Blix refutes Bush's claims about Iraq

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
Sorry HP. Got you and Charrison mixed up.

Do either of you agree with exp that SoS Powell's visit to the UN next week isn't to try to convince the rest of the UN that an attack is justified?

That is the purpose. But it will not matter if the UN is convinced or not, the right thing will be done.

Why do we have to convince the UN if the UN is already convinced? According to you, they already gave their nod of approval, right? Do we need a second nod, just for good measure?

The left thinks we do. WE currently have 20+ countries ready to lend some sort of assistance in doing the right thing. Granted since germany and france disapprove, we are wrong. The left would also like the easter bunny and santa clause to approve as well.

So your answer would be that the visit next week to disclose top secret information, and in doing so, according to top officials, will jeapordize our capabilities, is just to satisfy the Left...has nothing to do with trying to convince the UN. Is that right? It's hard to tell, you don't seem to want to answer the question with a straightforward reply. Instead I get a bunch of bullsh!t about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Any information that would harm a source should be protected and only shown to our closest and most trusted allies. Powell will probably show as much as he can, since we do have people in Iraq. I hope it is enough to convince the UN. I hope it is enough to convince Iraq he is fooling no one.


I would much rather this be solved without a war being involved, but if force is needed so be it. Iraq has had 17 chances to come clean/

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Heres a good link etech

TONY BLAIR: Saddam has bought or attempted to buy specialized vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centrifuge cascade to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production line of the specification for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual-use products such as anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and fluoride gas, which can be used both in petrochemicals, but also in gas centrifuge cascades; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fiber gas centrifuge rotors; and has attempted, covertly, to acquire 60,000 or more specialized aluminum tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges. In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Text

Actually the fact that Blair has sent 1/3 of the British troop to the gulf, against the will of the general population and his party shows that Blair has no doubts of the evidence.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Wag, it's not just the loonies that are in doubt. Lots of real serious people are not buying in to the program. It stinks and anybody with something ohter than a goose step nose can smell it.

sniff sniff, What is that I smell? WMD? And a hint of clown makeup?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Heres a good link etech

TONY BLAIR: Saddam has bought or attempted to buy specialized vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centrifuge cascade to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production line of the specification for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual-use products such as anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and fluoride gas, which can be used both in petrochemicals, but also in gas centrifuge cascades; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fiber gas centrifuge rotors; and has attempted, covertly, to acquire 60,000 or more specialized aluminum tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges. In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Text

Actually the fact that Blair has sent 1/3 of the British troop to the gulf, against the will of the general population and his party shows that Blair has no doubts of the evidence.

No, "US foreign minister Blair" has no doubt but his people do as does his own party. Let's see how long he lasts.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl Heres a good link etech TONY BLAIR: Saddam has bought or attempted to buy specialized vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centrifuge cascade to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production line of the specification for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual-use products such as anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and fluoride gas, which can be used both in petrochemicals, but also in gas centrifuge cascades; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fiber gas centrifuge rotors; and has attempted, covertly, to acquire 60,000 or more specialized aluminum tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges. In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Text

Actually the fact that Blair has sent 1/3 of the British troop to the gulf, against the will of the general population and his party shows that Blair has no doubts of the evidence.

Thats not what some people believe.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl Heres a good link etech TONY BLAIR: Saddam has bought or attempted to buy specialized vacuum pumps of the design needed for the gas centrifuge cascade to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production line of the specification for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual-use products such as anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and fluoride gas, which can be used both in petrochemicals, but also in gas centrifuge cascades; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fiber gas centrifuge rotors; and has attempted, covertly, to acquire 60,000 or more specialized aluminum tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges. In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Text

Actually the fact that Blair has sent 1/3 of the British troop to the gulf, against the will of the general population and his party shows that Blair has no doubts of the evidence.

Thats not what <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2711623.stm" target=blank>some people </A>believe.

That is one of 2 options. If we invade iraq and nothing is found, yes he is a poodle and he will be gone. I think he quite aware of this.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Anything which requires you separte heavy from light any matrix solution. I've used them since about 92' form separating soils to sparating Flouro compounds. Use your imagination.

The tubes in question were of a special aluminum alloy that is not needed for the uses you indicate.

Link?
It does'nt? Because of the velocities, corrosiveness and radioactivity of the matrix we used anything would be destroyed very quickly. do a search for Dual use. Every site you'll find recognises these tubes have dual-use.
I pointed one out where even blair incdicted that fact.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Anything which requires you separte heavy from light any matrix solution. I've used them since about 92' form separating soils to sparating Flouro compounds. Use your imagination.

The tubes in question were of a special aluminum alloy that is not needed for the uses you indicate.

Link?
It does'nt? Because of the velocities, corrosiveness and radioactivity of the matrix we used anything would be destroyed very quickly. do a search for Dual use. Every site you'll find recognises these tubes have dual-use.
I pointed one out where even blair incdicted that fact.

I agree the tubes by themselves are not damning evidence of a nuke program. But this added in with no scientist interviews becomes damning.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Anything which requires you separte heavy from light any matrix solution. I've used them since about 92' form separating soils to sparating Flouro compounds. Use your imagination.

The tubes in question were of a special aluminum alloy that is not needed for the uses you indicate.

Link?
It does'nt? Because of the velocities, corrosiveness and radioactivity of the matrix we used anything would be destroyed very quickly. do a search for Dual use. Every site you'll find recognises these tubes have dual-use.
I pointed one out where even blair incdicted that fact.

I agree the tubes by themselves are not damning evidence of a nuke program. But this added in with no scientist interviews becomes damning.

Well yes. As I've always said we are 12 years late. Need to go now and finish the job and stop everything saddam is doing. Killing his people, developing whatever, threating his neighbors etc etc etc... I do loose intrest though when Bush etal makes this into a threat and fear proposition with WMD to sell it and mislead the public. Grow some balls Reagan would have been there the first time and much sooner.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Anything which requires you separte heavy from light any matrix solution. I've used them since about 92' form separating soils to sparating Flouro compounds. Use your imagination.

The tubes in question were of a special aluminum alloy that is not needed for the uses you indicate.

Link?
It does'nt? Because of the velocities, corrosiveness and radioactivity of the matrix we used anything would be destroyed very quickly. do a search for Dual use. Every site you'll find recognises these tubes have dual-use.
I pointed one out where even blair incdicted that fact.

I've never had to work with HF and am not acquainted with what materials are necessary. Evey site I have seen uses the phrase "specialized aluminum tubes", I assume that to mean a special alloy.

A question that all of this raised. The tubes were a banned item. Why would Iraq go to so much trouble to get them if not for an illicit purpose?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Anything which requires you separte heavy from light any matrix solution. I've used them since about 92' form separating soils to sparating Flouro compounds. Use your imagination.

The tubes in question were of a special aluminum alloy that is not needed for the uses you indicate.

Link?
It does'nt? Because of the velocities, corrosiveness and radioactivity of the matrix we used anything would be destroyed very quickly. do a search for Dual use. Every site you'll find recognises these tubes have dual-use.
I pointed one out where even blair incdicted that fact.

I agree the tubes by themselves are not damning evidence of a nuke program. But this added in with no scientist interviews becomes damning.

Well yes. As I've always said we are 12 years late. Need to go now and finish the job and stop everything saddam is doing. Killing his people, developing whatever, threating his neighbors etc etc etc... I do loose intrest though when Bush etal makes this into a threat and fear proposition with WMD to sell it and mislead the public. Grow some balls Reagan would have been there the first time and much sooner.

I agree, but I also think we used the UN while getting our forces built up. And for what it is worth, the military is requesting another 2000 troops, a few b-52/b-1 bombers fot stationing in South Korea.

 

[dawks]

1) Moonbeam is the only one on these forums that seems to actually understand the situation. wuvu Moonie.

2) I am so very glad your not in charge charrison, this world would be nothing more then a nuclear wasteland if you were calling the shots.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have no special knowlege of what is going on there. IMO, the most likely use for these is for shells.

Iraq is a simple problem confounded by complicated solutions.

 

[darren]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole
Lying about having nuclear weapon potential to try and justify an avoidable war is alot different than lying about getting a bj in the oval office. Its unbelievable to me that we have this type of leader right now.

HOw are you so certain it is a lie?

its a lie until proven true, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

its a lie until proven true, right?
----------------------

Was it said by a politition? That ought to give you a clue. Ask yourself, can Bush win on the real issues?

 

[UltraQuiet]

1) Moonbeam is the only one on these forums that seems to actually understand the situation. wuvu Moonie.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm sorry. That was the funniest thing I'd heard or read since I looked at my W-2 a few days ago. Just as sad, too.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If we had evidence we wouldn't be making it up. Anyway the idea is to find pallatable reason to mass kill the Iraqis because we want to take over their country not because we worry about WMD. That's just the pretext.

<roll>

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
Sorry HP. Got you and Charrison mixed up.

Do either of you agree with exp that SoS Powell's visit to the UN next week isn't to try to convince the rest of the UN that an attack is justified?

That is the purpose. But it will not matter if the UN is convinced or not, the right thing will be done.

Why do we have to convince the UN if the UN is already convinced? According to you, they already gave their nod of approval, right? Do we need a second nod, just for good measure?

The left thinks we do. WE currently have 20+ countries ready to lend some sort of assistance in doing the right thing. Granted since germany and france disapprove, we are wrong. The left would also like the easter bunny and santa clause to approve as well.

So your answer would be that the visit next week to disclose top secret information, and in doing so, according to top officials, will jeapordize our capabilities, is just to satisfy the Left...has nothing to do with trying to convince the UN. Is that right? It's hard to tell, you don't seem to want to answer the question with a straightforward reply. Instead I get a bunch of bullsh!t about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Any information that would harm a source should be protected and only shown to our closest and most trusted allies. Powell will probably show as much as he can, since we do have people in Iraq. I hope it is enough to convince the UN. I hope it is enough to convince Iraq he is fooling no one.


I would much rather this be solved without a war being involved, but if force is needed so be it. Iraq has had 17 chances to come clean/

????? I thought according to you they were already convinced?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
Sorry HP. Got you and Charrison mixed up.

Do either of you agree with exp that SoS Powell's visit to the UN next week isn't to try to convince the rest of the UN that an attack is justified?

That is the purpose. But it will not matter if the UN is convinced or not, the right thing will be done.

Why do we have to convince the UN if the UN is already convinced? According to you, they already gave their nod of approval, right? Do we need a second nod, just for good measure?

The left thinks we do. WE currently have 20+ countries ready to lend some sort of assistance in doing the right thing. Granted since germany and france disapprove, we are wrong. The left would also like the easter bunny and santa clause to approve as well.

So your answer would be that the visit next week to disclose top secret information, and in doing so, according to top officials, will jeapordize our capabilities, is just to satisfy the Left...has nothing to do with trying to convince the UN. Is that right? It's hard to tell, you don't seem to want to answer the question with a straightforward reply. Instead I get a bunch of bullsh!t about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Any information that would harm a source should be protected and only shown to our closest and most trusted allies. Powell will probably show as much as he can, since we do have people in Iraq. I hope it is enough to convince the UN. I hope it is enough to convince Iraq he is fooling no one.


I would much rather this be solved without a war being involved, but if force is needed so be it. Iraq has had 17 chances to come clean/

????? I thought according to you they were already convinced?

I never said that, but resolution allows for severe consequences. France, Germany,China would like another resolution so they can veto it and protect their interests. We dont need another resolution, but we will try to get one to appease the world community.

 

[Gaard]

I see. So, according to you, they have already given their approval to use force but they aren't yet convinced force is necessary. Am I understanding you correctly? First you say we have UN approval...then you say they aren't yet convinced. Please explain. Or better yet, feel free to say that you may have been mistaken when you stated that we already have UN approval to attack. Your choice.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I see. So, according to you, they have already given their approval to use force but they aren't yet convinced force is necessary. Am I understanding you correctly? First you say we have UN approval...then you say they aren't yet convinced. Please explain. Or better yet, feel free to say that you may have been mistaken when you stated that we already have UN approval to attack. Your choice.

UN resolution allows for severe consequences. Powell wrote that phrase, which means force if needed and he was quoted as saying this the other day. A few members of the UN security council think that severe consequences means we are not going to Saddam for ice cream after the inspections are over. There is no disconnect in my logic.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
I see. So, according to you, they have already given their approval to use force but they aren't yet convinced force is necessary. Am I understanding you correctly? First you say we have UN approval...then you say they aren't yet convinced. Please explain. Or better yet, feel free to say that you may have been mistaken when you stated that we already have UN approval to attack. Your choice.

UN resolution allows for severe consequences. Powell wrote that phrase, which means force if needed and he was quoted as saying this the other day. A few members of the UN security council think that severe consequences means we are not going to Saddam for ice cream after the inspections are over. There is no disconnect in my logic.

Gotcha. So your stance is that we have UN approval. And Powell's visit next week is to address the Left and the countries who haven't given a thumb's up yet, not to convince the UN to give us an 'ok'. A vote by the UNSC isn't needed because, according to 1441 (and you), a nod has been given. That's where you stand, correct?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
I see. So, according to you, they have already given their approval to use force but they aren't yet convinced force is necessary. Am I understanding you correctly? First you say we have UN approval...then you say they aren't yet convinced. Please explain. Or better yet, feel free to say that you may have been mistaken when you stated that we already have UN approval to attack. Your choice.

UN resolution allows for severe consequences. Powell wrote that phrase, which means force if needed and he was quoted as saying this the other day. A few members of the UN security council think that severe consequences means we are not going to Saddam for ice cream after the inspections are over. There is no disconnect in my logic.

Gotcha. So your stance is that we have UN approval. And Powell's visit next week is to address the Left and the countries who haven't given a thumb's up yet, not to convince the UN to give us an 'ok'. A vote by the UNSC isn't needed because, according to 1441 (and you), a nod has been given. That's where you stand, correct?

That is where is stand, plus add in the other 17 resolution, the cease fire agreement and congressional approval. We have more approval than we need at this point.

 

[Gaard]

Ok. I'm sure we'll be talking again in the future. 😉

out

 

[StageLeft]

The US needs to make publically aware this information. Though that may compromise some of their intelligence gathering methods as it stands now the US has such limited support for military disarmament that I think it's a necessity if they want to go ahead with it.

And if they don't have this intelligence that they frequently refer to (including Iraq having ties with terrorism - something the CIA doesn't even have) - well then I'm going to believe what Blix says quite frankly.