I could look around his impoverished shack and conclude that
concurrently he doesn't have the resources needed to produce and spray
it on me since he's been under house arrest for more than a decade so
fsck him. Why destabilize the entire neighborhood because he insists
on grandstanding about poison in order to keep his neighbor I. Ran at
Now you have gone off-point, as Iraq was NOT known to have
poison gas in it's possession as of the Fall of 2002.
Again, off-point as Saddam Hussein did not declare that.
The suspect and his house have been recently searched, no
poison gas found. He is under surveillance.
One should always be concerned about someone with a
criminal history. One should also always be concerned
about one's own actions. When the person submits to
a search of his house and his person and is under continuing
surveillance it is perhaps not appropriate to start a fight
with his family.
Are you sick/ill today? Did your house burn down today? Did you total your
car today? Will you ever die?
Do you have health insurance? Do you have home owners insurance? Do you
have auto insurance? Do you have life inusrance?
Why have any of the insurance plans if you are not at this time experiencing
areason to file a claim?
Probably but not as likely as something to hide.
If you will recall, the US has embassies and military installations all of
that region. Those could be hit as easily as Iraq's neighbors.
And that is assuming that Iran's only had those type weapons. A nuke program
bould have been disposed of like he did then he flew his fighter planes into
Iran to keep them from being destroyed.
If that program is/was an on going process the weapons would ahve been
current and the older outdated weapons recycled. Typically a nation does
not build a weapon and stop, it continues and keeps them up to date. Who
would know if the weapon was a dud or a live round? The Carter admistration
used to relocate nukes in the US so that no one would actually know where or
how many there wold be.
As you will recall, US embassies in Tanzania, Kenya and Beruit
and our Marine barracks at the Beruit airport were destroyed by
truck bombs. I think you will agree that it would have been far
more difficult to shell the building with enough artillery, or to
drop enough aerial bombs on them to cause similar casualties.
I make typos too.
I haven't stated any assumptions about Iran. It is quite
clear that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. It is not technically
possible to hide a nuclear reactor or a functioning enrichment
operation of the scale required to produce kilogram quantities
of fissile material. I won't go into the technical details but
keep in mind that Iran went public with what had been a secret
program precisely because they knew they could not hide
their activity once they began enrichment.
Iraq was atypical because the Iraqi factories were destroyed in the
1991 war, and the surviving equipment destroyed or confiscated
by UNSCOM. As inspections were not permitted between 1998
and 2002 it WAS prudent to suspect that Iraq might have resurrected
I fully supported using the threat of military force to renew the
inspection program. Because Iraq complied with the demand,
and no evidence of nuclear weapons or any prospects for producing
one in the foreseeable future, was found, I did not support the
If you feel that Saddam Hussein's past history alone was sufficient
justification, what point is there to discussing the 2002-03
There is no evidence that Iraq had enough fissile material to make
a nuclear weapon. In 1998 when inspectors left Iraq there were 500
tonnes of yellowcake at Tuwaitha where it had been monitored
by the IAEA since the late 1970's. When inspectors returned in
2002-03, it was still there, untouched, along with ~2.5 tonnes of
low-enriched Uranium (reactor fuel) and other quantities of other
isotopes either left over from the destroyed Osirak reactor project,
or from various other projects.
Iraq had four years without inspections to use those materials
and yet it did not.
When the US invaded, the Iraqi troops abandoned the facilty
(after all, that is what we told the Iraqi armed forces to do
if they wanted to live). THEN the site was looted. The US
called in the IAEA to clean up the mess. All but a trival
quantity of the yellowcake was recovered as the looters had
stolen the barrels and left the yellowcake behind, dumping it
on the ground. None to the other materials inventoried by
the IAEA were missing.
It is obvious that you have more than just an inkling about these
In the power-generating business for a short, but intense career, I
have to ask some obvious questions.
Using your rationale about discoverability, can you explain Dimona?
Does its secrecy explain nuclear thug-like behaviour and blackmail in
the Middle East?
If you KNEW that your religion was despised by those neighbours who
already had nuclear weapons, AND knowing they have ambitions to expand
their territory, wouldn't that in itself, be a motivator to get your
own bombs? Using THEIR logic, why isn't Iran's nuclear ambition
peaceful? Israel's is. Right?
Hey, they tried. Then Israel's bigger brother shows up (regardless of
what made them come over there). They threw their hands up in the air
and walked away to fight another day THEIR way.... hence the civil war
But, then again, as I have said before, what-the-fuck do I know?
<zips up Nomex suit>
According to these folks:
Israel began construction there in 1958, the US noticed the
activity that same year and identified it as a nuclear facility
within two years.
By the time of the 1967 war, it was publicly asserted that Israel had
the capability of producing plutonium for at a rate sufficient to
build ~2 nuclear weapons/year.
Israel is not signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
therefore is not prohibited by treaty from making nuclear weapons,
nor is it required to permit inspections.
The 'secrecy' in question consists simply of Israeli refusal to
confirm or deny nuclear weapons production there.
My experience has been that Jews, by and large, do not despise
any other religion. Mostly they simply don't give a crap about
else's religion. It's not their problem.
As for expansionist ambitions, Israel already relinquished occupied
territory in Gaza and on the West Bank.
We don't know how many nuclear weapons are in the Israeli arsena,l
but they probably have a couple of hundred fission bombs and
a score or more of thermonuclear bombs. They have missiles
with a 1500 km range. They do not have aircraft with the range
needed to bomb Iran, but aerial refueling is a technology well-
within Israeli capability. So if Israel wanted to destroy Iran,
why haven't they?
Iran does not need a nuclear deterrent on account of Israel.
Iran is the most populous nation in the region so that none
of it's neighbors could reasonably expect to prevail in a
conventional war with Iran.
Iranian nuclear weapons _could_ be used to deter US military
action. More importantly, Iran is ruled by religious extremists
operating behind a democratic veneer. Israel extremists
seem pretty milktoast in comparison to the Iranian mullahs.
So no, the comparison between Israel and Iran is not
I am afraid, Fred, you are going to argue with simple logic for the sake of
In this matter, if your trust in absolute evidence only by your own eyes
over what many people consider common sense was not so sad, it would be
They were happy to get free planes.
Saddam Hussein's warplanes were of no use to him, we could
shoot them down as fast as he could get them off the ground,
provided we hadn't destroyed them on the ground first.
Can you say the same about chemical shells and rockets
that could be used?
Aside from that, why would the Iranians or Syrians want
chemical weapons that were going to deteriorate to
uselessness in a couple of months?
Hussein played that in a manner he thought most advantageous. His
small air force did not stand a chance against the US but it could be
played politically. He told CNN that Tehran offered sanctuary to the
Iraqi planes in a gesture of Muslim solidarity. Baghdad was
politically isolated and the well-publicized move provided him with an
opportunity to dispense that notion. Rather than watch his planes burn
on the ground, he moved them abroad for political gain. Tehran
accepted them because A. they wanted free planes and B. they'll never
turn down an opportunity to provoke Washington.
While Iraq's small air force was incapable of slowing US forces, the
same cannot be said of this supposed arsenal of chemical weapons. Had
it existed, it would have been useful in his hands and a threat in
Tehran's possession. So, sure, he moved a small air force to Iran for
what he felt was political gain but do you seriously think he'd arm
Tehran with WMD so deadly they made Bush wet himself and they kept you
up at night?
Case in point, in 1991 when Iraq did have WMD stocks Saddam Hussein
did NOT move those out of his country. He did disperse them from
their centralized storage facilities.
So, if the object of the invasion was to prevent WMD from falling into
hands of 'terrorists', it was a particularly bad strategy.
In fact, several sites with materials declared to and sealed by the UN
were looted AFTER the invasion, including Iraq's primary nuclear
site, Tuwaitha, where ~500 tonnes of yellowcake had been safely stored
under IAEA supervision for over twenty years.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.