Nuclear Weapons - REPORTEDLY - found in Iraq

[phrogdriver]

North Korea doesn't have nukes? That's contrary to what most news reports have been saying for about the past year. That was, after all, the whole stink--that our glorious leader President Clinton negotiated with them to end their program, and here they pop up a couple years later with some warheads, or at least a press release saying they have several.

 

[vegita1220]

Pakistan and India did it behind our backs...it's not impossible for others to do it.

I'd say the DPRK is up there along with the former Iraq as one of those places where you really just can't know jack$hit.
The thing is, they don't even need nukes to prevent an invasion. They've got about 1000 artillery pieces right at the DMZ pointed right at various parts of Seoul, stationed in concrete bunkers. I think that'd be a pretty hard spread of targets, even for the Air Farce, to take out before they managed to get a bunch of rounds off.

For them, getting nukes is a way to start pointing stuff OUT. If they can threaten China, Japan, and potentially California, they can start raising their demands. They get enough crap from us as it is...if they can threaten Cali and Hawaii, we really need SDI.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__/
On a lighter note: funniest NK related site on the Internet.

 

[bunk22]

Point 1: so if it wasn't for WMD's, then what was it? We knew he had chemical weapons because WE GAVE THEM to him in the 80's

Point 2: "Even Clinton authorized force against Iraq numerous times for violations of UN mandates." violations of UN mandates, I don't know how you involved intelligence in that. Those involved him turning on SAM radars (real easy to find with RWR) which he moved into the no-fly zone and pointed them at our planes. We then shot back and took them out. We only went after the weapons emplacements we knew about. So how was that bad intelligence?

or are you talking about him kicking out the UN weapons inspectors? phew, real tough intel there, the inspectors aren't in Iraq anymore. I guess he kicked them out.

Point 3: well hell, lets invade every country that even talks about their slightest dislike for the US or its policies. The Iranian puppet gov't? Who are they puppets to exactly?

Point 4: Like Acoustix said, they have operating breeder reactors which have been running for around a year. Those make weapons grade material. Google what a breeder reactor is. And if you think that because NK is failing, that they won't use nukes? You've got to be kidding me. The worse off they get, the more desperate they become and the more likely they are to use what they got. Remember those medium-range ballistic missiles they were shooting over the island of Japan? And it sure as hell doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a rocket to carry a nuclear warhead and send it over the DMZ south. Hell, the Nazis were launching the V-2 that far back in WWII.

As for point 1, what were the chemical weapons we gave to Iraq? People always quote this but don't mention what they were. So what were they?

As for point 2, Saddam did more than just turn on and paint aircraft, at least when AIRWING 2 was in the Gulf in 99.

Have to remember Iraq had a history of aggression in the past two decades. North Korea and Iran have not. Politics sometimes dictates who we support and don't support but Iraq became an enemy in 1990. For 12 years, our forces have enforced the no-fly zones with OSW and ONW. There might be some on this site who flew those missions. Iraq continued to fire on coalition aircraft (read: US) for 12 years with really no ill-effect. Sure we would take out the SAM or AAA site but nothing that would convince him to cease his aggression. After 9/11, everything changed. When intel comes in that Iraq is hiding WMD and supporting terrorist regimes, what course of action do we take? Give him the benefit of the doubt then all hell breaks loose down the road? Or do we go with the worse case scenario of him hitting us through indirect warfare by selling weapons to terrorist organizations for use on the US? Always plan for the worse and hope for the best. Imagine if we had known for sure the Taliban and Al queda were going to hit us on 9/11 so we invaded and 9/11 never happens? I could just hear it now, America is the bad guy, we are bullies, pushing our will on others, etc. The blame America first crowd would be out in droves.

It sounds to me, though I'm late to the arguement, that you are against aggression in Iraq but okay with it in N. Korea? We certainly don't agree with N Korea so should we invade? N Korea knows if they make a move on SK, all hell will break loose, with the US backing SK.

 

[Jolly Roger]

I just read the the 9/11 Report, which laid out the connections that AQ and Osama had with Saddam. When Osama was originally kicked out of Saudi Arabia, he was approached by Saddam to come to Iraq. Steerike 1! However he chose Afghanistan. There are still the meetings between Mohammed Ata and Iraqi intel officers in Prague, which despite what the adminstration says, the Poles still say that it happened. Steerike 2! In the late '90s, when Osama and the Taliban were having problems with their relationship, Osama sent out feelers to Saddam about the possibility of relocating AQ bases to Iraq. Steerike 3! He's outta there!

Not only that there was the memo that the Russians sent the administration, stating that Saddam was preparing to attack US interests and assests terroristically. What more evidence do you need?

This was all in the 9/11 Report! But yes Saddam did not have an "operational" relationship, with regards to 9/11.

 

[TANGO 1]

Downward Spiral

1. What gives America the right to impose or try to start democracy in another country. I guess, we must be the savior of the world. If those other countries do not practise democracy, we will not survive that must certainly be the case. How does America think a country that has not pracitsed democracy since its existence is all of a sudden going to start overnight. I wonder how long it took us, to get the ball rolling with our democratic government. What makes it interesting is that this guys in Pentagon think it is as easy as putting on a shirt. "We going to hand over power back to them and they going to read all our guidlines for a SUCESSFUL democracy and boom they will have everything made and the whole world will be safe".

2. How does America supply chemical Agents to Saddam and all of a sudden want it back. That makes alot of sense, because we are the policmen of the world. We are indian givers, we can give them weapons to fight other countries but then will need to get it back. We did the same thing in Afghanistan to drive Russia out, but then after september 11 we decided it was time to go back and collect all those shoulder fired missles and the Ak-47's. I wonder how many Patriotic Americans in such shoes will give their rifles back to the U.S. "Hey U.S, we will give you back the rifles while you drop bombs and kill everyone in the name of looking for Bin Laden. In the name of national interest, we bomb the hell out of women and children in Afghanistan and the send C-130's to drop rations and leaflet. Well how does that make sense, never seen dead people stand and eat and read the informations you have to pass.
Why can't Saddam Husein have WMD, or NK. It is a free world for heaven sake. They can do what the fu*k they want. Afterall is not like America does not have more, common. Well, if we had minded our business in the first instance, we would not have had a reason to give Saddam all we claim in has and in turn we would not be affraid of him using it against us.
If you think the War in Iraq will stop and everyone will go home, you are wrong. America being whome we are, we going to move from Iraq to some other country all in the name of national interest. You think America is in debt, they not yet, you wait because everything is about to go down.
How does this all make sense, Saddam is a dictator while Bin laden is a fundamentalist. Those 2 do not have anything i common. Saddam is more westernized while Bin ladden is more of a radical.

Can the economist help out here, how cost effective is spending over a billion to destroy a country because we are looking for a man hiding in a hole underground and the WMD we gave to him, and then turnaround and ask the Congres for about the same amount to rebuild the country.


And before you start replying me with the stinker; that was just my opinion

 

[bunk22]

And before you start replying me with the stinker; that was just my opinion

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Number one, what WMD did we sell to Iraq? I'm curious as to what they were. Number two, who said it would be easy to make Iraq into a democracy? Where was that said because I would like to read that article. I remember a brief just prior to the war that best case our forces would be in Iraq for at least 5 years in numbers. Not once did I ever hear that it would be easy. Where was this said? Quote your source and maybe I'll believe you didn't just pull this from your ass.

We wanted our weapons back after 9/11 from Taliban forces? WTF are you talking about? When did our forces drop leaflets after bombing in Afghanistan? Surely you must have proof of this? I know we dropped leaflets, but when and where is beyond me. I actually just met an MC-130 pilot who briefed us on some of his missions in Afghanistan. Maybe I should ask him to confirm your statement? Let me know.

Why can't Sadam have WMD's? Almost sounds like you feel sorry for his regime. Problem is, Iraq, under Sadam, has had a history of aggression. He invaded two countries in as many decades. We fought a war with him in 91 in which he was militarily defeated. Yet for 12 years, he decided to test our resolve to enforce ONW and OSW. Fine, we simply contained him for those years. After 9/11, all bets were off. With intel that supported WMD's (right or wrong), could the President take the chance? What if he ignored it and decided all was good and a weapon from Iraq or a terrorist group inside Iraq was then used to attack the US? Another 9/11 if you will. I for one could not accept even considering taking that chance. So in this case, no Sadam should not have been allowed to harbor WMD's, terrorists, or any weapons that would threaten our forces.

I would try to debate the last portion of you "opinion" but I can't understand what the hell you are saying. Maybe you could expound a bit or at least make it a bit more easy on the eyes .

 

[Punk]

It sounds to me, though I'm late to the arguement, that you are against aggression in Iraq but okay with it in N. Korea? We certainly don't agree with N Korea so should we invade? N Korea knows if they make a move on SK, all hell will break loose, with the US backing SK.

You obviously did not read my comments very well. I was just pointing out that from the logic being used in this thread, the same reasons exist to invade NK that they did to invade Iraq.

My thoughts about Iraq are easy enough to see from my last posts.

And honestly, I don't know what chemical weapons we specifically sold to Iraq. Did we, yes. But what quantity and what were they, I do not have the answers for.

 

[Punk]

I just read the the 9/11 Report, which laid out the connections that AQ and Osama had with Saddam. When Osama was originally kicked out of Saudi Arabia, he was approached by Saddam to come to Iraq. Steerike 1! However he chose Afghanistan. There are still the meetings between Mohammed Ata and Iraqi intel officers in Prague, which despite what the adminstration says, the Poles still say that it happened. Steerike 2! In the late '90s, when Osama and the Taliban were having problems with their relationship, Osama sent out feelers to Saddam about the possibility of relocating AQ bases to Iraq. Steerike 3! He's outta there!

Not only that there was the memo that the Russians sent the administration, stating that Saddam was preparing to attack US interests and assests terroristically. What more evidence do you need?

This was all in the 9/11 Report! But yes Saddam did not have an "operational" relationship, with regards to 9/11.

So Saddam had talked to AQ, that's not really a surprise. They talked, woopee. However, none of that shows that they we're supporting AQ. An Islamic terrorist talks to another Muslim about intelligence. What exacly were they discussing? Even the report says it wasn't about 9/11. Is that enough to invade?

The Russians sent a memo that Saddam was gonna plan some terrorist acts. Well, I know that would sell me.

 

[46Driver]

Downward Spiral

1. What gives America the right to impose or try to start democracy in another country. I guess, we must be the savior of the world. If those other countries do not practise democracy, we will not survive that must certainly be the case. How does America think a country that has not pracitsed democracy since its existence is all of a sudden going to start overnight. I wonder how long it took us, to get the ball rolling with our democratic government. What makes it interesting is that this guys in Pentagon think it is as easy as putting on a shirt. "We going to hand over power back to them and they going to read all our guidlines for a SUCESSFUL democracy and boom they will have everything made and the whole world will be safe".

The question to ask is NOT what gives America the right to impose democracy BUT RATHER what do you think will happen to the Middle East in 50 to 75 years if we do nothing????

 

[Jolly Roger]

So Saddam had talked to AQ, that's not really a surprise. They talked, woopee. However, none of that shows that they we're supporting AQ. An Islamic terrorist talks to another Muslim about intelligence. What exacly were they discussing? Even the report says it wasn't about 9/11. Is that enough to invade?

The Russians sent a memo that Saddam was gonna plan some terrorist acts. Well, I know that would sell me.

Ok, the intel (everybody's intel, not just ours) at the time says, "He's got WMDs and is seeking nuclear weapons (an assertion that the UK has still not backed off of, even after the Wilson flap)", you find out that there have been friendly contacts with him OFFERING SUPPORT to AQ, top it off with the report the Russians sent us. Saddam has a history of USING WMDs and of being hostile to his neighbors. What do you do? Twidle your thumbs? Or do you get your thumb out of your ass and do something about it? Hindsight is 20/15.

Hell, if Bush hadn't have done something and there was a Iraq sponsored terrorist attack everyone of the critics of the war would *****ed and moaned that he did nothing to stop it. You can't have it both ways.

I would have choose to have done what the President did, everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

If I recall the Chemical weapons we sold to Iraq was Anthrax. Does any remember the large terrorist plot in Jordon that was foiled a few months ago? The terrorists were going to use chemical weapons (i forget what type of chemical) in Jordan. The Jordans were able to foil the attack and seize the chemical weapons. Wonder where they came from?

If the Iraq war had only one positive effect, it was that brought LIbya clean, which lead to the rolling up of the a large portion of the Pakistani nuclear black market.

 

[Jolly Roger]

The question to ask is NOT what gives America the right to impose democracy BUT RATHER what do you think will happen to the Middle East in 50 to 75 years if we do nothing????

Right on!

Another question you could ask is:

When America has used military force, has it made a difference and what would have happened if America did use force to intervene?

 

[Lonestar155]

It wasnt until AFTER we invaded Iraq and found NO wmd, that Bush suddenly decided to call for a plan to re-build the Middle East. If you do some quick research NEVER once in Colin Powell's speeches to the UN did they mention anything about re-building Iraq. This also cost the country some 80billion dollars. Correct me on that if im wrong here. This was also the same time this country's economy was going down hill. If you remember the stock market faced it's worst times since the great depression. Why we attacked Iraq still makes me wonder? Oil? At the time NK imposed a greater threat then Iraq. There was actual proof that Nk had the technology to actually launch a nuclear warhead that could reach North America. Was it really because of WMD? In fact, the only buildings secured right away were related to the Ministry of Oil. Even on the eve of war, Bush made a speech where he said he was talking directly to the Iraqi people. What did he ask them to do? It wasn't lay down your arms, or revolt yourselves, no. It was "don't blow up oil wells." I will not buy into anything bush has said until i see evidence that such weapons exist. Its not about re-building Iraq...It's more about the re-sources Iraq had. Could anyone give me some information regarding whos controlling the oil over in the Middle East? Thats something i dont know too much about. This is my opinion and walk all over it as much as you want. Re-building Iraq was a bad mistake or atleast a bad cover up. :icon_rage

 

[Lonestar155]

"Why can't Sadam have WMD's? Almost sounds like you feel sorry for his regime. Problem is, Iraq, under Sadam, has had a history of aggression. He invaded two countries in as many decades. We fought a war with him in 91 in which he was militarily defeated. Yet for 12 years, he decided to test our resolve to enforce ONW and OSW. Fine, we simply contained him for those years. After 9/11, all bets were off. With intel that supported WMD's (right or wrong), could the President take the chance? What if he ignored it and decided all was good and a weapon from Iraq or a terrorist group inside Iraq was then used to attack the US? Another 9/11 if you will. I for one could not accept even considering taking that chance. So in this case, no Sadam should not have been allowed to harbor WMD's, terrorists, or any weapons that would threaten our forces."

Bunk there are other countries as well that have WMD who have had a history of aggression, but we chose Saddam? In contrary there isnt even any proof that he has wmd right? And then you go and say that Bush took a chance because he may have had wmd and perhaps could lead to another attack. This is true, but he took a chance and cost us 80 billion dollars. He took that freakin money and hasnt proven anything. Bunk until you stop questioning everyone ones opinions why dont you throw me a fact or quote.

 

[46Driver]

Oil? The US produces 46% of its on oil and imports 54% from overseas. Of that 54%, we get the most from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venzuela, and Nigeria.

Here is a good start for all of your oil (and hydrocarbon in general) questions.
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

The most important thing that the world learned from Desert Storm I was that you do not fight the US unless you have nuclear weapons as a deterrent (that quote was from an Indian diplomat). The flip side of that is the US does not want anyone else to get nuclear weapons. Once a country has them like North Korea, you have a problem.

 

[Dunedan]

Honest question here - I'm hoping for some good opinions on it:

Is the protection of the USA's economic interests coincident with maintaining national security? My simple mind can argue this one both ways...