traitor congressman calls bush liar

[Master of Ossus]

It would be pretty tough. Last time I checked, the smallest weapons he has would still take a large moving van to move into the country, and the Israelis are not in the habit of letting such vehicles into their country without a search.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

What's so hard about putting them into oil trucks and then moving them in that way? I'm not familiar with Isarael's laws, but if they are anything like the U.S., an oil truck could just park on any street. A nuke doesn't have to be anywhere near the military bases to destroy the planes or just kill all the pilots, etc. Within a mile of an air force base, the nuke would be effective. Am I correct?

[Master of Ossus]

You are correct in saying that the weapon would not actually need to be near the base in order to be effective, but you are also underestimating Israeli security. They are extremely careful about shipments they receive from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Jordan. My guess is that they would have a chance in three of catching any individual weapon. If the Iraqis were trying to hit several targets simultaneously, that would be a very high failure rate, as even a single discovery could jeopardize much of the operation.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

How careful are they? Are they careful enough to actually check to make sure oil is the only thing in the oil truck? Or do they just look inside to see if there's oil inside? Do they use x-rays and whatnot?

[Sea Skimmer]

What is the Saddamster actually puts some thought into what targets he attacks and nukes all of Israel's air bases and then the rest of the crucial military targets before strking civilian cities?

The only nuclear weapons which Iraq could possibly have, would be too large for anything but a Tu-16, if Saddam even has any left. 1950's Russian bomber vs. F-15/16/4, E-2 and Patriots..

Course he'd need at least a dozen bombs to hit the largest IAF bases and be sure of getting the bunkers the Jericho's are supposedly stored in, though I'd bet a bunch are hidden in the Negev.

Anyway, IAF bases are hardened sufficiently that you'd easily need a half megaton weapon to put one out of action. Iraq's bombs would be 20-40 kilotons, enough to kill part of one of the sprawling IAF bases at best. Even with the 500 kiloton device a lot of shelters would still survive and they could just fly off the local roads.

No one in the Gulf could take out more then a fraction of Israel's deterrent force, even with a sustained effort. Unless Iraq has a half dozen SS-20's or twenty SS-12's along with some fairly advanced warhead designs, they can't do what you propose.

Since they have none of those, they can't do jack except possibly bust a city using an alternative delivery system, all of which would be far to unreliable to be risked. Even if the bomb doesn’t go off or is intercepted its very likely Israel would strike back with nuclear weapons on a limited scale. So any attack must be a sure thing. Only a good sized ballistic missile or possibly a very advanced cruise missile are sure enough, Iraq lacks both.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Thank you for clearing that up. So then Iraq would just kill a bunch of civilians before getting their asses handed to them, basically. So...do you think the U.S. would even have to intervene?

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Or launch nukes even?

[Sea Skimmer]

What's so hard about putting them into oil trucks and then moving them in that way? I'm not familiar with Isarael's laws, but if they are anything like the U.S., an oil truck could just park on any street. A nuke doesn't have to be anywhere near the military bases to destroy the planes or just kill all the pilots, etc. Within a mile of an air force base, the nuke would be effective. Am I correct?

No actually unless Iraq has a multimegaton device a 1 mile range burst would kill the control tower and a few hangers and that's about it. Everything on IAF bases is hardened, and most of it underground.

Given the IRA's rocket mortar attacks in the UK, I doubt the IAF would allow a large truck to sit empty near one of its bases for long anyway. Each one has something like a battalion of troops guarding it.

However a device, which fits in your hand, can tell you yield, location and numbers on nuclear weapons through a half foot of steel or more. And that was in the early 80's.

Ill prepared for terror America has had radiation detectors on its maritime and land boarders for years. I see no sane reason why Israel would not be doing the same, especially given the simplicity and low cost of radiation detectors. They also have far more reason to equip their boarder guards with such devices.

No nukes will be smuggled into Israel.

[Sea Skimmer]

Thank you for clearing that up. So then Iraq would just kill a bunch of civilians before getting their asses handed to them, basically. So...do you think the U.S. would even have to intervene?

Not directly during the shooting phase, relief efforts however will be eating up USAF airlift for some time, both to Iraq and Israel. Have it 100 or 400 nuclear weapons, Israel will stake back decisively and hard, and it will win.

By the time its over, Iraq will be lucky to avoid being eaten up by Iran, and the Kurds will be able to declare independence and finally have at least a partial homeland. Though it will be midly radiactive and be part flooded. Syria may very well have its chemical stocks nuked as well, though that’s not a given and a promise to destroy them would save them.

Egypt won't try anything. Before the first M1 battalions could finish crossing the canal, the Jericho's would be showing up on EAF radar and its interceptors engaging the IAF vanguard's fighter cover.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

For those of you claiming the delivery system for nukes, even huge ones, is the sticking point how about:

Inside the bales of POT, smuggled into the USA every year? FED EX? UPS? Sea/Land cargo containers? A medium sized private luxer yacht. Who needs an ICBM? A small nuke doesn't even have to make it to US soil. If you sink it in the bay of San Fransisco, or New York harbour, and detonate it, you get a tidal wave of radioactive water.
The USA is a huge, largly undefended target. Isreal, on the other hand, is a small, and well defended perimiter.

Germs:

How big a container do you need for THESE? Sick people are an excellent spreading device for smallpox. Does anyone here have a long enough memory to recall the ANTHRAX through the FUCKING MAIL? It is no mistake, to call bioweapos "the poor man's nukes".


Some of you people are either morons, or don't have a clue about real world.

Abu Nidal, the worlds most wanted terrorist, killed himself in Bagdad a short while ago. (By the amazing feat of shooting himself through the head several times!)
There are Alquida members in Iraq right now with the full knowledge and blessing of Saddam. Saddam is still pissed from the LAST time round, and will stop at nothing, to hurt the US.
The comparison to Nevill Chamberlain and the present peace crowd is a very good analogy. The relative strengths of the military are not the same, but Hitler didn't have bioweapons. And he was a nut, with reagonal ambitions. The point he is making, about "peace in our time" is the head in the sand attitude, and the refusal to recognise that the ambitious ruthless people, are, well, ruthless, and ambitious.

Worst case scenario, we are wrong, and Saddam is not realy involved in terrorist activity. One less dictator in the world, and we controle the oil. Where is the downside here? Oh yes, we wouldn't want to piss off the people who already hate us. 3/4 of the arab world doesn't even believe that arabs caused 9/11. (Obviously, the videos by Bin Ladin, claiming credit for this is faked!)Are we supposed to have some kind of agreement with these folks? Are we supposed to take their opinions seriously?
What they think, is not as important as what they DO! They respect nothing but strength, so that will do our talking.

I am so glad that Bush is a born again christian. (I never thought I'd say THAT!) He truly believes that he has to answer to the fictitious superbeing, rather than the political machine. As a result, he is going to do what he believes to be the right thing to do, rather than the easy thing. Apeasing dictators is easy. Averting your eyes is easy. DOING something is hard.

America has awakened from the short nap it took, after the Solviet Union collapsed. The notion that peace is the normal state of afairs for humanity, and our struggle to remain free is finished, and the battle won, is over. 9/11 Baby, it's your wake up call!
Iraq is but the SECOND, in a minimum series of five major battles, yet to be fought. Iran is next, if they don't collapse into civil war, or go democratic soon.

An by the way,the REAL reason we can't get any support from the "friendly" arab states, is simple. The dictators of arabia are worried about two things, that will end their reign. Radical Islamism. Democracy. Both are the death knell of those currently in power. The idea o a democratic, prosperous, secular Iraq terrifies the dictators ALMOST as much as the jihad crowd!

[The Yosemite Bear]

On that post support your local crazy viet. vet. / former SDSer and only purchase domestically produced Mary Jane, we suggest the nice Humbolt or Maui vintages, and microfarms. However Peyote, Ergot, and other Domestic pharmacopia can be verified to be U.S. made and Terror free, since 1980.

Thank You

[Stuart Mackey]

Last time I checked, our operations in Iraq are still part of the 1990 Iraqi "war" resolution. It was never rescinded, including another resolution in support, and a joint resolution just a month ago, authorizing the assaination of Saddam Hussien, and several resolutions compelling hte executive branch to support and give aid to groups trying to overthrow the iraqi government.

So yes we are in a state of war, the courts recognize that it doesn't have to say war, to recognize that we are currently embroiled in a transnational conflict, and Saddam is obvioulsy acting as a sheild for several al quaeda operations. They even operate a office in downtown bhagdad.

His actions are treasonous, just as much as Hanoi jane or Tokoyo Rose. He has delibrately undermined the effort of our country to get rid of a threat not just to the american people but to peoples all over the world. He supports terrorism, including Al Queada, everyone knows it, and its also included in the war authorization passed right after 9/11 to attack those planning future attacks, and those that give these terrorists aid.

He cannot prove anything he is saying, or even come up with a shred of evidence, his entire argument is tap dance around the issues, and is defing the will of the people (70% want war with Iraq), the will of congress (War resolution expected to pass easily) and the overall campaign to protect the US mainland from terrorist attack.

Expullsion from congress, would be the nicest thing we should do to this triator

Idiot, you still do not get the Idea of 'Loyal Opposition' . So long as people do not agree with the invation of Iraq {you admit this yourself} he has a constiuancy and so long as he has a operable brain {a interesting thing in any polly} he has the right and obligation as a elected representative to express his opinion on a matter. It is quite irrelivant what UN has said about Iraq or what should be done about it, so quite frankly unless you can prove he has given aid and comfort to the enemy to call him a traitor is not only wrong it is also grossly ignorant.

[Stuart Mackey]

I am not willing to bet my life and the lives of my countrymen on your biased opinion about whether Saddam is capable of having nukes. getting rid of him removes the doubt of whether he can.

I can almost hear it "There is Peace in our time...."

To hell with the "Forever Peace" rehtoric of the "peace party". Its time for war.

Your misreading of history never fails to amaze me Azeron. No one I know want Saddam in charge of Iraq, the issue about America invading Iraq has every thing to do with the reasons for doing it and the concequences of such war. That you cannot come up with any realistic opinion only lends credence to this.

[Stuart Mackey]

For further evidence backing up my argument, (points at all anti-war people here). I support invading Iraq because once they acquire nukes, we can't invade them anymore without having to start a little nuclear holocaust. I say it's better to invade now and to avert any chance of a nuclear holocaust and do the same with all other countries that "harbor terrorists." I guess maybe we should intervene with Israel and Palestine afterwards too.

What rot. If Saddam did have a nuclear weapon so what? how do you presume he is going to deliver it? the back of a truck? and even if he does set of a couple of nukes ? why must the US use nuclear weapons? is the US high command so brain dead that they lack the imagination to think of something else? and if they do what are the going to nuke hmm? commit genocide by toasting a city perhaps?
Iraq does not posses the ability to stop America from ass raping it so quite honestly the use of nukes by Iraq is the last thing they will do because Saddam is quite well aware that that would be the quckest way to be removed fom power.

[Sea Skimmer]

For those of you claiming the delivery system for nukes, even huge ones, is the sticking point how about:

Inside the bales of POT, smuggled into the USA every year? FED EX? UPS? Sea/Land cargo containers? A medium sized private luxer yacht. Who needs an ICBM? A small nuke doesn't even have to make it to US soil. If you sink it in the bay of San Fransisco, or New York harbour, and detonate it, you get a tidal wave of radioactive water.
The USA is a huge, largly undefended target. Isreal, on the other hand, is a small, and well defended perimiter.

If the DEA and US customs had a handheld system, which could detect pot of up to several miles range through heavy steel, there wouldn't be much pot getting across the boarders.

Remember the US Coast guard was able to supply the NYPD with over a hundred radiation detectors for the New Years Eve celebrations. Think they'd do that if they didn't already have sufficient to cover America's ports?

A small boat meets every significant sized ship, which enters a US port. A sufficient trained chimp with a life jacket could use a radiation detector. We'll one could at least raise the alarm.

[Mr Bean]

If the DEA and US customs had a handheld system, which could detect pot of up to several miles range through heavy steel, there wouldn't be much pot getting across the boarders.

True but there are method of hiding Nuclear Signatures, Saddam's Bombs ATM are small dirty afars though the larger(In yield anyway) three and four stage devices are a whole lot harder to dected because of the nessisty of focusing the primary's energy(Which inculdes radiation) to a specfic juntior at time of dentonation means a VERY large reduction in the dectectable Radition, So much so that a 4 stage device is rummored to give off less radation than a 40 Watt Bulb.


Anyway, American in all likleyhood will NOT be the target of Saddam's Nuclear Weapons

That right will be resevered for Isreal, which he can easly do by handing it off to the nearest Terriost group

Some of which are rather smart and relise if one can distract the border guards(Easy enough, blow em, up or away) its not that hard to get a Nuke into Jeriusilium if not towards thier airbases,

As for the US, I see Biological and Chemical attacks, with Chemical being limited to a strike on US bases(Not likley to be effective but a good distraction) the popluas of any country around the ME he wants to hit, plus a Bio attack aginst American, probably arriving into Hawaii if he was smart, either through a long lived disease and some helpful voliters who walk around shaking hands with say Preisdent and the Congress...

Well it all depends on how Smart Saddam is, and how quickly the Democrats get thier asses out of thier heads or if the election will change that fact so it does not matter what they think anymore

[Admiral Piett]

Admiral Piett,

I had no idea you were an expert in nuclear pyshics, and gained such a reputation to speak definitively on this subject. The fact remains, is that ther had been 4 years of us not having any weapons inspectors on the grounds. No one can be sure what he does and does not have. The people who have defected say he does, and I haven;t heard any defector say otherwise.

I do not want bush to wait untill he has a bomb before we do anything. I do not want to see an american or isreali, or any other arab city blown up to settle this dispute. Its the very nature of this dispute, of clandestine operations inside a forigen country which makes anything you say idle speculation. for all we know he could already have several of hte missing nukes from the former soviet union.

You say you have read the dossier from Blair. I doubt it. Blair put it together, and said it does say Iraq is a threat. I tend to beleive the nature of the contents from the people who made it, than from pundits from the peanut gallery who have already made up thier minds on the case.

It could have included a pictuer of saddam standing next to a bomb with the words "Crude Nuclear Weapon" written on it in plain english, and you would still doubt if it were really an atomic bomb.

Its not as if Atomic weapons are the only thing we have to worry about, there is the preasence of al quaeda in Iraq, saddams bio weapons program already produces useable weapons. I don't want to wait for that to be sprayed in a major US city either.

If I was the facist, I would be supporting facists like saddam, if you beleived in democracy you would be promoting a war to liberate oppressed people by facists. But the truth is, you like facist governments, they meld into you elitest ways.

Actually while I am not a nuclear physicist unlike I have at least some clues on what type of technologies and the (staggering) amount of resources a nuclear program requires.I reiterate,read Blair dossier,it is consistent with the picture of Iraq as a REGIONAL CHEMICAL/BATTERIOLOGICAL threat,non NUCLEAR.
To quote directly from the dossier.
"While sanctions remain effective Iraq would not be able toproduce a nuclear weapon.If they were removed or prove ineffective,it would take Iraq at least five years to produce fissile material for a weapon indigenously".
This is the worst case scenario for the current state of affairs,mind you.
And the defector,if he is the person I think,defected nearly a decade ago.
I doubt he can possibly know the current state of the nuclear program better than UN inspector.
All that they have now are some scientists and a bunch of drawings for a Nagasaki style device.Without the high quality fissile materials they are worth exactly their weight in toilet paper.

[Admiral Piett]

To quote further:
"The IAEA dismantled the physical infrastructure of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program,including the dedicated facilities for uranium enrichment,
and for weapon development and production,and removed the remaining highly enriched uranium".


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke ... lutron.jpg

This is what is left of their uranium enrichment plant,after it was blown up by UN inspectors back in 1992.

Edit.
What do you see are the remains of a Electromagnetic Isotope separation plant (commonly called "calutron").It is ironical that they had to use an enrichment process which was abandoned after 1945.

[Mr Bean]

To bad we know he had three of the suckers Piett

[Admiral Piett]

Just in case you wanted to know how the place looked like before the demolition charges reduced it to rubble.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/tarmiya.jpg

This is how the process works.

"Iraq's main effort to produce U-235 was by the electromagnetic process (called EMIS). In this process, uranium atoms are ionized (given an electrical charge) then sent in a stream past powerful magnets. The heavier U-238 atoms are affected differently than the lighter U-235 atoms by the magnetic field, so the isotopes separate and can be captured by collectors. The separation process is repeated until a high concentration of U-235 is achieved. Iraq's design called for 93% enriched uranium, which required multiple stages of separation."

[Mr Bean]

Piff, tis one of many, How many Chemical weapons sites did we find? Twenty six of assorted Sizes, How much have we accounted for? Less than half, We have yet to find any large Bio-sites though we know he has them, and We know he still has the material, the site you mention you fail to leave out is how MUCH was remaing

Barley enough for one bomb, though the containts were less than a quater full

[Admiral Piett]

Chemical and bio are an other history, of course.You can manifacture mustard gas in the your backyard with a barrel,a stick and a couple of basic chemicals(and a protective gear for yourself of course).Thus it is obvious that Saddam has them and it will be impossible to strip completely Iraq of its chemical/biological warfare capabilities.
An atomic bomb instead requires massive facilites.The plant described above was in the same range of that used for the Manhattan project.You cannot hide it in the your backyard.

[Admiral Piett]

If you (Azeron and Bush) said to me:from now every SOB dictator could risk to have his ass beaten,that would be fine for me.But this is not the case.
Bush does not give a damn shit about Iraqi people being beaten by Saddam.He obviously has MUCH more self centered motivations.
And you Azeron are daydreaming about an outdated 19th century style empire and plan to kill all the people who will oppose you even using biological warfare and nazi style retaliations.
So you cannot accuse me of supporting Saddam.I simply believe that the risks and the price of the operation (destabilization of the area,civilians death and so on)are not probably worth the gain (eliminating Saddam).
I may be wrong,but certainly you do not have an higher moral authority.
Besides "beloved leader" is an expression which is probably used just in
North Korea for the local SOB in charge of the country.This speaks volumes about your political inclinations.

[Azeron]

what are you talking about, I was not thinking about ruling the world according to some outdated pansy ass 19th century style empire. I was thinking about ruling the world the way the spartans ruled the macedonians. You accuse me of benevolence, that I am not thinking of.

ohh i ma just kidding, I don;t think the rest of the world is worthless, and not worth a drop of american blood. If someone wants to play war with us, lets kick his asss, and be as unfair as possible.

Your case is based on assumptions on information that cannot be relied upon, becasue it cannot by its very nature be verified.

You say you don't support Saddamm, but you take every opportunity to protect him. thats how I can claim the moral high ground.

If buish said we were going to attack every dictator in the world, I would oppose him, becaue it might mean haveing to invade europe to overthrow the EU. And as much as I hate Europe, I don;t want to see it destroyed, just yet. We need it as a buffer, so all hte islamic militants blow you up instead of us.

[Admiral Piett]

what are you talking about, I was not thinking about ruling the world according to some outdated pansy ass 19th century style empire. I was thinking about ruling the world the way the spartans ruled the macedonians. You accuse me of benevolence, that I am not thinking of.

ohh i ma just kidding, I don;t think the rest of the world is worthless, and not worth a drop of american blood. If someone wants to play war with us, lets kick his asss, and be as unfair as possible.

Your case is based on assumptions on information that cannot be relied upon, becasue it cannot by its very nature be verified.

You say you don't support Saddamm, but you take every opportunity to protect him. thats how I can claim the moral high ground.

If buish said we were going to attack every dictator in the world, I would oppose him, becaue it might mean haveing to invade europe to overthrow the EU. And as much as I hate Europe, I don;t want to see it destroyed, just yet. We need it as a buffer, so all hte islamic militants blow you up instead of us.

In that case,prepare a good supply of chemical weapons.People do not like to be ruled in that way.So you will have to gas them,like Saddam.
My informations are taken from the Blair dossier which is supposed to be based on fresh intelligence.Of course everything is possible,included that Bin Laden is at the moment hiding under the Bush bed.
If Iraq is a threat that must be eliminated then Pakistan should already be a smoking crater.
I do not protect Saddam Hussein,certainly not more than the US in the 80's when he was gasing the Kurds.
Demonstrate that the European union member states are dictatorships with arguments that cannot be used to say the same of the US.
And give me an example of "Islamic militants trying to blow up Europe"
If they drive jets in the world trade center instead of the the Eiffel tower
and are not worried by retaliations it is not our fault.