Here is something reliable and empiracal senate intelligence report, 2006 http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775 written by republicans while Bush was president.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]>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 >> >> >> > > > -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
