Here's another link, this time from the Democratic Underground Mark wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM, dick thompson > <[email protected] <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> >>>> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]> >>>>>> <mailto:[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 <http://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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
