Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

[M.Dancer]

The FACT is that the US justification for going into Iraq, was that they currently had WMD, not because they had WMD 10 years ago - which is not disputed since the US sold the fricking things to them in the first place.

False, but continue

So they invaded Iraq, killed tens of thousnands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people under the pretext that Iraq did not have a full accounting of all their WMD and weapons.

Let that be a lesson yo the next...

Ever have an audit done in your workplace? Ever seen Deloitte and Touche find some inconsistencies? It happens.

Yes and amazingly we didn't intimidate them or throw them out or deny them access to our files. Why?

?

Now imagine that D&T might be planning a hostile takeover of your company. Are you inclined to be particularly forthcoming.

By law you have to be fothcoming. Is there a point you need hekp making?

Now imagine that your workplace just got firebombed, and that the people have to sanitation or clean drinking water.

Do you think keeping the books in order is something of paramount importance at a time like this?

You have no experiance in corporate affiars, do you? You do realize that corpprations use document storage firms to protect their records in case of fire or other disasters. If CIBC can do it, can't a country? The answer is rhetorical, countries don't lose records of importance.

If they had WMD when they were invaded, why in the hell didn't they use them? What exactly are they saving them for?

I will leave the pure speculation to you, even though you aren't very good at it, you need the practice.

It's just pathetic how you ISaddam apologists can't own up to being clueless.

Heck, I didn't even support the war...

Edited February 13, 2009 by M.Dancer

[DogOnPorch]

I believe a US firm did sell Iraq some 'chemical weapons precursors'; however, this was in the form of an insecticide which was apparently supposed to be used for agricultural purposes. The material was diverted into Iraq's Bio/Chem program.

The vast bulk of Iraq's precursors for it's chemical weapons came from West Germany and a few other European countries.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/index.html

The most deadly of Iraq's chemical weapon's program, VX Nerve Agent, was never found by anyone searching for WMDs. Since it can't be destroyed by any normal means, one has to assume the stuff is either buried in the desert or sitting 'safely' in Syria. Saddam claims to have never weaponised VX (to the United Nations Special Commission), yet residue was apparently found at Halabja.

VX is horrible stuff...the most dangerous chemical in existance. Exposure at the microgram level produces symptoms while a fraction of a drop of it will lead to certain painful death. It persists in the environment making it an ideal permanent area denial weapon. Practically impossible to clean-up, both the US and Russia are destroying their stockpiles at specially designed facilities like the one on Johnston Island. They both consider VX to be a 'white-elephant' in terms of weapons. Too dangerous for the battlefield...lol. Great Britian, who discovered the stuff, traded it to the US for the Bomb...then promptly distanced themselves from the stuff, dropping their VX program. Again...too dangerous...too unpredictable.

For this reason alone, it is worth a continued look for WHERE this stuff ended up. I shudder to think what would happen if a terrorist group got a hold of some of it.

VX Nerve Agent

----------------------------------

There is no security on this Earth; there is only opportunity.

---General Douglas MacArthur

[scorpio]

I believe a US firm did sell Iraq some 'chemical weapons precursors'; however, this was in the form of an insecticide which was apparently supposed to be used for agricultural purposes.

And then there's this: "Alcolac, the Baltimore company, pleaded guilty in 1989 to federal export violations involving shipments of chemicals that could be used by Iraq to make mustard gas. According to the Iraqi declaration, officials said, Alcolac provided thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor, while Al Haddad, the other American company, was the source of 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin." link

[DogOnPorch]

And then there's this: "Alcolac, the Baltimore company, pleaded guilty in 1989 to federal export violations involving shipments of chemicals that could be used by Iraq to make mustard gas. According to the Iraqi declaration, officials said, Alcolac provided thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor, while Al Haddad, the other American company, was the source of 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin." link

Yes, all sorts of greed in the World. The key words in that report are 'could be used'. It's not like the US Army was shipping nerve gas to the Iraqis. As well, West German companies were responsible for the vast majority of the sales. followed by the Swiss...the French...the Italians...etc. They could have been equally "innocent" sales of various chemicals needed to start making weapons.

--------------------------------------

But it's all right now; in fact, it's a gas!

But its all right...I'm Jumping Jack Flash,

It's a gas, gas, gas!

[M.Dancer]

I believe a US firm did sell Iraq some 'chemical weapons precursors'; however, this was in the form of an insecticide which was apparently supposed to be used for agricultural purposes. The material was diverted into Iraq's Bio/Chem program.

Sales which at the time were praised for their humanitarian roles. Almost everthing can be weaponized...fertilzer, gasolene....

But the fact is the US at no time sold WMDs to Iraq.

[DogOnPorch]

But the fact is the US at no time sold WMDs to Iraq.

Agreed. The former Soviet Union supplied the bulk of Saddam's army, as well. Including SCUDs capable of carrying chemical weapons.

------------------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[DogOnPorch]

Iraqi soldiers circa 1990 doing tests on one of their special CW-capable SCUD warheads.

--------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[KeyStone]

The Uranium used in reactors like our CANDU is SEU: around 2% U-235. Gas centrifuges allow uranium to become 'enriched' by separating out as much U-238 as possible. Enriched uranium is in the order of 90%+ U-235. This is the stuff used in atomic weapons. It's this process that has people a tad upset with Iran's nuclear program.

Well, that's not quite accurate. Since you don't really know what you're talking about, and are doing a particularly inept job of copying and pasting someone else's talking points, I'm going to throw you a bone here.

Enriched uranium is any uranium that has the U-235 content raised above the natural state of 0.7%.

So, even 2% U-235 is considered enriched uranium.

What you are referring to is the difference between low-enriched uranium and highly enriched uranium, also known as weapons-grade uranium.

Some particles of highly enriched uranium were found in Iran, but their origin is unknown.

It is believed that most, but not all came from contaminated equipment from Pakistan.

Ordinarily, Iran should give full access to the IAEA inspectors to verify their origin.

However, given that:

1) The international community is not helping Iran develop nuclear energy as is their obligation under the NPT.

2) Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities with essentially no repercussions from the international community.

3) It has been revealed that Israel has already asked US permission to destroy Iran's facilities.

It is more than understandable that they are less than forthcoming about their nuclear activity.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, that's not quite accurate. Since you don't really know what you're talking about, and are doing a particularly inept job of copying and pasting someone else's talking points, I'm going to throw you a bone here.

Enriched uranium is any uranium that has the U-235 content raised above the natural state of 0.7%.

So, even 2% U-235 is considered enriched uranium.

Describe "SEU".

What you are referring to is the difference between low-enriched uranium and highly enriched uranium, also known as weapons-grade uranium.

DogOnPorch: Enriched uranium is in the order of 90%+ U-235. This is the stuff used in atomic weapons.

Some particles of highly enriched uranium were found in Iran, but their origin is unknown.

It is believed that most, but not all came from contaminated equipment from Pakistan.

Ordinarily, Iran should give full access to the IAEA inspectors to verify their origin.

However, given that:

1) The international community is not helping Iran develop nuclear energy as is their obligation under the NPT.

2) Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities with essentially no repercussions from the international community.

3) It has been revealed that Israel has already asked US permission to destroy Iran's facilities.

It is more than understandable that they are less than forthcoming about their nuclear activity.

I agree...we agree on all points. Yet somehow...I'm wrong. OK, KeyHole...(added: errrr....Key STONE)

-----------------------------------------------------

Both the man of science and the man of action live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it.

---J. Robert Oppenheimer

Edited February 13, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Whereas....you still don't get it. It was US policy and Public Law (Congress) to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein...before President Bush ever took office. The 911 Commission couldn't find their ass with a flashlight.

Hijackers were Saudis and Pakistani's, no Iraqi or Iranians.

So why not go with that on record for the public?? Why were we threatened with the evidence that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud? Why the lies from the administration to dupe people when you could have told the truth and say it's policy right from the start??

These are questions I keep asking and, your responses have included, 'we should have lied more', I don't think you can win any arguments with your rhetoric.

Iran actually helped out with the invasion of Afghanistan. Look it up.

[GostHacked]

Here is another thought.

The US has had the policy of regime change in Iraq for some time, like 10 years before Bush Jr got into office. Instead of telling the public that the US is going because of Foreign Policy and not a War on Terror, or for WMDs. After the invasion, WMDs were ever so elusive to the point that the idea of looking for these WMDs was axed. They stopped looking. Iraq was touted as an immediate threat to the US and it's security.

Lies, invasion, can't find the WMDs.

Now we see the same rhetoric with Iran .... do we have to find out after the invasion of Iran that the excuses for going in are not the real reasons? Because we know the reasons for Iraq were, WMDs, then Al-queda, then regime change, then bringing freedom to Iraq. ect ect .. the reasons for the war kept changing.

I don't want to wait untill after Iran is invaded to find out it was all bullshit to begin with .. like Iraq.

Don't lie to the public to get the job done and claim the high ground. I know morals has nothing to do with it ... so by that notion ... Iran can have nukes !!!

[bush_cheney2004]

Hijackers were Saudis and Pakistani's, no Iraqi or Iranians.

Irrelevant....Saddam was an "Iraqi" too.

So why not go with that on record for the public?? Why were we threatened with the evidence that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud? Why the lies from the administration to dupe people when you could have told the truth and say it's policy right from the start??

Because the UN wanted a dog and pony show. In the end, it didn't matter.

These are questions I keep asking and, your responses have included, 'we should have lied more', I don't think you can win any arguments with your rhetoric.

I'm not trying to win any arguments. It was the stated policy of the United States of America to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein...for many years. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. It didn't matter whether Canada agreed or not (even though it did agree). So it is written, so it shall be done.

Iran actually helped out with the invasion of Afghanistan. Look it up.

So what? What part of the (dynamic) nation state interest game don't you understand?

Edited February 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

The US has had the policy of regime change in Iraq for some time, like 10 years before Bush Jr got into office. Instead of telling the public that the US is going because of Foreign Policy and not a War on Terror, or for WMDs. After the invasion, WMDs were ever so elusive to the point that the idea of looking for these WMDs was axed. They stopped looking. Iraq was touted as an immediate threat to the US and it's security.

Of course they stopped looking...the pretext had served its purpose.

Lies, invasion, can't find the WMDs.

Technically they did find several violations, but no motherload of weapons. It matters not.

Now we see the same rhetoric with Iran .... do we have to find out after the invasion of Iran that the excuses for going in are not the real reasons? Because we know the reasons for Iraq were, WMDs, then Al-queda, then regime change, then bringing freedom to Iraq. ect ect .. the reasons for the war kept changing.

As is often the case....for instance....why did Canada bomb Serbia? Be very careful how you answer.....

I don't want to wait untill after Iran is invaded to find out it was all bullshit to begin with .. like Iraq.

You don't have any choice.

Don't lie to the public to get the job done and claim the high ground. I know morals has nothing to do with it ... so by that notion ... Iran can have nukes !!!

...and face the consequences. Works for me.

[M.Dancer]

I see no reason to invade Iran when bombing it will do just fine.

[KeyStone]

Describe "SEU".

SEU, also known as slightly-enriched uranium is a type of enriched uranium that has a higher concentration of U-235 than standard yellowcake, but is generally lower than 2%.

Enriched uranium is in the order of 90%+ U-235. This is the stuff used in atomic weapons.

Incorrect. Enriched uranium refers to any uranium with higher than the standard 0.7% U-235 concentration.

The process of extracting the U-238 to give it a higher concentration is known as 'enriching'

I agree...we agree on all points. Yet somehow...I'm wrong. OK, KeyHole...(added: errrr....Key STONE)

Well, you've done a poor job of articulating what you believe, as it was prone with error.

Aside from that, it seems that we agree on the facts of the matter.

Where we fail to agree, is on the interpretation of those facts, and the consequences thereof.

[KeyStone]

Bush-Cheney

It would seem that we agree that WMD was not the real reason that the US went into Iraq.

Perhaps you even agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US or anyone else (other than Kurds and its own people)

But, what I still fail to understand, is what you think was the real motive for the US going into Iraq?

[DogOnPorch]

Incorrect. Enriched uranium refers to any uranium with higher than the standard 0.7% U-235 concentration.

The process of extracting the U-238 to give it a higher concentration is known as 'enriching'

Fine...Highly Enriched Uranium.

-----------------------------

By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.

---George Carlin

[kactus]

I see no reason to invade Iran when bombing it will do just fine.

Stomp your feet as much as you like. Bombing never mind invasion of Iran ain't never gonna happen!!!

Enough with BS and scaremongering. As if the cost of war in Iraq wasn't enough on US taxpayers why should they take the burden for yet another war on behalf of Israel?

[bush_cheney2004]

Stomp your feet as much as you like. Bombing never mind invasion of Iran ain't never gonna happen!!!

Enough with BS and scaremongering. As if the cost of war in Iraq wasn't enough on US taxpayers why should they take the burden for yet another war on behalf of Israel?

Don't look now, but Israel has been known to bomb a few things on behalf of itself.

[Oleg Bach]

Stomp your feet as much as you like. Bombing never mind invasion of Iran ain't never gonna happen!!!

Enough with BS and scaremongering. As if the cost of war in Iraq wasn't enough on US taxpayers why should they take the burden for yet another war on behalf of Israel?

Who cares about burdening the tax payers of America with another warly enterprise that benefits one and empoverishes millions ---real nice ...what happens when they are so over taxed keeping the rich rich that they finally run out -? I guess that the top of the heap will just retire to an Island somewhere while the world of Blade Runner materializes. Israel is like a little brother who takes on the school yard bully and beats him up --- all the while thinking he is the hero - meanwhile - his big brother America is standing behind the fence as the real enforcer.

[DogOnPorch]

Don't look now, but Israel has been known to bomb a few things on behalf of itself.

Not sure the IAF has a machine that could actually pull the job off. Hardened target...extreme range...light bomb load. Osirak has a fairly short hop by comparison. Perhaps a few Jerichos would do the trick...

-----------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[Oleg Bach]

Not sure the IAF has a machine that could actually pull the job off. Hardened target...extreme range...light bomb load. Osirak has a fairly short hop by comparison. Perhaps a few Jerichos would do the trick...

-----------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

No ---- "Jerichos" are in the shop - you want to be a big shot - take a spear and you go and wage war...but you won't because your arm is clued to the armchair. Guys talking about modern weaponry who could not handle themselves in a street fight and would run at the sight of a blade in the alley - have no right to discuss war or war machinery. This talk should be for real men...not someone sitting at a desk playing a combination of Napoleon small man syndrome and Grand Thief Auto..

[DogOnPorch]

No ---- "Jerichos" are in the shop - you want to be a big shot - take a spear and you go and wage war...but you won't because your arm is clued to the armchair. Guys talking about modern weaponry who could not handle themselves in a street fight and would run at the sight of a blade in the alley - have no right to discuss war or war machinery. This talk should be for real men...not someone sitting at a desk playing a combination of Napoleon small man syndrome and Grand Thief Auto..

Right, Oleg. Fix bayonets.

Jericho missiles would be the only real logical choice on their own. An F-15 or F-16 isn't going to get there without a lot of complex air-refueling and round-about flight paths...personally I don't think Israel can project its air force effectively at that range. They'd need HEAVY co-operation from the Americans or someone else with a more direct route available. Perhaps Turkey...hmmmmmm.

---------------------------------------------------

A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.

---Napoleon Bonaparte

[bush_cheney2004]

Jericho missiles would be the only real logical choice on their own. An F-15 or F-16 isn't going to get there without a lot of complex air-refueling and round-about flight paths...personally I don't think Israel can project its air force effectively at that range. They'd need HEAVY co-operation from the Americans or someone else with a more direct route available. Perhaps Turkey...hmmmmmm.

Yes...Israel can thread that needle with air power given the right "full spectrum" support. The nice thing about aircraft is immediate bomb damage assessment and directed follow-up strikes.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes...Israel can thread that needle with air power given the right "full spectrum" support. The nice thing about aircraft is immediate bomb damage assessment and directed follow-up strikes.

It's so tempting....you trying to convert me to the old way ---- when if you had a problem you just killed it --- yes that was the better way but now we are civlized....right? Just say yes....."thead that needle" ---- very seductive term --- ahhhh the old days when you did not have to waste time talking to a jerk - you just rode in quick and swung the sabre....and off it rolls - problem gone....pragmatism uncontrolled is dangerous.