail the infallibility of your common sense.
Good job.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Okay... you just lost the last one or two people who thought you had any cred at all. IRAQ had a weapon that would go 160km high? That is so laughable, I'm left wondering how you can be so incredibly stupid on the scientific front, yet be able to type on a keyboard in coherent sentences...
Were your SAT scores like 0 on math and 600 on english?
LEARN TO USE DISCRIMINATION on what you read instead of being a gullible dupe for anyone and everyone that wants to use you.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
The worst problem you have is that ANYONE here can look up yellowcake and its uses. How are you going to stop people from doing that?
...or do you think they will believe your lies and not bother to look it up for themselves? You'd have to count on this, because anyone that makes the slightest bit of effort will end up wondering what your agenda is for which you feel you had to lie.
GOOGLE YELLOWCAKE and check out its uses. Anyone...
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Yeah yellowcake must be enriched but even that has to be converted first. We didnt find any weapons grade uranium. Remember when I said "NOT be capable of creating weapons"? Thats because the reactor bombed in 81 was "unsuited" for plutonium production. It was a LWR. LEU use and not HEU.
Yeah I sure did lie when I said he resigned. Excluding the fact that he resigned. Sigh.... Thank you Mr. Strawman.
I was wrong about 1 thing. I got the numbers mixed up. 1.8 tons of LEU was removed
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Poor UncontestedTruth finally looks up what yellowcake is.
On why Harvard is irrelevant..
A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.
"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Say what? Yellowcake is uranium. I already knew that. This ENTIRE time I have been preaching about enrichment grade. Nothing about my argument has changed at all. So WTF are you talking about?
Who cares what they said about the 4th of July? Since when does that discredit everything other people at Harvard have done? How does it discredit others who concurred what Wilson said?
Beyond that, the fact that the plant was a LWR is just that, a fact.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
The entire time you've been talking out your ass.
I'm pointing out to readers how Harvard, although thought of as made up of brilliant minds, are not only less than brilliant, they are downright moronic. A study on how 4th of July parades mold the political landscape?
Just giving people a REAL education about what Harvard is about: nonsense.
Now have a wonderful Fourth, and enjoy the parade.
And avoid people like UncontestedTruth who pretend to knowledge.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn The entire time I have been talking out of my ass. Except nothing I have said is wrong except for the thing I have admitted. Iraq had yellowcake. That is NOT an uncommon substance. The fact that they have it doesnt mean it was used for weapon purposes just like in 81. You said we found WMDs in Iraq. We didnt. Dismiss Harvard if you wish. Still doesnt change anything. So when you lose you make a bunch of strawman arguments and then claim the opposition doesnt know anything. Genius
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
You don't find yellowcake naturally in Iraq, it isn't mined there. It is an uncommon substance.
Yes, that yellowcake, all 550 metric tons of it, was going to be used by Saddam Hussein to make nuclear weapons. That's what I'm saying. Yes, that is a LOT of an uncommon substance (for Iraq) to have lying around... yes, it was to be used for nukes. Yes, we found WMD material, LOTS of it, in Iraq.
But I bet you repeated to everyone that Saddam was a benign, nice guy. SORRY!
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Uranium is common in the world market. Plenty of nations have it. Much less have nuclear weapons.
The mere existance of yellowcake within a country is not enough to invade and occupy or we would be invading a lot of countries. Possessing yellowcake isnt illegal. We invaded over the claim they had WMDs when they didnt. That is that. Simple and cut.
Yes Mr Strawman I went around telling people how Saddam was such a nice guy because of how nicely he persecuted everyone.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
But NOW we know they did. WMDs were there. 550 metric tons. Hard to argue with 550 metric tons of a substance not native to that land whose purpose could only be for nuclear weapons. Of course, you seem to enjoy arguing against all logic, and ask me if I mind, not that it is a challenge...
We invaded with apporval of the U.N, all the major intelligence communities, and Congress (Hillary, Kerry, Biden, etc). We went into Iraq because EVERYONE wanted it at the time.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Yellowcakes purpose is NOT only for nuclear weapons! Have you not been paying attention?? Holy shit man go look up yellowcake and the different grades again. LEU is NOT weapons grade. Thats the only grade found. That CANNOT be used in a nuclear weapon but in it can be in a LWR plant (hmm correlation?). Yellowcake is NOT a WMD.
UN did NOT support our invasion. People like Kofi Annan kept saying how illegal it was.
Do you know how many countries have uranium? Lets go invade them too
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Now I have warned you, and now you not only have stepped in your own B.S., but are neck deep in it.
Have you forgotten already that anyone can Google yellowcake and read about its uses?
You defeated yourself in this debate with your dishonesty; I didn't do it to you.
Happy Independence Day. Freedom belongs not only to Americans, but Iraqis, Europeans, Japanese, everywhere on earth. It is a natural desire of all peoples, and with God's help, we'll all get there.
Amen.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn I miss something?
So "anyone can Google yellowcake and read about its uses" Ok THEN DO THAT. It would be beneficial to me and probably save me some time.
"Yellowcakes purpose is NOT only for nuclear weapons!" Ok thats a fact. And so I defeated MYSELF with facts? Damn Im good.
Thanks for proving how amazing I must be. Happy Independence Day.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
Comment removed
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
550 metric tons of yellowcake was found in Iraq. You admit it could be used to make nuclear weapons.
So... there it is. WMD making material... found in Iraq, in a large quantity.
Q.E.D.
I previously exposed your lies about Saddam's previous nuclear facility; a threat that UN IAEA inspectors spoke out about and Israel destroyed.
And you are going to keep claiming Saddam's plans for 550 metric tons of yellowcake was to make electricity??
Dude, you so lost this debate...
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Yeah lets talk about lies.
"550 metric tons of a substance not native to that land whose purpose could only be for nuclear weapons" LIE
"We found WMDs in Iraq" HAHA funny but still a LIE
These arent based on professional opinion. Those are just things you came up with. Lets not even go into all the strawman arguments.
Well just 1. What about Richters report claims they found WMDs? I asked a similar question earlier and you never answered.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Now, the 81 bombing was on a LWR plant. If you would like to look that up and tell me just how dangerous that type of plant can be. Then look up what design principle blueprint was used for its creation.
Im not saying the 550 was ABSOLUTELY going to electricity. Im simply saying nuclear weapons is not the only option. And we only found LEU. Plus it was just yellowcake. In its most basic form. Not even UF6 yet. So thats NOT proof of WMDs. So we cant just invade. BTW I havent lied.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Nuclear weapons was DEFINITELY the objective, when you are talking Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a long history... imperialism, WMD abuse, starving his own people (women and children).
Just prior to our going into Iraq, the U.N. had estimated that Saddam was murdering around 5000 of his own people per month, and Amnesty International concurred-well, until Amnesty International erased all references to Saddam Hussein on their website when Bush was garnering U.N. support
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn So basically bottom line the US, UN, any other organization doesnt have proof of nuclear weapons.
Yellowcake isnt evidence of WMDs. So youre statement of "We found WMDs in Iraq." May be a lie or maybe you just didnt know. We did not find any WMDs. Had we, people would be praising Bush left right up down spin around and repeat. We are not doing such a thing.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Finally. When did Richter go to actually inspect the facilities? How come everyone that actually DID inspect said Richter didnt know what he was talking about? Or Eklund, the IAEA director-general in 1981. He directly "rebutted" (not my words) what Richter testified. Sooooooo.......
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Oct 1981, both Eklund and Richter wrote articles. I just read both. Richter's is BY FAR the more detailed and compelling, stating facts that Eklund can't refute... things like no IAEA inspector had even been allowed into Iraq for a full five years prior to the plant's being destroyed by Israel. How can Eklund, with ANY authority, claim the inspections were adequate? Israel made the right call. Eklund was obviously paid by Saddam.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn So let me get this straight. You believe Richter, a guy who hadnt inspected the facilities and had been thoroughly debunked by the IAEA director-general, IAEA collegues who had actually inspected, and other outside sources. Not seeing the logic.
Do you have any proof at all that Eklund was paid by Saddam?
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Obviously you don't know what "debunked" means. If you are going to use a word, you should know what it means. I read them both about this issue, both Richter and Eklund, and the person who stinks is Eklund, not Richter. I already told you NOBODY from the IAEA was allowed to inspect Saddam's plant. NOBODY.
Now perhaps you need to look up what NOBODY means while you are at it, so you grasp that Saddam was PREVENTING the U.N. from overseeing his nuclear facilities.
Hello?
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Debunk: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated
"Debunked" applies.
"NOBODY...was allowed to inspect" then how could Richter accurately claim that facilities didnt have safeguards? He couldnt but did in June.
The IAEA, as H Gruemm (Deputy Director General of the Agency's
Department of Safeguards) said, inspected the facility. He also DESTROYS Richter in the same report without even saying his name. Go read up.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Know what, Im in a generous mood. I will save you some time.
I will give you some highlights from "Safeguards and Tamuz: setting the record straight" by H Gruemm in the next comment.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@mollesjohn
"In view of the information presented here it is not necessary to dwell in detail on statements made by a former inspector who actually was never in Iraq... He was careful enough not to mention the necessary, drastic, and easily observable changes of the reactor configuration... He forgot to mention that facilities in Iraq not yet submitted to safeguards would have come under safeguards when they first contained nuclear material;"
By all means dont take my word for it. Look it up.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
I can tell that facts won't sway you. The fact that Saddam denied Eklund access, and I mean ANY access whatsoever to inspect ANY of his facilities, for years and years, doesn't raise any flags for you, when Eklund testifies against his own department in favor of Saddam Hussein.
Richter, a highly skilled inspector had no motive to lie. But Eklund could well have been on Saddam's payroll. SADDAM DENIED ALL U.N. INSPECTOR ACCESS!!! Something stinks here.. right now its YOU.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Eklund didnt testify against the Agency. EVERY SINGLE IAEA PERSON, Eklund, Gruemm, etc. says Richter was wrong. We have IAEA + non IAEA inspectors, people that actually went to the facilites, then theres Richter who NEVER WENT TO IRAQ. The LWR was based on a French design (OSIRIS to Osiraq). The design was SPECIFICALLY unsuited for housing plutonium.
Anyone who proves you wrong is corrupt even without proof? Inspections occurred 1973-Jan 81. Did you actually read the reports?
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
Hating America and Israel is all you need to know in order to pass qualifications on a left leaning scale of measurment.Simplification is not all ways bad. If you use it in a PC fashion.
Pomiferous 8 months ago
the difference: we never invaded and occupied Libya, did we?
ccsmiley2 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 Occupied? So stationing our troops in Iraq was "occupying"? The citizens of Iraq rushed to greet and thank the soldiers when they arrived. So, being that you're wrong, do you have any other reasons why they were different?
SimpleBag1 8 months ago
@SimpleBag1 Yes, stationing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a country thousands of miles away for nearly a decade is considered an occupation. They rushed to greet and thank the soldiers when they arrived, but do they rush to greet and thank the soldiers now?
Our intervention in Libya was incredibly brief when compared to Iraq, with far fewer US deaths.
Besides all that, 2003 Iraq was based on a false premise. In Libya, there were multiple independent sources reporting impending genocide.
ccsmiley2 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 Are you saying Saddam Hussein wasn't committing genocide on the Kurds?
Also are you saying that because "Our intervention in Libya was incredibly brief when compared to Iraq", while Iraq had congressional support and Lybia didn't, it's OK with you? Or is it just because Obama did iy???
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Are you saying the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed since 2003 are irrelevant because there was "congressional support?"
By the way, the Halabja gas attacks were in 1988, but nice try, dumbshit
ccsmiley2 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 Ronald Hilton - 4/25/03- Stanford
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.
Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 But then again that's not what I asked you is it?
Do you always answer a question with a question???
Iraq was started LEGALLY even though I agree it has been handled horribly wrong
Lybia was started ILLEGALLY and I don't think they reacted fast enough
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Now you're talking sense :)
ccsmiley2 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 What a cop out. You still don't answer my questions but you sure agree with me on what you want.
I look at both sides and even if I like a politician if they do wrong I'm not scared to call them on it or admitt when I'm wrong.
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Good for you. You didn't answer my question either, but I don't give a shit. stop crying
ccsmiley2 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 Is something wrong with you? I did answer you and you still haven't answered me. Its not crying lol its called gloating because you obviously wont answer when you know your wrong.
Thats typical liberal tactics
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69
It's ironic in a way. UncontestTruth actually ended up educating me on exactly HOW Saddam was going to make nukes, details I hadn't known about previously.
1. Saddam had previous experience with Light Water Reactors and knew with those plus yellowcake, he could make nuclear weapons.
2. Saddam had knowledge of U.N. procedures and inspections and had previous experience of being completely successful in keeping the U.N. from inspecting anything vital.
Knowledge = Lib's enemy.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 "waaah waah i'm right and you're wrong waaah waah you haven't answered me waaaah"
yep, sure sounds like crying to me. get over it, pansy.
ccsmiley2 8 months ago
@ccsmiley2 You can't answer my question can you? I figured as much, you talk a good game till your put in your place by someone with more intelligence. Then you act like a fourth grader and think you did something.
You honestly thought you were somebody, you must be very smart in your own mind LMAO at U
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 lol still crying, faggot?
ccsmiley2 7 months ago
@ccsmiley2 I figured as much LMAO@U
When you grow mentally, ALOT, come talk with me. Maybe then you can follow along with an adult conversation.
Until then I'm done with you.
dragonshead69 7 months ago
@dragonshead69 i thought you wouldn't shut up, thank god though
ccsmiley2 7 months ago
@dragonshead69 You forget the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not supported by the UN, who makes international law. We decided the enforcement of the UN security council resolutions was up to us. It was not. We also decided to take the guise of proactive self defense based on the claims that Iraq contained illegal missile weapons and WMDs. A fallacy. Libya is significantly different. I dont think I need to spell out why. Youre smart enough to discern differences.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth No offence, but I live in the US and can care less about the UN criminal coucil and what they think.
Our govrnment had authority from our Congress, which makes it a legal war. No matter how bad you or I believe it was handled.
Iraq and Libya are very different, One large way is Libya was done illegally. No matter it was the right thing to do, that is just plain facts and I would think "Youre smart enough to discern differences"
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 I live here too. You could care less? No offence but you know little of how the world works. Lets talk about the WPA (forget its unconstitutional). This act gives a 60 to 90 day window in which the president can deploy troops WITHOUT congressional approval. Theres also been debate over active vs supportive roles (AKA we arent doing much of anything). The US is part of the UN. A permanent member of the Security Council. Whatever decisions the UN makes is supported by us.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth Srry its taken long to respond, I'm lucky enough to have a job, no thanks to our jackass of a president.
Once again I care about USA not the criminal board of the UN. Plain and simple we had Congresional agreement to go into Iraq(right or wrong). We didn't even ask in Libya(right or wrong) PERIOD
I call it as I see it no matter who I like politicaly. To many people,such as yourself, will defend a candidate at all costs even when they are wrong
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth Also were you aware that in 2008 Iraq sold a stockpile of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium to Canada. Can you guess some uses of yellowcake uranium?
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Also yellowcake can be used for a multitude of things. Should we attack Canada too? No. Know why? Because for 1 yellowcake uranium isnt a WMD. 2 the uranium must be enriched (good luck finding some) which hasnt been confirmed. 3 even if they have enriched uranium that DOESNT mean they know how to or took the time to develop weapons. But all this is unnecessary because of point 1.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
You are correct. 550 metric tons of yellowcake doesn't necessarily mean it will be used for nuclear weapons. Let's see. With 100 metric tons of chocolate icing we could make 650 metric tons of delicious desserts.
I am hearing your sound reasoning.... LET THEM EAT CAKE!
Yummy.
BTW, dragonshead69 is correct. Yellowcake is used to make the MOST powerful WMD on earth, and 550 metric tons of it isn't exactly chopped liver... that's a hell of a lot of WMD material.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Do you understand the uranium enrichment process or what weapons grade uranium (HEU) is? Apparently not. I wasnt only simply saying "they have uranium but it doesnt necessarily mean it will be used for WMDs." Im saying "they have uranium but it doesnt necessarily mean it CAN be used for WMDs." Does Iraq have WMDs? Nope. Does Canada have WMDs? Nope.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
OF COURSE it was going to be used for WMDs. Are you SERIOUSLY going to maintain that Saddam Hussein, with more oil than he knew what to do with, was going NUCLEAR for the electricity?
Oh yeah, that's why Israel bombed their last plant into oblivion, because Israel feared what Saddam would do with all that voltage.
Next you are going to tell me Iran's desire for a nuclear power plant is for purely peaceful purposes.
We found WMDs in Iraq. I don't care if you don't like it.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn The bombing youre talking about was in 1981. Richard Wilson, Harvard professor, said upon observation the plant that was bombed was specifically designed to NOT be capable of creating weapons.
There is only certain type of uranium isotope that is weapons grade. HEU (U-235; extremely difficult to find/manufacture) is weapons grade. It WAS NOT found in Iraq. So no we didnt find WMDs in Iraq. You fail left and right.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth Harvard professor? Israeli intelligence?
And YOU choose the Harvard professor's judgment over Israeli Intelligence's judgment... and you even have to factor in that Israel knew they'd take a huge political hit if they got it wrong... yet...
you actually choose the Harvard professor?
The Harvard professor, says you, actually said Saddam's nuclear plant was SPECIFICALLY designed to NOT be capable of making weapons?
ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR MIND?!?!?!?
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Yeah because its not like intelligence has never been wrong. Its not like this guy is certified BY HARVARD or anything. Its not like he went AFTER to CONFIRM if Israeli intelligence was correct and said it wasnt. Its not like that multiple experts like Eklund, Gruemm, Koutz, Weinstock all reported the same thing to the UN and the US. Its not like I can give you the actual link to what he said on the actual Harvard website. Wanna keep going? Because this will end badly for you.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Israeli Intelligence... explain to me when they've been wrong. I'm waiting.
See... academia, if you haven't figured it out yet, is where all the morons who live in their world of theory can sit safely behind criticism and don't have to solve a single problem, big or small. At best, they write papers in graduate-speak, at worst, they sit on their tenured hands, give seminars to the young and naive, and take whole summers off with pay.
Israel can't afford such luxury.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn When have they been wrong? The ignorance is amazing. Forget the fact that 81 has little to do with 03 or how we didnt find WMDs or how they didnt have the proper materials to create a weapon.
May 31, 2010. Israeli forces invaded a flotilla. They killed 8 Turks and a Turkish American. Why? Bad intelligence. Israel even said so.
How can you dismiss multiple expert opinions? Why are they called experts if they can so easily be dismissed?
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
U.N. IAEA inspector Richter testified that only part of Iraq's nuclear installation was under safeguard and that the most sensitive facilities were not even subject to safeguards. Naturally, people like your professor would say that Saddam Hussein was incapable of hiding anything, as they would say that Iran was incapable of hiding anything.
Your claim that the U. N. International Atomic Energy Agency guy, Richter, was lying, while your Harvard guy isn't, is interesting.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Ok tell me how some safeguards or the absense thereof translates into the making of nuclear weapons? I would just like to hear it from you. The IAEA even said the only uranium was lowly enriched and no WMDs. After the little fiasco with Richter, he resigned from his position. Now THAT is interesting.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
The New York Times called the [Iraqi documents] a "nuclear primer" because it included about a dozen documents in Arabic that contained "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums.
Professor Richard Wilson claimed all of Saddam's nuclear ambitions were peaceful.
The NYT says the evidence proves Wilson wrong <-- your guy.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn What does that disprove? For 1 the NYT article was in 06. Nothing to do with Wilsons observation about 30 years earlier. 2nd where does that say we found nuclear weapons?
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Just pointing out that everything Wilson observed was naive.
And as I said, they found not one, not two, not ten, not 100, but 550 metric tons of yellowcake in Iraq.
I suppose you are the only person left on the planet who doesn't know what yellowcake is used for, and what Saddam Hussein's plans for that stuff were. Thank God we stopped him...
You may get your wish for actionable nuclear WMDs in Iran though... which is what you seem insanely hell-bent on wishing for.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@mollesjohn Yeaaaaah. 550 lowly enriched metric tons.....that can be used in plants only and CANT be used for weapons... and that they sold to fucking Canada. Youre specious argument is becoming more and more ridiculous.Im not hell bent on allowing nuclear weapons. If they have HEU we should take it even if by force. But again you have NO clue of the difference between LEU and HEU. So go do some research and THEN talk.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Yellowcake isn't lowly enriched, it's the raw material and isn't enriched at all.
My God man... it can be refined into plutonium. Where are you getting all this crap you are spewing from?
I thought you said I would be up against it if I went into debate with you, and as I do my research here, I can tell you are lying left and right... why? All to pretend Saddam wasn't about WMDs? We know he was... we know he hid the yellowcake, we found it.
Dude, your Kung Fu is weak.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth
Also, I looked up Richter. He had a three year contract that was almost up when he resigned. He resigned AFTER the plant he was inspecting was blown up by the Israeli jets -- the plant he felt was a threat, the reasons for which he well documented. He resigned to come to testify before Congress here in the U.S. and as one Senator remarked, at "considerable personal sacrifice" to himself.
Your lies keep coming... lies usually denotes propaganda with agenda behind it.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth As for yellowcake you have and do agree that it can be used to make a WMD. They also found 11 empty warheads which Saddam claims that he "forgot he had". Now very honestly you can't tell me you believe a dictator proven to be dangerous and sadistic already had purely good intentions for the yellowcake.
Now I do agree it wasn't a WMD yet, but the threat was definitly there
But they did also find large amounts of sarin and mustard gas which is a WMD
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69
You actually believe UncontestedTruth is going to admit that Light Water Reactors can turn yellowcake into weapon grade plutonium? I'm pretty sure he's utterly ignorant of this. He's been getting his information from leftist websites, and he probably believes that crap. If you are expecting him to see reason, forget it. That's not what he's about. His is promoting an agenda, and truth, if it gets in his way, will be ignored by him.
He's a leftist... he's not sway-able.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 I find our conversations more pleasant. Iraq told everyone about the BWs and CWs. They must of told UNSCOM (UNMOVIC) a million times. When they tried to lie "karmic" events revealed the truth. They said they were disarming which inspection proves they were. Another aspect is delivery system. The delivery system found was insufficient for mass destruction. It signifies existance of banned weapons but not WMDs.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth The delivery system??? REALLY? Thats what I hear from almost every person I talk to on this subject in the end.
Basicaly Saddam HAD WMD's and when that breaks down point to delivery system or they were old, but none of that changes the fact that he had them. That is all I said.
Personaly I think both Iraq and Libya needed to happen but both were handled wrong
As I said before I call it as I see it and that doesn't matter which candidate I like or not
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Sarin has a shelf life of, literally, weeks. Mustard gas can last for about a decade maybe longer. After this lifespan, they are ineffective. Weapons found were 15+yrs old. Inspectors said the weapons were ineffective. Saddam HAD illegal weapons this is well documented but none were being devoloped. Ones in 04 had not been, could not be, used. We invade over unusable weapons? Little late to the party. So he had antiques but no he didnt have WMDs. Even Bush himself has said so.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
The major problem with liberal morons like UncontestedTruth is that he lives in some imaginary world, far from reality. He keeps far far away from solution-driven thinking, feeling he's safe and secure in his critical thinking, although NOTHING is accomplished by saying no to everything.
Ask UncontestedTruth how to keep nukes out of the hands of tyrants, and he'll probably give you a blank stare... he just doesn't think in those terms... he might even tell you that's not his job.
mollesjohn 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth You did just as I said, its like the child saying "yes your right daddy, BUT"
As I said before he plainly had them, we knew he was a wicked person and I believe we were right in going there.
Also WMDs were not our only reason given for going to Iraq
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Youre right he had illegal weapons years ago. Are we invading Germany because they once tried to dominate the world? What about France? Iraq told everyone they had some and the UN and IAEA helped dismantle them. You cant punish for ended conflict. Legally, its not a valid point.
Its like dad punishing his 16yr old for something he did when he was 10 and told him about. The main reason we went to Iraq was because of WMDs. That has been said a million times. Bush said this himself
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth Mustard and Sarin gas has been found repeatedly since the start of the war, you have already conceded yellowcake can be used to make a WMD.
It makes me wonder if you would still be taking a retroactive stance if Obama would have been president at the time or would you now be defending him?
Me thinks the latter
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 I dont defend bullshit. Obama has continued some things he swore to stop (wiretaps Gitmo etc.). So dont pretend to somehow have knowledge of MY thoughts. I dont see how any of the quotes you give are relevant. UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq at the end of 98. More inspections occurred in 02-03. Much of mustard gas and sarin remnants found were in junkyards (not stockpiles), great place to store unstable toxins. It was unusable. No WMDs were found. So says Bush.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth This is old and frankly boring. So basicaly you would have left a madman and his sadistic sons to thier vices and I am happy that we changed that. Alot of good has come out of it, not all bad.
You defend Obama with Libya while persecuting Bush for Iraq.
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 So basically I would have preferred someone supply credible reasons for war instead of getting good men and women killed on a bullshit easter egg hunt that doesnt yield any WMDs as they claimed it would.
I defend Obama with Libya because what he did wasnt illegal (WPA and the constitution give him such power) and he didnt lie. He told us exactly what he would do and did it.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago
@UncontestedTruth WMDs was not the only reasons for going to Iraq and yes you would rather a madman dictator be in charge than a republican bring democracy to anywhere. As shows in you defending Obama
dragonshead69 8 months ago
@dragonshead69 Even Rumsfeld said we wouldnt have went if not for WMDs. If THE MAIN reason I punch you is because you slept with my girlfriend, but you didnt sleep with her, then it defeats the purpose does it not? So the time you accidentally broke my tv may be a reason, but if I didnt think it was enough to hit you at the time then its obviously not too important to me. That was just an example for analogy purposes.
I rather they be straight forward then get people killed for BS.
UncontestedTruth 8 months ago