Somthing for the sheep who shut thier eyes and ears and still do and will

[chicoles]

It has been disproved over and over ad nauseum.


BTW, I don't have an agenda Liberal or otherwise, just stating how it is.

dude; look inside yourself, you appear to be brainwashed. You don't have an agenda? LMAO

The yellowcake is well documented. What is most alarming is that this material has been found in Columbia and Central America. They suspect it was from the same batch. I would error on the side of caution if I was the decision maker.

Recently I saw pictures of newest technology russian aircraft buried east of Tikrit. These planes were so new that they had to be delivered shortly before the war started. If they could smuggle a bunch of aircraft why not other shit? Yesterday they announced traces of radiation at the spot bombed in Syria. Is this all B/S? You can decide but I do suggest you get both sides of the story.

If you want , prepare for war

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

FACT: Yes Iraq had bio wepons. The US gave/sold them to him.
FACT: Most major ""enemies"" where once our friends and we game them money guns and training. Includes AlQuada when we trained them to fight the russians.
FACT: Smoke and joint and get High!!!

US and British Support for Hussein Regime - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

US and British Support for Hussein Regime



Picture: Donald Rumsfeld, then special US envoy, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein during a visit to Iraq in December, 1983.
US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

Hey Droogz why don't you give the rest of the details, like the fact that we were supplying Iran with arms, too?

And the fact that the Shah of Iran fell, because Jimmy Carter refused to help him put down the rebellion that put him out of power?

 

[NewGrowth]

Dude.. that is in the article you posted. Iraq had that uranium since before 1991 and had not refined any of it for weapons use, and did not have the means to refine it for weapons use.

Interesting little fact huh? Most people are not aware of the applied technologies needed to both refine Uranium and then manufacture viable nuclear weapons, not to mention delivery systems. You can't buy an "idiots guide to nuclear weapons" at Borders either . . .

So once again BigP, why did we invade Iraq? Terrorists! Oh shit duck!

 

[NewGrowth]

Hey Droogz why don't you give the rest of the details, like the fact that we were supplying Iran with arms, too?

And the fact that the Shah of Iran fell, because Jimmy Carter refused to help him put down the rebellion that put him out of power?

I already eluded to that in an earlier post, but we actually participated in re-instating the Shaw afterwards . . . we wanted to corrupt him with US business interests . . . I really want to see what kind of BS BigP comes up with next. Aluminum tubes maybe?

 

[droogz]

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I already eluded to that in an earlier post, but we actually participated in re-instating the Shaw afterwards . . . we wanted to corrupt him with US business interests . . . I really want to see what kind of BS BigP comes up with next. Aluminum tubes maybe?

:: shrugs :: I wouldn't know, I'm not really sure what side to believe in the entire Iraq has WMD debate.

I mean, the article states that there was Yellowcake, but it was from before 1991.

Then there's a link to another article that mentions chemical munitions, but it states those were old, and decaying.

But Plame and Wilson were lousy witnesses who can't be held as credible.

It was a British report that indicated that Hussein was seeking to purchase Yellowcake from Niger.

But I don't think we'll ever actually know the truth about it. Something about reality being classified, and our government being a tyrannical bureaucracy.

 

[CrackerJax]

How many bombs doers it take to destroy the fabric of the United States?

The answer is ONE. Just one. I'll always fall on the side of caution.



out.

 

[Doctor Pot]

How many bombs doers it take to destroy the fabric of the United States?

Hmm... you'd have to simultaneously detonate nuclear weapons in about 50 cities nationwide. Assuming they have A-bombs, and they're detonating them at ground level, and also assuming the fatality rates are similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and assuming all 50 warheads successfully detonated, about 5 million people would die. This is less than 2% of the population of the US. The remaining 98% of the US, as well as the rest of the world, would destroy any country that managed to do that. And I don't mean with economic sanctions, I mean with good old-fashioned ICBMs. So whatever the answer is, it's considerably more than 50, and that quantity of fissile material would be extremely hard to come up with.

The answer is ONE. Just one. I'll always fall on the side of caution.

How did you get that number? Are you assuming that one bomber is an extraterrestrial with some high-tech antimatter bomb?

 

[hom36rown]

I think its a lot closer to one than 50. For one thing, even a single bomb would send the stock market into a crash, ruining our already fragile economy. It would take decades to recover.

 

[hom36rown]

and how do you figure 50 nuclear warheads would only kill 5 million people, thats ridiculous. New york city has 8 million people, do you think it would take 50 nuclear warheads to destroy new york, I dont think so.

 

[NewGrowth]

How many bombs doers it take to destroy the fabric of the United States?
The answer is ONE. Just one. I'll always fall on the side of caution.
out.

I would rather be free, the politics of fear is well documented here is short history.

1950's- Red Scare (your neighbor is a communist)
1980's- War on Drugs
2001- War on Terror
Coming soon:
War on Civil Liberties . . .

What do all these "Wars" contribute to? Increased military spending, expansion of federal powers, corruption, and the police wiping their ass with the constitution.

What is the "fabric" of the United States? I would say it is our relative freedom. Take away freedom and American prosperity goes out the door, so really the Terrorists are getting just what they want. People living in fear supporting overseas wars while we fall apart domestically and continue to support the formation of a police state.

I personally would rather die free in a massive nuclear explosion than live in a police state. We are well on our way if we don't wake up, the military can not protect us from terrorism.

So what is the side of caution? Invading a country "pre-emptively"? The president is not allowed to maintain a sustained conflict with another country without an official declaration of war by congress. The "Iraqi Conflict" is illegal, if any other country were to invade another it would be unacceptable (the Georgian Conflict is a good example). With the "War on Terror" Bush effectively declared war on US citizens and entire world. Declaring it our right to invade countries posed as a "threat".

 

[CrackerJax]

I said fabric, not annihilation. One bomb will do as HOM36 responded.



out.

 

[Doctor Pot]

and how do you figure 50 nuclear warheads would only kill 5 million people, thats ridiculous. New york city has 8 million people, do you think it would take 50 nuclear warheads to destroy new york, I dont think so.

Atomic bombs aren't as powerful as you think. New York City covers about 300 square miles. A Hiroshima-sized atom bomb can destroy about three square miles. Plus, a terrorist bomb would have to be at ground level, which would result in less damage than Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure, it'd wreak havoc with the normal operations of a city, but it's nothing that can't be overcome eventually.

I think its a lot closer to one than 50. For one thing, even a single bomb would send the stock market into a crash, ruining our already fragile economy. It would take decades to recover.

That's just speculation. 9/11 rallied the nation, and so did Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying that an A-bomb exploding in a US city wouldn't be devastating to the American people, just that no one has anything to gain from it. It would take the resources of a nation to build one, and it wouldn't take long for the US and the rest of the world to learn which nation did it. That country would then be royally fucked. Therefore, it's in no nation's best interests to allow one of its A-bombs to be detonated in the US.

 

[hom36rown]

The economy is in dire straights as it is. A nuclear attack on the u.s would send the markets plummiting, that is a fact. And at this point, the fed would have very few avenues available to them to stimulate the economy. Cutting the interest rate to 0 certainly wouldnt help, and printing tens of trillions of dollars would only make things worse.

 

[Doctor Pot]

The economy is in dire straights as it is. A nuclear attack on the u.s would send the markets plummiting, that is a fact. And at this point, the fed would have very few avenues available to them to stimulate the economy. Cutting the interest rate to 0 certainly wouldnt help, and printing tens of trillions of dollars would only make things worse.

Well back in 1941 the economy was in pretty dire straits and the US was attacked by a foreign power. If I remember right, the eventual result wasn't a worse US economy.

 

[hom36rown]

Things are different now, much more fragile. The market is extremely volatile as it is. The day pearl harbor happened, the market dropped 3%. The market dropped 2% today, so that should show how much things have changed. We are headed for a depression as it is, a nuclear attack would without a doubt send us hurdling into economic depression. Hell, if another major bank fails it will send us hurdling into depression.

 

[ZenMaster]

Atomic bombs aren't as powerful as you think. New York City covers about 300 square miles. A Hiroshima-sized atom bomb can destroy about three square miles. Plus, a terrorist bomb would have to be at ground level, which would result in less damage than Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure, it'd wreak havoc with the normal operations of a city, but it's nothing that can't be overcome eventually.


That's just speculation. 9/11 rallied the nation, and so did Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying that an A-bomb exploding in a US city wouldn't be devastating to the American people, just that no one has anything to gain from it. It would take the resources of a nation to build one, and it wouldn't take long for the US and the rest of the world to learn which nation did it. That country would then be royally fucked. Therefore, it's in no nation's best interests to allow one of its A-bombs to be detonated in the US.

Well, the hydrogen bomb alone is 100 times more powerful than the atom bomb, and its radiation effect envelopes much more ground. The atom bomb is very much outclassed and out of production, get with the times!

Not sure if a nuclear bomb will leave a little black box for us to tell who did it, the only way we would know who did it would be from the spy network or vocalized threat.

So what is the side of caution? Invading a country "pre-emptively"? The president is not allowed to maintain a sustained conflict with another country without an official declaration of war by congress. The "Iraqi Conflict" is illegal, if any other country were to invade another it would be unacceptable (the Georgian Conflict is a good example). With the "War on Terror" Bush effectively declared war on US citizens and entire world. Declaring it our right to invade countries posed as a "threat".

Its not illegal, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_resolution

 

[Doctor Pot]

Things are different now, much more fragile. The market is extremely volatile as it is. The day pearl harbor happened, the market dropped 3%. The market dropped 2% today, so that should show how much things have changed. We are headed for a depression as it is, a nuclear attack would without a doubt send us hurdling into economic depression. Hell, if another major bank fails it will send us hurdling into depression.

So the bomb went from completely destroying the fabric of our nation to causing a drop in the stock market? I'm not saying it would be good for our economy, but it wouldn't cause the US to fall apart.

 

[NorthwestBuds]

Not sure if a nuclear bomb will leave a little black box for us to tell who did it, the only way we would know who did it would be from the spy network or vocalized threat.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Doctor Pot]

Well, the hydrogen bomb alone is 100 times more powerful than the atom bomb, and its radiation effect envelopes much more ground. The atom bomb is very much outclassed and out of production, get with the times!

A hydrogen bomb is also about 100 times harder to make and 100 times harder to conceal. I'm assuming that any nuclear weapons would be coming from some country with crappy weapons technology like Pakistan where even making an atomic bomb would be a challenge.