NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm


Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq

Baghdad, Iraq, Jul. 21 (UPI) -- Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered in trenches near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Hmmm, this is interesting. It's still unconfirmed by the Iraqi government, but if it's true it would at least offer a shred more justification for the Iraqi debacle.

I don't trust anything the damn U.N. or anyone in Iraq says anymore.

It'd be funny if the missiles were using US missile technology.

It'd be funny if the missiles were using US missile technology.



hmmmm......could these missiles be planted? Yes it is a option, lets wait and see.

Could be planted, yes. Could be "back door supplied" by the US Government to Saddam during friendlier times.

I agree, it's hard to trust anything out there anymore.

No mention of it on CNN, CBC newsworld, or CTV newsnet.

If so, why didn't they use these when they knew they were defeated?

Interesting, I wonder how long it will take until others start to carry this story.

Could be planted, yes. Could be "back door supplied" by the US Government to Saddam during friendlier times.

I agree, it's hard to trust anything out there anymore.




If it is setup or something like that it would be planted. Also I don't think the US would sell Nuclear Weapons even during friendlier times. But then again look at the presidents we've had the last 30 years.

If so, why didn't they use these when they knew they were defeated?



May not have anyway to launch them lol.

Well if the story is true then the issue will probably evolve into: "Who gave the Iraqis the technology?", its not likely they could develop them on their own.

I'm in Baghdad right now and I still hav't heard anything yet and you think us over here would hear about it first.

Well if the story is true then the issue will probably evolve into: "Who gave the Iraqis the technology?", its not likely they could develop them on their own.

Exactly. Iraq wasn't capable of manufacturing even limited nuclear warheads, so depending on the exact type and capability of these potential suspects, they must have come from somewhere pre-assembled. Perhaps they nabbed them from the former Soviet Union.

I agree, AZ, that the US government most likely didn't officially sell them nukes, but they could have been funneled to them somehow. I don't know anymore. I hate being a conspiracy theorist but the last four years have forced me to be.

Setting it up for a they came from iran/north korea/insert country here, they are terrorists and must be stopped...

If so, why didn't they use these when they knew they were defeated?


Possibly because they are just our enimies? not the "evil" boogymen who hate freedom and want to destroy the earth? Even Saddam didn't want nuclear war...

OK. Did a quick survey of Internet news sites. CNN=nothing. CBC=nothing. The Globe and Mail=nothing. Even Fox News=nothing. The only other credible source on the subject I could find was a Reuters article on how the Iraqi interior minister dismissed the claim as ridiculous.

Yes, apparently the esteemed journalists at the Washington Post used a community newspaper as their only source. Oy vey.

There is an official reply:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20040721/ts_nm/iraq_nuclear_dc_2

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites)'s Interior Ministry dismissed as "stupid" a report in a local newspaper Wednesday that said three nuclear missiles had been found near the town of Tikrit.


A senior U.S. military official told reporters he had no information on the report in the newspaper al-Sabah. He said officials were checking the report.

Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior Ministry said: "It's stupid."

Of course - as long as I am on the subject of "stupid"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostages


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A militant group said Wednesday it had taken two Kenyans, three Indians and an Egyptian hostage and would behead them if their countries did not announce their readiness to withdraw their troops from Iraq immediately.

None of those countries are part of the 160,000-member U.S.-led coalition force in the country.

Thanks Zep, I was just about to post, "I don't believe it" ..lol I wonder if Fox News is reporting it as "truth" ..lol

Thanks Zep, I was just about to post, "I don't believe it" ..lol I wonder if Fox News is reporting it as "truth" ..lol

If you look at my post above, not even they seem to be reporting this... very odd indeed.

Thanks for the link, Zep. So far, this has only come from the UPI feed and I think the Times may regret running this.

If you look at my post above, not even they seem to be reporting this... very odd indeed.


I think my husband (Zeppistan) probably just pointed out why it's not being reported, it's not true.

I think my husband (Zeppistan) probably just pointed out why it's not being reported, it's not true.

Sorry, I guess I really didn't make myself clear. I knew the story was fake, as I read the Reuters article myself. I was just wondering why the *lovely unbiased reporters* at Fox News had not jumped all over it.

Sorry, I guess I really didn't make myself clear. I knew the story was fake, as I read the Reuters article myself. I was just wondering why the *lovely unbiased reporters* at Fox News had not jumped all over it.

Because there's some carrion not even famished hyenas will touch?

not a single news agency in the world is reporting this story with the exception of the washington post and regional iraqi newspaper who originally reported it.

do you not think it a little strange that such a politically explosive story that would completely vindicate the war in iraq is receiving so little coverage or have the news agency smelled the proverbial rat???????

considering the iraqi nuclear program, if it even existed, was in the research phase and the only attempt to obtain nuclear material had been unsuccessful are we supposed to now believe that saddam had these weapons all along.

even at the height of cia cooperation in the 80's there is very little possibility that the american administration would place nuclear weapons in the hands on someone they didn't fully trust, let alone place them in a nation that was at war with iran and very close to the soviet presence in afghanistan.

if this report proves to be "true" then we should all be looking very closely for the "made in america" sticker......or does the bush adminstration believe the entire population of the world is as stupid as the president??????????

"they are terrorists and must be stopped..."

lol, we got a patriot here. :-P

May not have anyway to launch them lol.

That's a point- but they did fire missiles upon Kuwait. They knew the USA was mobilising, so they could easily have readied them to do that as soon as the US crossed the border and dropped one on troop concentrations. Plus, a warhead still goes bang, no matter if there is a rocket to fire it...you think Saddam would be adverse to killing 20,000 americans at the cost of 100,000 of his own people by obliterating an Iraqi city?

(In that instance, I really wouldn't think the USA would nuke back.)

you lot are a right bunch of lefties

*notes Zeppistan's yahoo link*

Ah, so it's all cleared up again.

It didn't make sense anyway :)

you lot are a right bunch of lefties

Yeah. Your point?

That's a point- but they did fire missiles upon Kuwait. They knew the USA was mobilising, so they could easily have readied them to do that as soon as the US crossed the border and dropped one on troop concentrations. Plus, a warhead still goes bang, no matter if there is a rocket to fire it...you think Saddam would be adverse to killing 20,000 americans at the cost of 100,000 of his own people by obliterating an Iraqi city?

(In that instance, I really wouldn't think the USA would nuke back.)


they fired scud missiles on kuwait and a scud missile is not capable of supporting a nuclear warhead.....and a modern nuclear warhead is almost impossible to detonate without a missile to launch it from.

the only possible way for these weapons to have been used by iraq would be to dismantle them and use the nuclear material in a conventional warhead and create a so called "dirt bomb" which does not have nuclear capability it merely scatters radioactive material at random. and considering the iraqis don't have the capability to handle nuclear material that would have been rather dificult anyway.

If so, why didn't they use these when they knew they were defeated?

Hell even Hitler was not that mad! Yes I know he did not have nukes, but he did have nearve gas and never deployed it.

As a general rule, I think only bullies use weapons of mass destruction. As Saddam used them on the Kurds and Iranians I they could not reply in kind.

Hey, hey, hold up people!

Before degrading into various conspiracy theories, why don't we wait until the story is confirmed? THEN we can have a REAL debate.

(When we do have the debate, though, we should all try to keep open minds. I accept the possibility that they are planted (though I think it unlikely) and you should accept the possibility (key word) that they are not.)

Sort of off topic, but did you hear that Iraq is asking for UN inspectors to be brought back into Iraq? Yes, It's true. It was in the news yesterday.

To me this says possibly a few things..

A) The Americans plan to plant WMD

B) If WMD were found and prove to be Iraqi that the Americans were complely incompetent and the UN inspectors should of been left alone as they know how to do their jobs and the Americans didn't.

*If any thing is found, I'm betting on "A"

If this was staged it would have been all over the news right now. Somebody from the bush administration would have leaked it to Fox News.
(Of course) :D

Hey, hey, hold up people!

Before degrading into various conspiracy theories, why don't we wait until the story is confirmed? THEN we can have a REAL debate.

(When we do have the debate, though, we should all try to keep open minds. I accept the possibility that they are planted (though I think it unlikely) and you should accept the possibility (key word) that they are not.)

The Iraqi government has already put out a statement, it's not true.

Hey, hey, hold up people!

Before degrading into various conspiracy theories, why don't we wait until the story is confirmed? THEN we can have a REAL debate.

(When we do have the debate, though, we should all try to keep open minds. I accept the possibility that they are planted (though I think it unlikely) and you should accept the possibility (key word) that they are not.)

.....UNTIL the story is confirmed........WHEN we have the debate........

are you not getting ahead of yourself somewhat there? IF this story is confirmed, which i very much doubt will EVER happen, the debate will follow the exact same lines as the one taking place here, namely, when did the american adminstration put them there and who do they think they are kidding.......

The Iraqi government has already put out a statement, it's not true.



Iraqi Government, kinda sounds strange. Iraq actually having a government. I want to go home so why don't the Iraqi Government just order all US Forces out of Iraq?

Sort of off topic, but did you hear that Iraq is asking for UN inspectors to be brought back into Iraq? Yes, It's true. It was in the news yesterday.

To me this says possibly a few things..

A) The Americans plan to plant WMD

B) If WMD were found and prove to be Iraqi that the Americans were complely incompetent and the UN inspectors should of been left alone as they know how to do their jobs and the Americans didn't.

*If any thing is found, I'm betting on "A"

Heh, (B) would be funnier, though, and more morally vindicating. ;)

Iraqi Government, kinda sounds strange. Iraq actually having a government. I want to go home so why don't the Iraqi Government just order all US Forces out of Iraq?


because all that lovely oil is still waiting to be put in barrels and shipped to the us........silly question

Iraqi Government, kinda sounds strange. Iraq actually having a government. I want to go home so why don't the Iraqi Government just order all US Forces out of Iraq?

So if I read you right, you're actually in Iraq right now? I'm assuming you're with the army.. Is accessing the Internet easy for you guys?

Well, if you're over there, please be safe and I hope you get home real soon!

Peace,
Stephanie.

because all that lovely oil is still waiting to be put in barrels and shipped to the us........silly question


LOL!

a though has just occured to me..........isn't bush up for election?????????

(i stress election as opposed to re-election as that would assume he was elected in the first place.......)

So if I read you right, you're actually in Iraq right now? I'm assuming you're with the army.. Is accessing the Internet easy for you guys?

Well, if you're over there, please be safe and I hope you get home real soon!

Peace,
Stephanie.



Yes actually we do have easy internet access when its not busy. I'm with the Airforce I've been flying Blackhawks in and out of Baghdad and Tikrit the past few weeks. I will be safe!!!! I promise.

Dear God, imagine if this actually was true. Fifty dollars that Bush would claim Iranian responsibility and invade. The ensuing patriotism would elect Bush again and I bet most caught up in the frenzy would want him to be Emperor Bush II for Life.

Yes actually we do have easy internet access when its not busy. I'm with the Airforce I've been flying Blackhawks in and out of Baghdad and Tikrit the past few weeks. I will be safe!!!! I promise.


you haven't by chance flown any strange cylindrical objects into tikrit in the past few days have you.........just wondering.........

Dear God, imagine if this actually was true. Fifty dollars that Bush would claim Iranian responsibility and invade. The ensuing patriotism would elect Bush again and I bet most caught up in the frenzy would want him to be Emperor Bush II for Life.



50? bet more you'll be rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you haven't by chance flown any strange cylindrical objects into tikrit in the past few days have you.........just wondering.........



uhh....no comment!

Not taking into account the legality of the invasion and what a good Forrest Gump impersonator Bush is. Does anyone else agree that in the long term Iraq will be better off a democratic country?

so up to this point no WMD have been found? nor part, etc..?
Don't you all think that its a bit soon to have found any? I mean Iraq is a large country and a nuclear warhead or whatever can be built to the size of a suit case. Could it not take years to find anything?

so up to this point no WMD have been found? nor part, etc..?
Don't you all think that its a bit soon to have found any? I mean Iraq is a large country and a nuclear warhead or whatever can be built to the size of a suit case. Could it not take years to find anything?

It takes even longer to find things that don't exist. ;)

But seriously, if Saddam had nukes and wanted to hide them, he could bury them and we'd never find them. But that's against his personality and he'd probably want to use them agains tthe US like Bush claimed instead of hiding them, since he would know after Gulf War II he'd never have the chance again.

so up to this point no WMD have been found? nor part, etc..?
Don't you all think that its a bit soon to have found any? I mean Iraq is a large country and a nuclear warhead or whatever can be built to the size of a suit case. Could it not take years to find anything?

Given that blanket UN weapons inspections didn't find anything before the war, a year and a half is more than enough time to come up with those WMD's, especially when the claim was before the war that the U.S. knew where these were stored.

Now Bush is saying they may have been hidden or destroyed. If they were hidden, they are most likely disassembled, and therefore of no imminent threat to anyone. If they were destroyed, well, then the whole case for war is moot.

It takes even longer to find things that don't exist. ;)

But seriously, if Saddam had nukes and wanted to hide them, he could bury them and we'd never find them. But that's against his personality and he'd probably want to use them agains tthe US like Bush claimed instead of hiding them, since he would know after Gulf War II he'd never have the chance again.

True. But why did he screw the UN inspectors around for so long?

True. But why did he screw the UN inspectors around for so long?

Same reason we talked about WMDs in the first place. Cloaking true intentions.

True. But why did he screw the UN inspectors around for so long?




Same reason he screws his wife, to hear them bitch.

Does anyone else agree that in the long term Iraq will be better off a democratic country?

No, it's a lose, lose situation.. if it doesn't work and Iraq breaks out into civil war, that will be a very bad thing. It will totally destabilize the region more then Bush already has. If it does work, there is little doubt who the Iraqi's will vote for "Ayatollah Ali Sistani" who is the most powerful man in Iraq.. he is one of the last grand Ayatollah's in the world, there is only 5 left. He is one of the most powerful leaders in the Shia religion.. Which is the same as Iran.. Iran is being smart, they're just sitting back waiting it out. If free election go forth. Ayatollah Ali Sistani will be elected and the ties to Iran will be stronger then you can imagine. This will create one of the largest extreme jihad group in the world against the USA..and the west. No matter how you slice it.. it's bad.

Same reason we talked about WMDs in the first place. Cloaking true intentions.

fair enough. But why say you have something when you don't. I mean with all the sanctions and such he was crippling himself and his country. If he'd come out in the open, said how sorry he was & all that after the first gulf war. Don't you think america would have become his friend again? Bastion against fanatism, etc...

Even at the end. When the american troops were ready to invade. He could have screwed everyone by just letting in the inspectors. He knew he did not stand a chance against them

Not taking into account the legality of the invasion and what a good Forrest Gump impersonator Bush is. Does anyone else agree that in the long term Iraq will be better off a democratic country?

It depends on what you mean by "the long term": in the long term, we're all dead, so...

But on your point: it's really impossible to say. IF Iraq becomes a stable, secular democracy, then the people there will almost certainly be better off for as long as they can remain a stable secular democracy. It is undoubtedly true that Iraq, and the world in general, is better off without Saddam Hussein in charge of anything. But essentially, what you're asking seems to be, "do the (hoped-for) ends justify the means?", to which the answer must of course be "no". There are no "ends" -- history doesn't stop, and there is no final accounting. Therefore, these non-existent ends cannot justify anything.

What seems a great idea today might seem catastrophic by next week, or next year, or twenty years hence: consider the Treaty of Versailles in 1918, and its consequences in 1939; or US support for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan the 1980s, and its consequences in 2001.

fair enough. But why say you have something when you don't. I mean with all the sanctions and such he was crippling himself and his country. If he'd come out in the open, said how sorry he was & all that after the first gulf war. Don't you think america would have become his friend again? Bastion against fanatism, etc...

Even at the end. When the american troops were ready to invade. He could have screwed everyone by just letting in the inspectors. He knew he did not stand a chance against them

1. He's arrogant.
2. It's likely Saddam actually thought he had WMDs. Scientists supposedly brought him fake results to appease him, said one former Iraqi missile scientist. They'd make one missile or show him an old one and say 15 or so were made and wax poetic over their capabilities.

True. But why did he screw the UN inspectors around for so long?

Because while Saddam was a pysco, he wasn't stupid, he knew that the CIA was coming in with the inspectors.. and that the USA wasn't living up to it's part of the "cease fire" agreement, in fact Albright (under Clinton) made it pretty clear they didn't intend to.. so he said f-you.. He knew CIA was there to spy on him and possibly kill him. Which shouldn't come as a huge surprise to us folks. Had they not sent in CIA and only sent in legit UN inspectors.. things may have turned out very different.

1. He's arrogant.
2. It's likely Saddam actually thought he had WMDs. Scientists supposedly brought him fake results to appease him, said one former Iraqi missile scientist. They'd make one missile or show him an old one and say 15 or so were made and wax poetic over their capabilities.

1. obvious
2. I did not know that. thanks for the info

wow got everyone talking didn't I

It would be easier to just leave it alone and let the U.N. and Bush settle their mistake without getting the Armed Forces involved.

It depends on what you mean by "the long term": in the long term, we're all dead, so...

But on your point: it's really impossible to say. IF Iraq becomes a stable, secular democracy, then the people there will almost certainly be better off for as long as they can remain a stable secular democracy. It is undoubtedly true that Iraq, and the world in general, is better off without Saddam Hussein in charge of anything. But essentially, what you're asking seems to be, "do the (hoped-for) ends justify the means?", to which the answer must of course be "no". There are no "ends" -- history doesn't stop, and there is no final accounting. Therefore, these non-existent ends cannot justify anything.

What seems a great idea today might seem catastrophic by next week, or next year, or twenty years hence: consider the Treaty of Versailles in 1918, and its consequences in 1939; or US support for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan the 1980s, and its consequences in 2001.

Very true. Humans are not very good thinking in the long term. But they knew the treaty of versaille was very harsh (blame the french as usual). But that only played a small part in WW2. Nationalism was still on the rise.
Supporting religiously motivated "freedom fighter" for they were fighting for their country at the time worked out well for the americans all in all. As I understand it the US only starting having problems with these groups once they based troops in Saudi Arabia and of course continual support of Israel.

Might be wrong though!

anyway
got to go
been fun!

Stephistan, I play that song you have on your sig. sometimes before I fly lol!!

Well if the story is true then the issue will probably evolve into: "Who gave the Iraqis the technology?", its not likely they could develop them on their own.

The answer to that is France, Germany, and Russia....

The answer to that is France, Germany, and Russia....

Yes, France, Germany, Russia...from corporations headquartered in the US...

The answer to that is France, Germany, and Russia....



France is to chicken shit to do that.

France and Germany giving Iraq its nonexistant missiles that were reported- Germany is a nuclear power?

Whoah, I gotta go read GlobalSecurity.org again...

I don't think the US would sell Nuclear Weapons

Well, it's documented that Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for selling biological and chemical weapons to Iraq in the '80's, When Iraq was in war with Iran, and US' economical interests was to defeat Iran.

Stephistan, I play that song you have on your sig. sometimes before I fly lol!!

Kewl, thanks for sharing that. Makes me smile :)

Well, it's documented that Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for selling biological and chemical weapons to Iraq in the '80's, When Iraq was in war with Iran, and US' economical interests was to defeat Iran.

Bingo!

Although, to be fair, we didn't exactly "sell" them to Iraq. We supplied training and some materials while allowing US corporations to knowingly channel proscribed materials to Iraq and then, once Iraq began to use these weapons against Iran, we turned a blind eye to their usage. Finally, we were forced to acknowledge it when it came in front of the UN, but even then we sought to establish further diplomatic ties with Iraq. There's even a jolly good picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand while visiting the Middle East as a dignitary for the Regan administration.

You know, I think it's flat-out stupid to think Bush would plant WMD in Iraq.

Why?

Because it's an election year, and it's so easy to identify American-made weapons. It would be political suicide, plain and simple.

So why do people choose to bandy the idea about? Simple. It would be the left wing's dream come true. Ah, the media would grind Bush into the dirt, Kerry would win a landslide victory, the democrats would have deciding majorities in the house and senate...

Time to wake up, people, and smell the roses.

WMD found in Iraq are not planted.

thankfully just in time for a boost in the polls

There's even a jolly good picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand while visiting the Middle East as a dignitary for the Regan administration.

Similar to the jolly good picture of a younger Chirac standing next to Saddam Hussein in Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor...

You know, I think it's flat-out stupid to think Bush would plant WMD in Iraq.

Why?

Because it's an election year, and it's so easy to identify American-made weapons. It would be political suicide, plain and simple.

So why do people choose to bandy the idea about? Simple. It would be the left wing's dream come true. Ah, the media would grind Bush into the dirt, Kerry would win a landslide victory, the democrats would have deciding majorities in the house and senate...

Time to wake up, people, and smell the roses.

WMD found in Iraq are not planted.

Too Bad There Were None

RTFT, especially in one like this.

[FONT=System]despite what we think, they would probably just plant them because the president is being charged with fixing the information. they could put something there to make it seem like everything that's happened was caused by this stuff.... :headbang: :mad:

Quite frankly, I don't know who to believe now.

The news networks in the world are all pawns of their respective governments...

YOU MUST NOT BELIEVE! ;) :D

Just a note to correct some mis-information that seems to have crept in here. The source on this in the OP was the Washington Times not the Post. The Post is a much more reliable source than the Times.

I didn't think this would pan out, but you never know...

Similar to the jolly good picture of a younger Chirac standing next to Saddam Hussein in Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor...

Um, no, actually, that picture was taken while Saddam was on tour of France.

Quite frankly, I don't know who to believe now.

The news networks in the world are all pawns of their respective governments...

YOU MUST NOT BELIEVE! ;) :D

Well... not so much pawns of their respective governments as pawns of their respective corporations and the ideologies driving their owners...

Even the state-owned media are often overly critical of the government that supports them (they would have to be, to assert their independence).

Just a note to correct some mis-information that seems to have crept in here. The source on this in the OP was the Washington Times not the Post. The Post is a much more reliable source than the Times.

I didn't think this would pan out, but you never know...

That was probably me, ignorant as I am of Washington news sources... although I do know the paper Woodward and Bernstein worked for was the Post. Sorry!

Long story, short, ladies and gentlemen, is that the Washington Times jumped the gun (or the missile). Ba dump bump!

First off, this should not be a surprise. This is not the first time WMD have popped up in Iraq. A few weeks ago a chemical shell fired by iraqi insurgents at american soldiers failed to work by landed and was identified. That was something he wasnt supposed to have. Now there are pople saying that if there are weapons they are planted. For the US to move their missles to iraq and have another nation like Russia and France not know is damn near impossible. Someone would have picked up the movement and cried foul. So if this report is true all the people who doubted the pres on this can go choke on their mistake.

First off, this should not be a surprise. This is not the first time WMD have popped up in Iraq. A few weeks ago a chemical shell fired by iraqi insurgents at american soldiers failed to work by landed and was identified. That was something he wasnt supposed to have. Now there are pople saying that if there are weapons they are planted. For the US to move their missles to iraq and have another nation like Russia and France not know is damn near impossible. Someone would have picked up the movement and cried foul. So if this report is true all the people who doubted the pres on this can go choke on their mistake.

Apology in advance for huge text.


THE WMD WERE NOT THERE!

Someone needs to edit the title of this thread so that people stop posting "I expected as such." It's definately causing some confusion.

Though it shows how few actually read the replies in a thead.

Apology in advance for huge text.


THE WMD WERE NOT THERE!

Someone needs to edit the title of this thread so that people stop posting "I expected as such." It's definately causing some confusion.

Though it shows how few actually read the replies in a thead.WE CAN HEAR YOU!!!
Okay. Now to get to the point.
Iraq is a desert the size of Texas. There could be a bunker full of VX gas anywhere under there. I'm not saying that's a good arguement, there could be VX in your house for all we know. I'm just saying that your statement has not been proven. The Iraqis themselves must believe there are WMD if they are calling the inspectors back in. If it isn't what you want to hear, tough.

Ah, good. I thought with text that ridiculously huge nobody would see it. ;)

Both sides are calling it ridiculous. What makes you think the inspectors are coming back to investigate some nuclear missiles that aren't reported by any respectable sources other than one who appears to have gone on a rumour in a local newspaper?

Similar to the jolly good picture of a younger Chirac standing next to Saddam Hussein in Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor...

Would that be the same reactor that was later "pre-emptively" bombed by Israel? Ironic that at the time, the US condemned such a "pre-emptive" strike.

A few weeks ago a chemical shell fired by iraqi insurgents at american soldiers failed to work by landed and was identified.

Wrong. Insurgents attempted to use an old (circa Iran-Iraq war) bianary sarin
shell as an IED. All indications are that they dug it up somewhere and were unaware of what it was.

Wrong. Insurgents attempted to use an old (circa Iran-Iraq war) bianary sarin
shell as an IED. All indications are that they dug it up somewhere and were unaware of what it was.

Yes, a shell that contained Sarin that probably wasn't safe to drink, but hardly WMD.. these things DO have a shelf life! This Sarin was far past it's, thus it was NOT WMD!

they fired scud missiles on kuwait and a scud missile is not capable of supporting a nuclear warhead.....and a modern nuclear warhead is almost impossible to detonate without a missile to launch it from.

the only possible way for these weapons to have been used by iraq would be to dismantle them and use the nuclear material in a conventional warhead and create a so called "dirt bomb" which does not have nuclear capability it merely scatters radioactive material at random. and considering the iraqis don't have the capability to handle nuclear material that would have been rather dificult anyway.
This is one of the most wrong things I have ever read. The Scud B or R-17 (which is what we are talking about) was originally designed by the Soviets to carry a nuclear warhead back in the 1950s. The worrisome Korean export missiles are the Korean version of the Scud-B and are presumably the missile platform for Pakistani nuclear warheads. The Chineese apparently have finished converting from their version of the Scud B (the DF-3A) to the more modern DF-31 but for a few decades there the Scud was the Chineese nuclear IRBM.

Modern nuclear warheads of the most advanced nuclear nations (US, Russia, UK and maybe France and China) are pretty impervious to accidental detonation by means other than those intended by the maker, so dropping a nuclear missle warhead out of an airplane is extremely unlikely to set it off - but if we accept that only nuclear missles can be used as platforms for nukes than all those nuclear bombs would be pretty useless, wouldn't they? When dealing with the nuclear warheads of the less advanced nations it is hoped that nuclear missile warheads cannot be accidentally detonated by being droped from airplanes, but it is by no means a sure thing. Some nations are believed (cough**Pakistan**cough) to have specifically designed their warheads so they can detonated in multiple fashions, the same warhead being suitable for being deployed on a variety of platforms either an IRBM, a MRBM, an F-16, or a truck driven accross the border.

As for the Iraqis not having the capability to handle radioactive materials, that's some pretty bad news. Imagine the poor people living in Baddahd near the bombed out French reactor (the Israelis destroyed it in 1981) or the poor folks living near the reactors the US destroyed back in 1991. Or any of the 1,000 or so locations where radioactive industrial and medical materials were/are stored. It was pretty reckless of the Iraqis to have so much radioactive material arround with the capability to handle it.

Wobble, you're usually much better than this. Sorry but I couldn't allow this sort of thing to pass without comment. I can see the genisis of how you could have gotten such ideas but the ideas come from a context and are meaningless outside that context. A US or Russian nuclear missle warhead is unsuitable for detonation by means other than by being launched on a missile, and one does not have to fear one of them being stolen and detonated by terrorists. Scuds are not appropriate platforms for ICBMs or even MRBMs but are certainly capable of handling small nuclear warheads (although not the megaton monsters or the MIRVs favored as strategic nuclear weapons.

You know, I think it's flat-out stupid to think Bush would plant WMD in Iraq.

Why?

Because it's an election year, and it's so easy to identify American-made weapons. It would be political suicide, plain and simple.

So why do people choose to bandy the idea about? Simple. It would be the left wing's dream come true. Ah, the media would grind Bush into the dirt, Kerry would win a landslide victory, the democrats would have deciding majorities in the house and senate...

Time to wake up, people, and smell the roses.

WMD found in Iraq are not planted.

the point you make is perfectly valid but i think you are missing the wider issue here.

for the bush administration to plant wmd in iraq is stupid but the problem faced is that people believe that they would.

bush is generally regarded as a complete idiot and has been since the day he took office. on numerous occasions he has been portrayed in the world media, through his own ineptitude, as completely unsuitable for public office, let alone as president of the us.

for people to bandy the issue about may well be a left wing dream and may well lead to a kerry landslide but how did we get to this position in the first place. all around the world there are national leaders whose policies and politics people disagree with but bush is the only one whose politics are irrelevant.

i assume that you are american and that you may even be a republican and if so let me ask you a question. politics aside do you really want your nation to be represented by a man who is publicly ridiculed and has failed to command the respect of anyone outside the us? the world has recently witnessed the public grief shown at the funeral of ronald reagan and while his policies may have caused worldwide condemnation at the time the man had teh respect of people all over the world. clinton will forever be remembered as the president who had sex in the oval office but as a politician and a presiddent he commanded respect. can you honestly say that bush will be remembered as kindly in the future?

the issue isn't whether or not wmd were planted by the adminstration but what the public perception of that adminstration leads us to believe.

Has anyone clicked the original link recently? I haven't checked all 7 pages of the thread, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, but the story has changed.
Baghdad, Iraq, Jul. 21 (UPI) -- A U.S. military official Wednesday denied a report of Iraqi missiles carrying nuclear warheads being found in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad.

The daily al-Sabah newspaper Wednesday had quoted sources as saying three missiles armed with nuclear warheads were discovered in a trench near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A U.S. military spokesman in Tikrit told United Press International that the report was untrue.

So much for that.

This is one of the most wrong things I have ever read. The Scud B or R-17 (which is what we are talking about) was originally designed by the Soviets to carry a nuclear warhead back in the 1950s. The worrisome Korean export missiles are the Korean version of the Scud-B and are presumably the missile platform for Pakistani nuclear warheads. The Chineese apparently have finished converting from their version of the Scud B (the DF-3A) to the more modern DF-31 but for a few decades there the Scud was the Chineese nuclear IRBM.

Modern nuclear warheads of the most advanced nuclear nations (US, Russia, UK and maybe France and China) are pretty impervious to accidental detonation by means other than those intended by the maker, so dropping a nuclear missle warhead out of an airplane is extremely unlikely to set it off - but if we accept that only nuclear missles can be used as platforms for nukes than all those nuclear bombs would be pretty useless, wouldn't they? When dealing with the nuclear warheads of the less advanced nations it is hoped that nuclear missile warheads cannot be accidentally detonated by being droped from airplanes, but it is by no means a sure thing. Some nations are believed (cough**Pakistan**cough) to have specifically designed their warheads so they can detonated in multiple fashions, the same warhead being suitable for being deployed on a variety of platforms either an IRBM, a MRBM, an F-16, or a truck driven accross the border.

As for the Iraqis not having the capability to handle radioactive materials, that's some pretty bad news. Imagine the poor people living in Baddahd near the bombed out French reactor (the Israelis destroyed it in 1981) or the poor folks living near the reactors the US destroyed back in 1991. Or any of the 1,000 or so locations where radioactive industrial and medical materials were/are stored. It was pretty reckless of the Iraqis to have so much radioactive material arround with the capability to handle it.

Wobble, you're usually much better than this. Sorry but I couldn't allow this sort of thing to pass without comment. I can see the genisis of how you could have gotten such ideas but the ideas come from a context and are meaningless outside that context. A US or Russian nuclear missle warhead is unsuitable for detonation by means other than by being launched on a missile, and one does not have to fear one of them being stolen and detonated by terrorists. Scuds are not appropriate platforms for ICBMs or even MRBMs but are certainly capable of handling small nuclear warheads (although not the megaton monsters or the MIRVs favored as strategic nuclear weapons.

i stand corrected on the technical aspects of missile technology but the issue still remains that it is highly unlikely that iraq had or has the capability to produce or obtain nuclear weapons and there ability to deliver them if they did is at such a level that they would be unlikely to be able to effectively use them. (if there is such a thing as an uneffective nuclear weapon.)

Has anyone clicked the original link recently? I haven't checked all 7 pages of the thread, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, but the story has changed.


So much for that.

Thanks Incertonia.. Zeppistan already debunked it with a Reuters news item on pg.2 or 3 :)

Has anyone clicked the original link recently? I haven't checked all 7 pages of the thread, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, but the story has changed.


So much for that.Actually I was going to use that as the basis for a sarcastic proof of the existance of WMDs. The US denies the existance of WMDs in Iraq. Everything the US says about WMDs in Iraq is wrong. Therefore the US denial of the existance of Iraqi WMDs is conclusive proof that they have found WMDs in Iraq.

Actually I was going to use that as the basis for a sarcastic proof of the existance of WMDs. The US denies the existance of WMDs in Iraq. Everything the US says about WMDs in Iraq is wrong. Therefore the US denial of the existance of Iraqi WMDs is conclusive proof that they have found WMDs in Iraq.

i take it all back............bush is the saviour of western civilisation and should be immediately elevated to the pantheon of the gods........all hail george dubya.......................

Has anyone clicked the original link recently? I haven't checked all 7 pages of the thread, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, but the story has changed.


So much for that.

Drat you and your logic! :)

Could be planted, yes. Could be "back door supplied" by the US Government to Saddam during friendlier times.

I agree, it's hard to trust anything out there anymore.

I doubt we gave them to Iraq during friendlier times. I mean chemical weapons yes but we couldn't even give our staunchest ally nukes in the middle east (Israel). They had to "steal" them from Savannah River like everyone else.

Must...Obey...Big Letters.

My unit just got word that yes indeed a small nuclear warhead has been found near the Tikrit area. At 1200 Hours Tuesday a raiding pary of US Rangers found the warhead. It was the warhead, no missile has been found. The warhead is said to be very old and a Soviet make. The US is still looking into this, I'll let you know as more comes in. I was also in contact with my brother in Tikrit he is a Ranger(If he was with the one who found it I dunno) he also confirms that this is true.

hmmmm......could these missiles be planted? Yes it is a option, lets wait and see.

I would suspect that something this significant, appearing at this late stage, and conveniently before the US election, could be planted.

Basically, pro-Bushers will scream "See! We knew they were there!" and anti-Bushers will say "It's a setup! They were planted".

I just really hope they slip up and get caught in the act of rigging the evidence.

It's too late for justification. I hardly think a hundred thousand nuclear warheads would change public opinion. The only thing that will genuinely justify Iraq is an Iraq that is very useful on the international stage.

It's too late for justification. I hardly think a hundred thousand nuclear warheads would change public opinion. The only thing that will genuinely justify Iraq is an Iraq that is very useful on the international stage.


I'm not trying to change anything I'm just letting people know.

I'm not trying to change anything I'm just letting people know.
I can see why you are. I'm just saying that we may be too late. In fact, in the Arab world, it's very likely that the discovery of WMDs would inflame them even more. If this is true, the US is taking the best course possible by denying these claims.

they fired scud missiles on kuwait and a scud missile is not capable of supporting a nuclear warhead.....and a modern nuclear warhead is almost impossible to detonate without a missile to launch it from.

the only possible way for these weapons to have been used by iraq would be to dismantle them and use the nuclear material in a conventional warhead and create a so called "dirt bomb" which does not have nuclear capability it merely scatters radioactive material at random. and considering the iraqis don't have the capability to handle nuclear material that would have been rather dificult anyway.

Wrong. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html

The Scud was designed as a nuclear ballistic missile.

Edit- Just noticed Squi's post.

And whoever said that even Hitler wasn't that crazy- How do you know? If he or Stalin got the bomb first I honestly doubt they would have hesitated to use it. In Hitler's case, I expect Leningrad, Moscow, London and Paris would have been made radioactive rubble. The nuke is a helluva bargaining chip- If Iraq threatened to nuke coalition forces unless they withdrew immediately, who knows what may have happened? The fact that they didn't do this suggests that they had no WMD in the first place. What's the point of them having them if they don't use them when all is lost?

Thanks Incertonia.. Zeppistan already debunked it with a Reuters news item on pg.2 or 3 :)
Ahh NationStates....it's like a team of researchers at you beck and call. Just give any topic long enough and someone will have done the research for me. Now I can blame NS for my laziness....;)

This story is bullshit, Fox News isnt even mentioning it, and you KNOW they would be the first ones to do so.

Wrong. Insurgents attempted to use an old (circa Iran-Iraq war) bianary sarin
shell as an IED. All indications are that they dug it up somewhere and were unaware of what it was.
I myself read that report a few weeks back, noting it didn't get much coverage to halt the "conservative" juggernaut of factual inaccuracy and blitzkrieg.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm
A U.S. military official Wednesday denied a report of Iraqi missiles carrying nuclear warheads being found in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad.

A U.S. military official Wednesday denied a report of Iraqi missiles carrying nuclear warheads being found in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad.