LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

So the NY Times is now conceding this fact?

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world ... nd&emc=rss

I think that is a bit of a stretch -

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

A 15-year old instruction manual, which they do say is more detailed than the stuff you or I could find on the Internet, isn't exactly the smoking gun or mushroom cloud that would point to an imminent danger in 2003.

There has been no evidence found, pre- or post-invasion, to suggest that anything was being done to produce a weapon, such as the banks of centrifuges needed to create weapons-grade material. There certainly hasn't been anything produced that would support the claims that were used to justify the invasion.

What is more disconcerting is the administration's complete blindness to admit that the situation now is completely out of control. This will change shortly after the election, when the Baker/Hamilton team releases it's recommendations for a future path - which may contain some variation of a withdrawal strategy - Bush's own version of a "cut and run" policy that will be labeled "adapt and change".

The other likely recommendation will be that we engage some of the neihbors to help us out, like our friends in Syria and that other emerging nculear power - Iran. That'll be an interesting discussion.

Also of concern is the report this week that the hundreds of thousands of untracked weapons we are providing to the Iraqi Army and militias (oops, the Iraqi "Police") could very well be being used against our troops. That's a nice thought.

Sonny wrote:So the NY Times is now conceding this fact?

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world ... nd&emc=rss

There has never been a doubt that they were closer to developing a nuke than we thought before the 1991 Gulf War.

Since 1991, there had been no significant advancement due to the embargo on dual-use technology.

In fact, they were closer to developing a nuke in 1982, before Israel blew up the Osirak reactor, than they were in 2003.

But why does that matter?

I thought we're in Iraq to build a stable, multi-party, free-market democracy who will be a natural ally in the war on terror, ultimately starting a domino effect and toppling dictatorial regimes across in the middle east. And after that we will all fly to candyland on a magic carpet and dance with gnomes.

I'm posting this link to the NY Sun & some related quotes. It's an interesting article about that states (granted, with a lot of hearsay), but it never received much national recognition (not that I noticed anyway). I'm just curious what you guys think?

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.

I'm not a giant fan of the Democratic Peace Theory being used to justify war, but we really need to find a lasting solution in the Middle East. All this stuff is looking backward, I'd really like to see a feasible plan to improve the situation in Iraq but maybe that should be a different thread.

Kyle Berggren wrote:I'm not a giant fan of the Democratic Peace Theory being used to justify war, but we really need to find a lasting solution in the Middle East.

In a perfect world, this would be nice. Realistically, this will never happen. There has been unrest in the Middle East since the beginning of time. Unfortunately, it is not a stretch to say that there will be unrest in the Middle East until the end of time. Once everyone else in the world just accepts this as fact and stops meddling, we might be closer to a stable situation in which the Western World is not the bad guy and they keep the unrest amongst themselves. I realize that this is over-simplistic, but nothing else has worked.......

CATLAX MAN wrote: Once everyone else in the world just accepts this as fact and stops meddling, we might be closer to a stable situation...

That would happen in an instant if their natural resources consisted of sand dunes and date palms. Unfortunately those other countries are sitting on top of OUR OIL! dammit - and we've got to protect our vital national interests. That might have something to do with the crux of the problem. And now those darn Chinese are ramping up their economy full throttle and they want some of it too.

Along with the oil issue, the other bedrock dispute is one that many people recognize is the root of a lot of the conflict - and that is that the British and others decided to magically create the country of Israel on land already being claimed by other modern inhabitants. Hmmm, could that be a problem? Now the Israelis will claim that they have Biblical rights to Judea and Samaria, an argument that some may choose to accept or reject. But to make it a little more personal - let's say that tomorrow the UN decides that the original inhabitants of parts of North America had been illegally removed from their lands, and that the country of Seminoleland is being formed in what used to be Florida (choose whichever tribe and state of your liking). Many current residents will be forced from their homes, since they don't really "own" them. If they resist, we'll just bulldoze those mobile home parks. I don't know, do you think that the current residents might be upset, and heaven forbid, even take their weapons and fight back? How would that make you feel, and who's side would you come down on? Granted, the natives were here first, but that's ancient history - going back at least 150 years. This is today, and this is MY LAND! KEEP OFF, or else! If you can come up with a solution to that, congratulations! you're our new Middle East envoy!

Adding to Laxfan's statement.............then you add in the dirty secrets of natural resource fighting, and long term birth rates and you have really nice little mess. Water supply and availability is never mentioned yet it often defines agendas. The Israelis can't incorporate the Palestinians into the political system because they are having kids 5 to 1 and will be the majority in the not to distant future.

CATLAX MAN wrote:

Kyle Berggren wrote:I'm not a giant fan of the Democratic Peace Theory being used to justify war, but we really need to find a lasting solution in the Middle East.

In a perfect world, this would be nice. Realistically, this will never happen. There has been unrest in the Middle East since the beginning of time. Unfortunately, it is not a stretch to say that there will be unrest in the Middle East until the end of time. Once everyone else in the world just accepts this as fact and stops meddling, we might be closer to a stable situation in which the Western World is not the bad guy and they keep the unrest amongst themselves. I realize that this is over-simplistic, but nothing else has worked.......

Yes over-simplistic. It's also simply unrealistic for the West to stick their head in the sand and ignore the problem in this day of age of suitcase nukes, anthrax, etc.

Until many Muslims in the Middle East love their own children MORE then they hate Israel - we will have to deal with these problems regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls the Congress.

Sonny wrote:Until many Muslims in the Middle East love their own children MORE then they hate Israel - we will have to deal with these problems regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls the Congress.

Amen to that. Id like to motion to add "and respect women" to that statement.

O'Reilly did an interview last night with a director who made a documentary about Palestinian homicide bombers. The director conducted interviews with 45 future murderers and found that in every single case land had nothing to do with their motivations. They wanted to murder people because they believe that is what Allah wants them to do and it is a way to find purity in Islam.

Israel presence has long been assigned the blame for the unrest in the Middle East and maybe that was true in 1973 but I do not think it can be called the primary cause anymore. Israel has acted in good faith towards the Palestinians in recent years. They have forcefully removed Israeli citizens from their homes to provide lands for Palestinians but that was not enough for Arafat and company who backed out of the peace deals and resumed terrorist activites (while getting rich on "foreign aid"). Israel still lives under the threat of attack from terrorists every day and are then condemned by the world when they defend themselves.

The fact is none of these terrorists were even alive when Israel was created. They do not care about Israel for any other reason than Israeli's are Jewish and therefore infidels. These are poor, uneducated young men and women who are drawn to hateful religious leaders who then brainwash them to commit murder in the name of Allah. The goal of these leaders is to create a Islamic paradise in the Middle East and then spread their brand of Islam through the rest of the world. They will not stop or go away if we choose to ignore them. Our "meddling" has nothing to do with it. The only hope lies in trying to open these societies up to the opportunities of the modern world.

These are poor, uneducated young men and women who are drawn to hateful religious leaders who then brainwash them to commit murder in the name of Allah.

Sounds familiar

sohotrightnow wrote:

These are poor, uneducated young men and women who are drawn to hateful religious leaders who then brainwash them to commit murder in the name of Allah.

Sounds familiar

.....?

Are you attempting to compare serving in our nation's armed forces with becoming a homicide bomber? Is so, please elaborate on your reasoning.

Or did you just botch a joke?

Yes, I am. I'm sure some of them will tell you they are doing it for "freedom" (whatever the hell that means), but a lot of them do it to play out their own sadistic fantasies of killing people, especially people who don't believe in their God. I don't botch jokes and I stand by my comments.

That's a very serious accusation to level at all of the members of our armed forces. Is there any documentation to support your claim?