26-06-2003 19:52									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Nuclear Weapons found in Iraq!!!!

it's interesting to note that these are not nuclear weapons, just parts. thus the thread is more than a bit misleading, and is a bit of a spin, nee?
this is not to disagree that this is a promising sign in the search, but let's not oversell these things, shall we?

quote: I'll have to remember to set my vcr to record FAUX News and buy some popcorn from the store. Their coverage ought to be entertaining.

Fox News is suing agitprop for the faux news tshirts now.

quote: I don't care about Bush's political future. One way or another he'll be gone, be it in 1 year or 4 more. My concern is the damage he has already done to the United States' image in the eyes of the rest of the world and the damage he is likely to continue to contribute until his presidency ends. Years after he is gone this country will still be smarting from it's poor world image. Whether one cares about what the rest of the world thinks or not is immaterial: even the most isolated nation still has contact with the outside world. The USA, being the Western Industrialized country that it is, WILL be affected by world opinion of it.

so true, so true. i've found most of this so-called anti-americanism that is being pointed at by the media is less anti-americanism and more anti-bush. for one thing, bush proclaimed during his campaign that america had to be a humble nation to gain the respect of others. he's done no such thing since 11 sept, showing raw displays of american power and might and thereby incited furor, rather than respect.

quote: My generation and the one after mine will be the ones who have to repair the damage when it's our turn to lead the nation...

the next generation will always pay for the sins of the fathers.

quote: BTW: anybody can build a gas centrifuge. It's a pretty simple piece of machinery. Trouble is sheer amount or size of centrifuges needed to make bombs in reasonable time. Output is low, low, low. Need a very large infrastructure. Can't remember how many technicians the US employed at Oak Ridge (?) to purify enough U235 for Hiroshima bomb over the course of a year or two, but IIRC it was in the thousands, and the building they did it in was the largest single structure on Earth at the time.

of course, those same centrifuges require a certain type of aluminium tubing, which iraq obtained, according to evidence given to us by bush... oh, wait, wasn't that evidence debunked?

in any case, finding these things are a promising sign. however, i'd like to see the smoking gun bush and blair were talking about, rather than these old trinkets.

	26-06-2003 21:11									#62
	Increase Your PM Length

Of course we'll find WMD in iraq, there are coalition weapons inspectors, we'll certainly "find" them.

	26-06-2003 21:13									#63
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Okay, a couple of points: 1.) Inspector saying that "no way" inspections would have revealed this small piece of the pie.

A piece so small, it is inconsequential.

quote: 2.) ALL of the Anthrax that Iraq was said to have could be stored in the space of less than half a semi-trailer.

Which would have to be a speacial trailer to stop the degerdation of the stocks.

quote: 3.) Saddam was ACTIVELY trying to HIDE his WMD from inspectors pre-war.

Wat WMD's? (that is the point)

quote: 4.) Iraq is a country the size of California

So? Do we have 140,000 troops in California? And the hapy liberated Iraqi people to help in our search? This excuse goes only so far, and that place passed a while ago. If I remeber Colin;s little rpesentation, tha US has a clear list of dozens of sites it "knew" were involved. We "knew" of 90 sites, but have yet to find them?

quote: 5.) Only and idiot would think that the fact that nothing has turned up yet is CONCLUSIVE that they did not exist.

And what about someone that wihout having better info assume they must be there? You take it in faith that they CONCLUSIVELY had them. IOf they did, where are they?

quote: There continues to be small pieces of evidence being uncovered. No particular one is a smoking gun. Together they begin to confirm parts of the picture that was laid out for the case for war. Only time will tell the true story. If you will notice, this particular person has only been on the job a couple of days. It seems that the real assets for being able to discover this stuff may just now be getting in place. As I keep saying over and over...Give it time. Personally, I trust the intelligence gathering ability of the CIA a bit more than that of Poly liberals.

You mean the same CIA that missed India going nuclear? The NYTmes had a nice article, in which the Intelliegence wing of the State Department questions the CIA's conclusions about the "biolabs" found in Iraq. Is the CIA more tursthworthy because?... After all, they have a clean record of.....

The prez. said Iraq had WMD's and ties to terrorism. That is different from saying Iraq was hidding rhe ability to restart a program in the future when pressure was let of, which is a significant, very significant difference. All the inf found as of yet supports only the second assumption, not the first.

	26-06-2003 21:17									#64
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by elijah Of course we'll find WMD in iraq, there are coalition weapons inspectors, we'll certainly "find" them.

Why do people keep saying this?? To effectivly plant enough evidence of WMD to convince the mass populus (sp?) would require a huge cover up, and besides they're already getting in trouble about possibly frauding evidence/pictures to substantiet (sp?) real threats.... If they couldn't forge a couple of pictures, and come up with some threating captions to go with them. How the hell are they gonna manage to ship over some WMD, cover that up, and make it look like iraq technology.

	26-06-2003 21:19									#65
	Increase Your PM Length

All of your points are valid to a degree GePap. But none of them reduce the validity of mine. I have said so many times I can't count...Give it 6 months. May 1 was the end of "major" combat. If no WMD's by November 1 then I'll start the thread myself.

Yes, I am relying on intelligence estimates from US intel sources for my conclusions. What is the source of yours? The good word of Saddam Hussein? Give it the time it needs. These little discoveries may be inconsequential by themselves, but they are beginning to build a picture of deceit and deception. Why are you so against the possibility that Bush may have been right (Other than the more than obvious political ones)?

	26-06-2003 21:22									#66
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

one must also keep in mind that programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction are different things, no matter what ari fleischer says in regards to how bush uses the terms.

	26-06-2003 21:27									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 All of your points are valid to a degree GePap. But none of them reduce the validity of mine. I have said so many times I can't count...Give it 6 months. May 1 was the end of "major" combat. If no WMD's by November 1 then I'll start the thread myself. Yes, I am relying on intelligence estimates from US intel sources for my conclusions. What is the source of yours? The good word of Saddam Hussein? Give it the time it needs. These little discoveries may be inconsequential by themselves, but they are beginning to build a picture of deceit and deception. Why are you so against the possibility that Bush may have been right (Other than the more than obvious political ones)?

The very intelliegence sourecs you use. All "facts" must be intepreted. Look at the "biolabs" issue. The Cia took a bunch of facts and came up with the conclusion that thse were, and could only be, components of a system to porduce biological weapons. Thye state department intelliegence agency looked at the same facts, and did not think the answre could be conclusive. Some outside intelligence experts are equally (actually more) skeptical of the conclusions drawn by the CIA.

As for "end of major combat"; combat has not ended in Iraq yet. The president's declaration was an artifical one. the US had control over wide areas of Iraq prior to that and was seraching sicne April 1st. Lets take one single example. The uS and UK said Iraq had about 2 dozen SCUDS left. SCUDS are not small, specially when you add the mobile delivery systems. As of yet, noone has claimed that even one SCVUD was found, fired or destroyed at any time during the war. So were did the pre-war conclusion that Iraq had 24 or so fo these ballistic missiles come from?

	26-06-2003 21:27									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Why are you so against the possibility that Bush may have been right (Other than the more than obvious political ones)?

I guess there's different degrees of being right.

Remember that the administration wasn't hammering the point,pre-war, that saddam had mere remnants of a WMD program. It was that he had an substantial and ongoing apparatus to manufacture, deploy and/or distribute the weapons in question.

That's the burden of proof, IMO, he has to bear. So far, it hasn't been met, but time will tell.

	26-06-2003 21:38									#69
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Look at the "biolabs" issue.

I don't know GePap...It seems that putting a bio lab in a semi just wouldn't be needed for most practicle applications. Also, wasn't there a defector that said that these were weapons labs?

quote: As for "end of major combat"; combat has not ended in Iraq yet.

No doubt. That's why I put "major" in quotes.

quote: was seraching sicne April 1st.

It seems to me that the experts are just now getting in place. I just can't except that the nineteen year old GI could have been doing that effective a job.

quote: The uS and UK said Iraq had about 2 dozen SCUDS left

Yeah, I'm wondering about this one myself. If they had them, there was no reason not to use them (unlike WMD). Hopefully they won't surface in a counter insurgent attack.

	26-06-2003 21:48									#70
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed Fox News is suing agitprop for the faux news tshirts now.

On what basis!?! Satire is allowed. Fox is probably hoping to cuz them to go into bankruptcy just defending themselves.

	26-06-2003 21:58									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 I don't know GePap...It seems that putting a bio lab in a semi just wouldn't be needed for most practicle applications. Also, wasn't there a defector that said that these were weapons labs?

The porblem lies in calling them "biolabs". There was chemical equipment on it. It could be used to create rocketfuel, and used to refuel missiles, or to creater hydrogen to fill artillery ballons (the Uk sold Iraq such eqipment earlier). The CIA has decided to interpret the facts as meaning the trailers could only be used ot make bio-weapons. Ohter are not so sanguine.

quote: It seems to me that the experts are just now getting in place. I just can't except that the nineteen year old GI could have been doing that effective a job.

Given the fatc that the amdin. said Iraq had WMD's, is is safe to assume that early on experts on WMD's within the military tagged along, specially to secure those sites labelled as "sure things". If it was only 19 year old recruit, the there is something very wrong at the Pentagon.

	26-06-2003 22:05									#72
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap The porblem lies in calling them "biolabs". There was chemical equipment on it. It could be used to create rocketfuel, and used to refuel missiles, or to creater hydrogen to fill artillery ballons (the Uk sold Iraq such eqipment earlier). The CIA has decided to interpret the facts as meaning the trailers could only be used ot make bio-weapons. Ohter are not so sanguine.

So you need fermenters to make rocket fuel? Not sure that that one is correct GePap.

quote: Given the fatc that the amdin. said Iraq had WMD's, is is safe to assume that early on experts on WMD's within the military tagged along, specially to secure those sites labelled as "sure things". If it was only 19 year old recruit, the there is something very wrong at the Pentagon

Your assumption may be correct, but I never heard anything about them. OTOH I can't see most scientist sleeping in a Bradley while combat is going on. I do think that the experts should have been lined up and been in country before now though.

	26-06-2003 22:09									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 So you need fermenters to make rocket fuel? Not sure that that one is correct GePap.

You mean, to ferment alchohol perhaps? Perchance some types of rocket fuel use alcohol? And where youd your get hydrogen? perhaps by fermenting something and then breaking it up?

The fact remains that given the same info, two different sources have reached two different conclusions. I ams ure the people at the Satet department intelligence office are competent and have thought of that as well.

quote: Your assumption may be correct, but I never heard anything about them. OTOH I can't see most scientist sleeping in a Bradley while combat is going on. I do think that the experts should have been lined up and been in country before now though.

Maybe Militry scientists? You can be in the military and hold a PhD no problem. The army needs techincal expets in the handling of such munitions, and it does not seems a huge leap of logic to think they would know how to recognize and find them if they know how to handle them.

	26-06-2003 22:26									#74
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap You mean, to ferment alchohol perhaps? Perchance some types of rocket fuel use alcohol? And where youd your get hydrogen? perhaps by fermenting something and then breaking it up?

That's a little beyond me?. Anybody got info on weather it would make sense to ferment the alcohol on site? The hydrogen theory does seem to make some sense however. Of course, we still have the statements of defectors that these were WMD labs.

quote: Maybe Militry scientists? You can be in the military and hold a PhD no problem. The army needs techincal expets in the handling of such munitions, and it does not seems a huge leap of logic to think they would know how to recognize and find them if they know how to handle them

Don't they have specific units for this? I don't recall hearing anything about them being deployed. Seems like the media would have been all over them if they were.

	26-06-2003 22:54									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Huh? We're looking for nuclear weapons and we find a beat-up car engine? *sigh*