US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:46 pm

parallel wrote:Joseph Chikva
Saddam really tried to get nuke bomb till Israel not bombed his nuclear center as I remember correctly in 90s.
You don't remember correctly. Israel bombed Iraq's commercial nuclear power plant and it was only after that, that Saddam toyed with the idea of getting nuclear weapon to prevent that sort of thing happening again.

If Israel bombs Iran, they will certainly bomb their nuclear power plant (built at the suggestion of the US) and that will lead to who knows what.
See http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/201 ... look-like/ for one scenario.

May I do not remember correctly the date. But for your reference if that reactor (the heart of power plant) ran on fast neutrons that produced Plutonium suitable for production of nuke bomb. I do not know working principle of that reactor. And you?

polyill · Post by **polyill** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:06 pm

@parallel

You defending Rossi, I might understand... but Saddam? Something is really wrong with the connections in your head, mate...

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:08 pm

parallel wrote:Remember Iraq was and Iran is under international inspection that would certainly detect fuel diverted from their nuclear power plant.

Due to significant influence of Russia and China both having their own interest that international inspection (MAGATE) is rather toothless.
And in any moment Iran can stop collaborating with MAGATE. And that can be happen in that time when loading of new fuel rods with unloading of used one with Plutonium content will be required.
Also they have developed the missiles reaching Israel territory and use very aggressive rythoric. Yes, those are only words.
But persistence with which the country with huge oil&gas deposits which leaders make extremely aggressive statements aspires to achieve nuclear technologies raises doubts in itself.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:22 pm

parallel wrote:ladajo,
You do understand that Saddam was going to use that power plant to make weapons fuel?
It was just Israel and the neocons that claimed that: without any proof.
Possibly they thought that because that was exactly what Israel did, lying to the US/France and breaking their promise that they wouldn't.

Of course you will probably claim that every one knew that Saddam was building WMD. Proof was a "slam dunk" according to our head of intelligence.
Pity no actual WMD were found, not even evidence that Iraq was working on things like this. Yet now you are certain that Iran is building nukes? You must swallow propaganda for breakfast or be pathologically paranoid.

Remember Iraq was and Iran is under international inspection that would certainly detect fuel diverted from their nuclear power plant.

So Saddam's own nuclear scientists, and Saddam himself, do not conut in your opinion? They all stated that at that point they were seeking nuclear capability. That was pre-91. Also, recall that the controls implemented post 91 were suppossed to limit his ability to develope capabilities. They were by and large not so successful.

You toss out things like "you will" and "you think" casually. I do not pretend to know what you think. I only go on what you say and do. In case you did not know, I did see all the intelligence run up pre-gulf 2. I did know what was being thought and why. I also do not use the term WMD casually. For me it includes a spectrum of tech and capability. In the case of Saddam, people use "WMD" with great abandon and focus its meaning to nuclear only. In his case he was full spectrum. He had and maintained chemical capability. It was known before, and found after. He had bio programs and plans. He also found that bio is not easy. His own science guys afterwards admitted it was harder than they thought, and thus did not do much useful with it. Chem was much easier. The nuclear guys also said after gulf 2 that they were just on a hold pattern by design. They were in made up jobs waiting for western sanctions and attention to decline. Saddam himself spoke to this in his own debriefs after capture. He also admitted to being deceptive on purpose in order to convince Iran he was armed and capable. If he could not convince them he wanted them to at least maintain doubt. He himself stated that he did not understand that the west bought into it as well.

So casually saying it was all fantasy is misguided. Lumping it all together and saying "No WMD", when what is actually meant is "No nuclear weapons" is misrepresentative. And further, ignoring the facts of the words of Saddam himself and his scientists regarding previous and future intentions is also misrepresentative.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:40 pm

Well the UN did not find any WMDs. The US did not find any WMDs. Show me the WMDs! There were none!
It was all a deception by Saddam to keep Iran at bay that backfired quite badly. Plus, I am totally convinced that the US president and certain allies knew all to well that there were no WMDs...

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:16 pm

ladajo, Don't confuse the issue with the facts. The wars in the ME have been planned for a long time. Nothing to do with WMD: that was just an excuse to justify it, just as it is being used again against Iran.

See "A Clean Break" advice to Netanyahu

The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser who were working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. James Bamford explains, "the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group." [3]

Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that[10]:

"Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make 'a clean break' from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, 'The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.' It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and 'Jewish interests' are not the main reason for it now."

Patrick J. Buchanan,[5] in reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the report, wrote that "Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish 'the principle of preemption,' has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States."

Taki writes in the September 2006 issue of The American Conservative[15] that

"recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go."

ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Br ... _the_Realm

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:19 pm

Skipjack wrote:Well the UN did not find any WMDs. The US did not find any WMDs. Show me the WMDs! There were none!
It was all a deception by Saddam to keep Iran at bay that backfired quite badly. Plus, I am totally convinced that the US president and certain allies knew all to well that there were no WMDs...

Ladajo have explained you already that WMD is not only nuclear. But also chem and bio. Even industrial gas "phosgen" (petrochemical gas) can be used as chemical weapon. And Saddam killed people of one village with firing of chem shells. Saddam should be stopped in any case and that job has been done well. I see that now in USA that price of Saddam’s elimination is too big. But this is another issue. For 140 millions population Russia losses in 4 thousand servicemen in case of a victory over enemy with such a military potential would recognize as allowable. Unlike 250 millions USA. As Russian lost 4000 people and 18 attack jets including one strategic bomber in 2008 during the war with much weaker Georgia.

bk78 · Post by **bk78** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:49 pm

WMD were no way the motivation for the second gulf war in 91. After that war iraq was forces to destroy his arsenal of chemial and biological weapons as well as his nuclear program.
WMD were, however, the official main reason promoted by the USA for the war in 2003, asides from the "fight against terrorism". The UN veto-powers russia, china and france didn't buy either of this, and we ("old europe") heard a lot of not-so-nice things subsequently. Looking back, we were absolutely right. Asides from a few things that were lost in the chaos of the previous war, no WMD were found at all.
The thesis that iraq was supporting al quaida was ridiculous in the first place. Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies, had completely different views, and as a tyrant, he would not allow another uncontrollable power spread inside his country.
More importantly, asides from his negative traits, Hussein was an intelligent man very considerate of his power. It is convincing that he could have been deterred to start the invasion of kuwait, had somebody wanted to.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/pub ... s_yes.html
That thesis that the sanctions against iraq were not so succesful is true in a very sad way: The lack of medicals and chlorine, needed for disinfection of drinking water, and malnutrition cost the lives of roughly half a million children.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:10 pm

bk78 wrote:The lack of medicals and chlorine, needed for disinfection of drinking water, and malnutrition cost the lives of roughly half a million children.

I do not think that they could not produce chlorine locally in case of intend. Instead of buying of rusty Russian tanks.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:46 pm

Ladajo have explained you already that WMD is not only nuclear. But also chem and bio. Even industrial gas "phosgen" (petrochemical gas) can be used as chemical weapon.

I am not stupid! But Saddam had none since the second golf war!

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:29 pm

bk78 wrote:Looking back, we were absolutely right. Asides from a few things that were lost in the chaos of the previous war, no WMD were found at all.

That's nonsense. The intel from every major power in Europe confirmed the intel that Iraq had WMD's. Europe was for the most part unwilling to do anything about this, but it is not true Nato thought there were no WMD's. Everyone agreed there must be, except a tiny handful of analysts in Langley who later shouted "I told you so".

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:09 pm

The intel from every major power in Europe confirmed the intel that Iraq had WMD's.

Really, I cant remember that. I can mostly remember claims by two intelligence agencies... none of them European...

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:15 pm

Skipjack wrote:
Ladajo have explained you already that WMD is not only nuclear. But also chem and bio. Even industrial gas "phosgen" (petrochemical gas) can be used as chemical weapon.
I am not stupid! But Saddam had none since the second golf war!

Nobody insulted you. Chemical weapon needs only several months for development if the country intends to have that. "Could not find" means nothing. As actually WMD it is only declared reason of the second war. And declared for voters who has got used to think very schematically. In fact as mentioned Saddam with chemical weapon killed only one villige of people while US with nuclear bombs killed two cities. Who from american voters thinks that his country is criminal? Saddam has been eliminated because he didn't suit top countries and not because WMD. But the governments talk with voters on clear for them language. And basically voters eat it meaning too that they are not stupid. Actually declared and real purposes can differ each other.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:48 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The intel from every major power in Europe confirmed the intel that Iraq had WMD's.
Really, I cant remember that. I can mostly remember claims by two intelligence agencies... none of them European...

Maybe you've forgotten that in 2001, Italian intelligence broke public the intel that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Nigeria, or that a dozen years earlier, Saddam had made a name for himself by using poison gas bombs on his own people? After 10 years of fighting with the UN inspectors and regularly violating more than 100 UN security council resolutions, most people were willing to presume Iraq'a guilt, despite whatever evidence might be to the contrary. All the world was poised ready to find Saddam guilty when 911 happened, and Bush 2 took that opportunity to correct what his father had come to agree was a mistake, to leave Saddam in power after the first Gulf War.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:03 pm

Maybe you've forgotten that in 2001, Italian intelligence broke public the intel that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Nigeria, or that a dozen years earlier, Saddam had made a name for himself by using poison gas bombs on his own people? After 10 years of fighting with the UN inspectors and regularly violating more than 100 UN security council resolutions, most people were willing to presume Iraq'a guilt, despite whatever evidence might be to the contrary. All the world was poised ready to find Saddam guilty when 911 happened, and Bush 2 took that opportunity to correct what his father had come to agree was a mistake, to leave Saddam in power after the first Gulf War.

I never disputed that. Now where are the WMDs?