Iraq Scientists: Lied About Nuke Weapons

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Once again you impress me by mouthing off when you weren't being addressed, MrFun.
Speak when spoken to.

Gee -- I thought one of the risks in a PUBLIC forum is that you will get responses from whatever PUBLIC post you created in a PUBLIC thread, regardless if it was intended for one specific person.

[Q Classic]

hush. you're a liberal, therefore you obviously must not have anything intelligent to contribute.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


KrazyHorse, Like you, when Sava is losing an argument, he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

wrong... I always resort to ad hom regardless of whether or not I win or lose... and since I never lose, how could you know?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
wrong... I always resort to ad hom regardless of whether or not I win or lose... and since I never lose, how could you know?

Sava, at least you're fun to "debate" with at times.

[Spiffor]

Ned:

I don't think we should overstate the importance of the lies from the Iraqi scientists; because Saddam probably had other sources of information than a few handpicked scientists, and because the Bush administration pretended to have a wide array of evidence, and the scientist witnesses were among other things: like satellite pictures of WMD sites, overheard conversation between military officers, and secret agents on site.

Had Bush only relied on these lying scientists to assess the Iraqi menace, he would have been fooled (and he would have been pretty damn irresponsible to start a war on so few clues anyway). Maybe Bush himself was fooled by the manipulated intelligence he got, but the intelligence purposefully manipulated facts to dramatically overestimate the Iraqi menace. If Bush himself didn't give orders for it, then it's someone else among the top-dogs.

As for Saddam, I cannot think he believed these lies in their entirety (like "we'll have nukes in a few months now, promise"). The scientists may have fooled both leaders into thinking the programme was viable in the long run though.

---

But I'm still holding to my prediction. At some point during the presidential campaign, preferably late, the traces of Saddam's WMD programme will be uncovered, and Rumsfeld / Wolfy will explain how OMGHORRIBLE-ENDOFTHEWORLDish these traces are.

[Ned]

Spiffor, I don't know where the Brit and American info on Saddam's nuke program came from. But if it was human intelligence from an anti-Saddam defector who was in on the lie, would he tell the world that his fellow Iraqi's were pulling the wool over Saddam's eyes? I doubt it.

So, I am somewhat left with the conclusion that the lie had to be effective both on Saddam and on the West, particularly because the CIA had no good human intelligence from inside Iraq to confirm anything (a legacy from the Church committee in the '70s).

As to what Bush knew, I am sure he made no independent analysis of the raw data. He was given assessments of the data by the CIA and by the Brit MI6. Those assessments, also shared with Gephardt and other members of Congress, indicated that Saddam did have a nuke program underway. This was one of the reasons that Bush asked for authority to go to war and was one of the reasons Congress, who also knew of the assessments, granted him that authority.

It is strange that some of these very same people who were aware of the intelligence are now accusing Bush of "lying" about Saddam's nuke program. But, the same judgments made by many their fellow Democrats who voted for the war, including several Democrat presidential candidates and Hillary Clinton.

All were lying, or none were, on this issue.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Neither Iran nor North Korea have 300-400 nuclear war heads. The CIA estimates, based upon the amount of spent fuel rods the North Koreas have availible for reprocessing, that NK has 3-5 war heads. Iran most likely doesn't have any yet but they've been trying awefully hard.

Nukes are much easier to track then Biological weapons so this data should be much better then the Iraq data. Also do you mean that most nations have the ability to produce chemical weapons? That is true but it is slightly different then actually having chemical weapons.

Iran have like Pakistan have nuclear weapon since 1987 and nobody notice Iran nuclear weapon program. They lost the Iraq-Iran war which they would have won it they use they Nuclear Bomb of which they have six. What they undercover so far is only 1% of the entire Nuclear Weapon Program of Iran. They have underground Fast Breeder Reactor to turn U-238 into Plutium 239. North Korean have
built alot of underground Uranium enrichment plants alone
with underground nuclear powerplant and fast breeder reactor.

[Ned]

Charles, where do you get your information on the Iranian nuclear program?

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Spiffor

As for Saddam, I cannot think he believed these lies in their entirety (like "we'll have nukes in a few months now, promise"). The scientists may have fooled both leaders into thinking the programme was viable in the long run though.

It should be remembered that in the past Iraq has possessed and used WMD and did at one time have a viable nuclear program - enough of one to cause Israel to launch a preemptive strike back in 1981. I believe Iran bombed Iraq's nuclear reactors too during the Iran-Iraq war. Clearly there has been enough proof in the past.

As to what Saddam believed, who can tell? Supposedly Heisenberg lied to Hitler about Germany's nuclear program and got away with it for years.

Noone seems to be arguing the point that these scientists may just be lying. I'm sure working for Saddam on a secret nuclear program is not something you can just be so glib about. I'm sure at some point the message was made clear: "Tell anyone, and we'll kill you and your family."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, where do you get your information on the Iranian nuclear program?

www.thenationalenquirer.com

[MrFun]

@ KH

[Boris Godunov]

I find it rather amusing that the only person telling the truth about Iraqi nuclear weapons seems to have been Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

[KrazyHorse]

Which guy's that? Can't keep names straight when all of the first names are Mohammed...

[Hueij]

Come on KH. The Information Minister!

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


www.thenationalenquirer.com

First the technology knowhow to built nuclear weapon is petty common knowlege now. Builting than fast bleeder reactor now is common knowlege to. You only need 10 kilogram of Plutoium 239 to make than nuclear bomb. You donot need than big bleeder reactor to do this just alots of smaller one that make 5 kilogram of Pu-239 ayear. It you start with slighly more pure U-238 as the fuel you can end up
after 1 year with weapon grade Pu-239 which you donot need to put thought any procudeing at all. The advantage of smaller fast bleeder reactor are they are harder to detect as less Kr gases are release or you can collect those gases than
storage then unit they short half life decay then into something also..

Pakistian have more powerful nuclear bombs than the one they tested in 1998 to show India and the world they have nuclear weapon also. The one they test where shedules to be taken apart to make more powerful weapon.

I have study science and used common sense to figure this out plus my intellegence department is small compare to the CIA and Russian intelligence service.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
You donot need than big bleeder reactor to do this just alots of smaller one that make 5 kilogram of Pu-239 ayear.

"Only" 5 kgs a year? While we're in this fantasy land, why don't you just tell us how Iran has managed to pilfer the entire US nuke stockpile...

I have study science and used common sense to figure this out plus my intellegence department is small compare to the CIA and Russian intelligence service.

You have study science and reached a damn odd conclusion. Where do you get your numbers from? How did you estimate capabilities? What's your methodology? Where are your sources for raw data?