On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote:
> It was built by the Germans. The US was not the big donor to Iraq during > that period. In fact we were ranked 11th in what we supplied to them with > our supplying less than 1% of their materiels, less than Belgium, France, > Germany, Italy, and on a level with Luxembourg. That figure came from > Jane's studies on war materiels and from the UN studies also. > No, tammuz 1 and 2 wsere built by the french and destroyed by aircrat fire This is a pool type reactor of 500 kW thermal power supplied by France. The reactor was mainly designed as neutronic mock-up for Tammuz 1 reactor. [Tammuz 1 was destroyed by air-raid in 1981 prior to operation]. As a result, the role of Tammuz 2 was changed and it was used for training, neutronic radiography and for research purposes. The reactor was totally destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War and has been de-fuelled. The expected wastes to be generated by the decommissioning activities are about 50 tons solid wastes and 35 m³ of liquid wastes. The same radionuclides as IRT-5000 are expected to be present in the wastes. regardless of who "built" it..... hese people... the SOLE EXPERTS say it did not exist in 2000 http://www-ns.iaea.org/projects/iraq/tuwaitha/tamuz-2.asp > > He used gas on his own people and then was "falsely" accused of having gas > for 25 years? What in the world does that even mean. It is less than 20 > years since he used the gas on the Kurds. You really need to do some more > checking on your stories. Way off!! > 20 years...25 years kinda splitting hairs. what did the ONSITE UN and US inspectors say. > > As to the story of his WMD's that info was passed on to the country by a > whole slew of Dems from Clinton on down (there was a list of quotations from > over 20 of them right up until 2002 that was passed around on the websites a > couple of years ago). I don't see you calling them on lying. They got > their info from the same sources that Bush did. And he also got some from > our allies as well. > stories are just that stories..... there was and is no proof. > > You also don't seem to have anything to say about Bubba asking for and > getting permission to force a change in government in Iraq in 1998. He, as > with most things, did nothing about it but he asked for and got the > permission from Congress. Why was that? What made him ask for permission > to force that event. There must have been some reason for it. I realize > that it rather goes against the Dem talking points but it did happen. After > all History did not start in 2001. > link please. > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > I didn't think he ahd gas or wmd's or nukes (though I Knew he was > sitting on a research reactor and a mountain of yellow cake) The > difference in time from having used and being falsely accused of > having gas was 25 years..... > > as far as building that reactor in Iraq... the US supplied and built > it AND donated the yellow cake as well..... You are right the US is a > danger even to itself. The only deluded person/people seems to be you > and Gringolandia. > > > > On Jul 18, 12:07 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. > > > We thought he had poison gas. Our soldiers were equipped to confront > it. > > Everybody thought he had WMDs, mostly because he not only HAD them but > because he used them against his enemies. > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state > > Actually, they were. Iraq had completed construction of a nuclear > reactor (That makes you a nuclear nation state) but Israel immediately > blew it up. (Thank you Israel). > > Some people would say that a leader who builds a nuclear reactor > despite worldwide protests and has and uses poison gas on neighboring > countries and his own people was a dangerous guy. Other people like > deluding themselves. > > On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. Large, > tight formations are easy targets and we know that. Not to mention > that we would have sent a least one division to sweep and search the > area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual (or any other) > evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one peek. I'm former > navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush screwed our Humint > network fro some time to come, we still would have been able to find > evidence - if believed it was ever there. > But I get it. You really, really, really want to believe there were > WMD's there. Okay. > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but > again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey. > > > Talk about wanting to believe lies. > > > I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them Psy-Ops and a couple Force > Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate > what we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. > Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But > you believe what you want to believe. > > > On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We also had the certainty that there really were no WMD's > > > Not true. > > > Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting people they viewed as > invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > Once again you show little understanding... Both AQ and the > Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh form of Radical Islam... > As is the lowland Pakistani... The question here is not fighting the > outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit strategy? Stability and a > non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear nation-state... > > > I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They had > easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology have done > squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at blowing up weddings and > killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > Tactics and technology make a huge difference... As the fact the our > WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term occupying power is far less > than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a difference... The > Russian border aided in supplying their troops but harmed the "Soft > Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying power... > > > The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have > truthful cause to go after. > > > Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... > > > On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many sanctions on Iraq before > invading, they couldn't import dental equipment (because it could > possibly be modified for weapons use - go figure). We also had the > certainty that there really were no WMD's. So it was nothing to storm > right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting there. It was afterward the > problems started. Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting > people they viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They > had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology > have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at > blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > and a mistake and we should get out. > The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have > truthful cause to go after. > > > On Jul 17, 11:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Iraq was [almost] a cake walk, compared to what we face in > Afghanistan. Even with enough troops (500,000 +/-), it'll take a > generation to pacify Afghanistan - a mountainous moonscape the size of > Texas covered with 70-million ants (nomads, warring tribes - barefoot, > illiterate villages). There's nothing there to "rebuild," it's all > from scratch. The people are suspicious of everything, even a simple, > local hydro-pump to generate electricity. > > > Then there's Pakistan, blood-brother to Afghanistan; we'll never > subdue one without subduing the other. And by that time we'll be > broke, no longer a viable nation - which makes the whole surge- > strategy a lethal mistake.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
