Why cut the military

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Siminkypinky Saddam certainly had nukes and did you read about the five or so tons of uranium recovered?

[edit on 13-8-2004 by TACHYON]

5 or 6 tons ons of uraniam hmm please tell me more i am interested .
also is this weapon grade uranain or U 235?




posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Siminkypinky Saddam certainly had nukes and did you read about the five or so tons of uranium recovered?


Even if he did have uranium why does that mean he 'certainly had nukes'.

I too would also like to know more about this story of uranium recovery.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I also heard about that on the News like a week ago about our troops brining some uranium from Iraq that they found to the US. They were bringing it to the US to keep it safe so the insurgents couldn't get it. Ill try and find a link.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
You'll find this discussed here at ATS in the 'War on Terrorism' section in the 'Saddam's WMD's 142 nukes worth thread (currently on page 2, near the top, of the topic board).

They quote newsmax, apparantly not the most reputable source going. (The kind that has stories like 'Elvis seen alive flying around in a UFO with Hitler' type of reputable source I believe. LOL)

www.newsmax.com...

They also leave out the fact that this is unprocessed uranium ore, it could not be used as a WMD and is not in any way anything like an actual 'WMD' of any sort of the nuclear variety.

It appears that this unprocessed ore was known about from the early 1990's inspections too.

Definetely no cigar boys.

[edit on 14-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Wow trying to discredit the source, my god is that what you have resorted to
No one said it was WMD’s all we said was they took it to the US cuz even if its not enriched Uranium you don't want the insurgents to get it.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Wow trying to discredit the source, my god is that what you have resorted to


- so what are you saying Westy? Is this a renouned quality source?

No, didn't think so.


No one said it was WMD’s


- Naaa, just say the word "uranium" and let folks make up the rest (in their heads), huh?

The phrases were totally loaded alright.


all we said was they took it to the US cuz even if its not enriched Uranium you don't want the insurgents to get it.


- No. It was used to imply Saddam had uranium and therefore WMD's (of the kind used to justify the war) were more or less a fact.

The true fact remains that WMD's of the kind used to gain public approval for the war were a faked lie and did not exist as described in 2003.

The UK and USA governments misled their public deliberately.

Tony Blair gets the benefit of the doubt for me because much of the UK intelligence originated either in or via the US sources from whom Bush is on record (from witnesses in the room) for demanding justification for his Iraqi war.



[edit on 16-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Any source should be treated with legitimacy. Especially since this was on the NEWS!!!

No. It was used to imply Saddam had uranium and therefore WMD's (of the kind used to justify the war) were more or less a fact.


Wow people are that stupid on this website that they cant determine the difference between uranium and nukes? Even when we did not even say enriched uranium, again I don't think members here re that stupid.


The true fact remains that WMD's of the kind used to gain public approval for the war were a faked lie and did not exist as described in 2003.

The UK and USA governments misled their public deliberately.


Since when does your opinion count as a true fact? Please give me one solid evidence that supports you claim other than, well I heard form my moms fried and my moms friend heard form her uncle... Give solid proof other than just your opinion.


Tony Blair gets the benefit of the doubt for me because much of the UK intelligence originated either in or via the US sources from whom Bush is on record (from witnesses in the room) for demanding justification for his Iraqi war.


Really bush is on record saying that than you surely wont have difficulty form posting what these “witnesses” said and posting a link which has the testimonies of these “witnesses”.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Wow people are that stupid on this website that they cant determine the difference between uranium and nukes? Even when we did not even say enriched uranium, again I don't think members here re that stupid.


- So where is the talk about enriched or other wise when Tachyone brought the subject up and said "Saddam certainly had nukes and did you read about the five or so tons of uranium recovered?"


or how about your own first comments about it - "also heard about that on the News like a week ago about our troops brining some uranium from Iraq.

I didn't call anyone on this web-site stupid, although in the light of this maybe I shoulda....hmm?


Since when does your opinion count as a true fact? Please give me one solid evidence that supports you claim other than, well I heard form my moms fried and my moms friend heard form her uncle... Give solid proof other than just your opinion.


- Westy don't be such a jerk over this; it isn't just a personal opinion.

The most glaring evidence is the utter and total lack of anything approaching a WMD in anything like the 'could strike us within 45minutes' terms that were shouted from every rooftop beforehand.

Everybody but everybody is now excusing their mistakes on this.

In the UK we have had 4 separate major reports into what went on.

Check out the Butler report or the Hutton report. Or the UN's latest comments.

No-one is now claiming Iraq had WMD's of the kind claimed pre-war.

The only people still refusing to publicly admit their mistake are Bush and Blair.


Really bush is on record saying that than you surely wont have difficulty form posting what these “witnesses” said and posting a link which has the testimonies of these “witnesses”.


- Richard Clark (veteran Intel under 4 presidents) under oath (in marked contrast to 'Dub-ya') said so. He isn't the only one and that's good enough for me.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON

Haha that is the bigges bunch of #IUU@IO!! there is. It takes one and only one. If we weaken our military we will be a target. Has history not taught us anything? The weak will get attaked and OWNED!!

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
- Gen Douglas MacArthur

"I Shall Return"
- Gen Douglas MacArthur

There is no security in this life. There is only opportunity.
- Gen Douglas Macarthur


Of ALL the great military leaders one could have quoted, Dugout Doug?

USA- rousted veterans from a park
Phillipines- caught on the ground and defeated,
Phillipines- lost his entire army
Australia- commanded 0
Japan- "became" the emporer
South Korea- let amry and security lapse
Seoul- landed in "surprise" at a place previously used by others!
North Korea- was so flakey he caused the Chinese to invade

A better choice would be Gomer Pyle



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Why cut the military budget?

.....because pretending that Russia, China or Al Qauda is anything like the 'threat' anyone in the 'west' faced during the cold war days is laughable in the extreme.

The current mania the US 'right' has for another bout of 'Reagan-esque' military spending is as unnecessary as it is absurd as it is potentially harmful to the US economy and by extension the world economy.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I was not talking about what technyan said. I was concerned with my post. And i said i also heard about this on the news which I did and they did say something about the US recovering some uranium. I never once used the words Enriched uranium or Nukes or WMD’s in my post. And just cuz there is not nukes in Iraq now doesn't mean we were lying it means our Intel was wrong, which happens sometime and it has happened in the past. The lord butler report stated that they had confirmed the claim that saddma was trying to by yellow cake from Niger. I had to respond to your last post but we should stick to the topic.

And Al-qada is a threat to our economy and our country. China may not be a threat now but they will be in the future no harm done in trying to get even more ahead now rather than later. No one has said Russia is a threat.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The lord butler report stated that they had confirmed the claim that saddma was trying to by yellow cake from Niger. I had to respond to your last post but we should stick to the topic.


- If you news services actually looked deeper than the headline you'd find Butler says these are tenous claims to say the least (why not read it youself the report is available on-line and you can see the totality of his remarks rather than have some hack cherry-pick it out of context for you); but OK, yes I agree, back to topic..


And Al-qada is a threat to our economy and our country. China may not be a threat now but they will be in the future no harm done in trying to get even more ahead now rather than later. No one has said Russia is a threat.


- Well there's threats and there's threats Westy.

At what point do 'scale', likelihood and plausibility come into the equation?

Currently you guys have a military-industrial alliance attempting to con the US people that spending on a level in excess of most cold war years is appropriate for now.

That is complete bull.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join