This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections... - Page 2

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 20:03

IRAQ could produce nuclear weapons within months using pirated German equipment and uranium smuggled from Brazil, according to a dissident Iraqi nuclear scientist.
The revelations painting an alarming picture of President Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities came as the White House made its strongest link yet between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and demanded a United Nations resolution as soon as this week.

Dr Khidir Hamza, who was science adviser to the Atomic Energy Establishment and later helped to start and direct Iraq’s nuclear bomb programme before he defected in 1994, claims in an interview with The Times today that Saddam could be in a position to make three nuclear weapons within the next few months, if he has not already done so.

Dr Hamza gave warning that UN inspectors would be useless because even if they were given “unfettered access” they would find it far more difficult than before to detect the nuclear assembly line. “The beauty of the present system is that the units are each very small and in the four years since the inspectors left they will have been concealed underground or in basements or buildings that outwardly seem normal,” Dr Hamza said.

Dr Hamza gave evidence before Senator Joe Biden’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq in Washington last August but it was only after the recent International Institute for Strategic Studies report on the threat from Saddam that he became aware of the West’s imperfect understanding of the urgency of the situation.

Dr Hamza’s new estimation of the speed with which a nuclear bomb could be produced is centred on the number of pirated centrifuges that Baghdad has been able to produce and the rapidity with which the re-processing programme is being undertaken. The scientist’s intelligence suggests a more immediate threat than reported last week by the IISS, which concluded that Iraq could make a bomb only if it smuggled in the necessary uranium or radioactive material.

According to Dr Hamza, that material is already inside Iraq and is currently being processed to weapons grade. He said that Iraq was using a centrifuge method to get a bomb which is easier and quicker than other methods. “Unless he’s stopped soon, Saddam will have set up a whole nuclear bomb industry, not just have made a couple of bombs,” Dr Hamza said.

Lincoln · September 16, 2002, 20:04

Bush did not cause the economy to slow and he is not making China rise. He is however showing that he is a brilliant man by this chess game with Sadam. Sadam is in a corner now unless he thinks that Bush was bluffing and will not attack when he sneezes next time.

Spiffor · September 16, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Oh sorry. I thought that the world would give Bush the credit for averting this war. I guess that he just can't do anything right. Funny that now that Sadam has agreed to the inspections it will only take one UN resolution to allow immediate enforcement when he renigs again. Then it will be a UN supported war with the support of some neighboring arab states as well. Bush is brilliant.

Short story :

Bush (out of the blue) : "Saddam is evil. We have to kick his arse"
The world : "No, we should demand him to allow inspectors"
Bush : "erm. Okay, but if he refuses, we have to kick his arse"
Saddam : *accepts*
Lincoln : "We should thank Bush for averting this war"
Yep. Pretty much like thanking the bully in kindergarten for not attacking someone last friday

Lincoln · September 16, 2002, 20:06

This was the same stratagy that Clinton used in Haiti. Remember?

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 20:07

I just wish the drivel heads would stop slobbering and smell the coffee.

Saddam=bad
Saddam+nukes=the end of civilization as we know it.
Bush+Cheney+Rumsfeld+Rice=the last, best hope for peace, prosperity and continuation of the glorious American way

Jon Miller · September 16, 2002, 20:08

why didn't Cliton do this?

now we need some sort of deadline for complete compliance (during which time we can build up our troops)

Jon Miller

Lincoln · September 16, 2002, 20:09

This time next year Sadam will be history.

SlowwHand · September 16, 2002, 20:10

Man. I told people a year ago that if they thought THIS Bush was his dad, they were in for a rude awakening.
I told them a lot of things though, also ignored.
Live and learn, eh?

red_jon · September 16, 2002, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I just wish the drivel heads would stop slobbering and smell the coffee.

Saddam=bad
Saddam+nukes=the end of civilization as we know it.
Bush+Cheney+Rumsfeld+Rice=the last, best hope for peace, prosperity and continuation of the glorious American way

Yes, Saddam is capable of building ICBMs. Did you know he's using the blood of the legendary Airbourne Pig instead of uranium?

Lincoln · September 16, 2002, 20:12

People have no patience. Sadam has fallen into the trap and Bush will have UN support (as well as some mideast support) when he takes Sadam out.

Kirnwaffen · September 16, 2002, 20:12

Judging from the Whitehouse's sluggish response, I would have to guess that they were caught rather off guard by this development.

Oh, and weapons inspectors finding anything? Excuse me while I have a drink, it's going to be a rather long decade...

Spiffor · September 16, 2002, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I just wish the drivel heads would stop slobbering and smell the coffee.

Quote:

Saddam=bad

Agreed : he's a merciless dictaor who killed his own citizens, and uses the starvation in his country for his own ends. Everyone (and the Iraqis first) would be relieved if he lost power.

Quote:

Saddam+nukes=the end of civilization as we know it.

Didn't we say that with Stalin, who was a much worse assassin ?

I think it's absurd to jump to such conclusions : any dictator want power, and doesn't want to die in the process of destroying everything. We're not dealing with a mad scientist from a bad Disney's flick here.

Quote:

Bush+Cheney+Rumsfeld+Rice=the last, best hope for peace, prosperity and continuation of the glorious American way

Amen

I should talk about the glorious French way, or glorious Swedish way as the bright future of humanity, to see how American bigots react

Jon Miller · September 16, 2002, 20:13

I thought that all anybody talked abotu when the US announced it was leaving the ABM treaty was that countries didn't need ICBMs to nuke us

so are you know agreeing with our position on the ABM treaty?

Jon Miller

GePap · September 16, 2002, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
People have no patience. Sadam has fallen into the trap and Bush will have UN support (as well as some mideast support) when he takes Sadam out.

What a wonderfully blind statement!

Why did no one mention that the President of the Arab league was with the Iraqi ambassador when the letter was given? and why did no one mention the Saudi statement?

I have no doubt the Arab league pushed Iraq hard to give in in this manner, with the Saudi statement being a warning- but now the Iraqis get to stall and again make Bush look bad. THe man said a few days ago he was very skeptical that Iraq would comply- it just did. This takes some of the air out of the US and Britain, gives time to the Russians, french, Chinese and others to work on a more friendly resolution to iraq. Bush made headway cause he went on the side of the UN- now he has to stick to that, and now that Iraq has said yes, he has to step the rethoric back, or people will say: hey, you got what you want (iraqi complience with the UN) so back down, or it your intention otherwise?( as in regime change?) The Arab league will now jump on this and hail it as a victory, one that means no war! I mean, Iraq gave in, so how could Bush still want war!

If Bush has averted war, then Bush has lost, because war is exactly what this admin wanted. I mean, now the democrats can say: hey, wait for the UN debate and to see how Iraq behaves... no need to vote for war before the election recess., now, lets talk about the economy.

Bereta_Eder · September 16, 2002, 20:28

Let us all thank Lord and the EU for all the innocent children and women that have been temporarily saved from slaughter by the imperialistic american/british bombs.

*prays*

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 20:30

I nominate paiktis for weapons inspector.

Not that Saddam would take hostages or nothing.

Lincoln · September 16, 2002, 20:31

This isn't over yet. Bush will have his war on his terms not Sadams. When Sadam refuses access again to a particular site then Bush will attack and the forces will be ready and the UN will be behind it. And the war will be supported by Egypt and others.

SlowwHand · September 16, 2002, 20:32

Yeah. Now they can be gassed by their own leader.
That's better.

red_jon · September 16, 2002, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yeah. Now they can be gassed by their own leader.
That's better.

Problem is there are so many horrific regimes in power, if we were attacking them based on that we wouldn't know where to start. Some of them are allies too

SlowwHand · September 16, 2002, 20:37

Believe me, I'm all for culling names from the "Friends" list.

Spiffor · September 16, 2002, 20:40

Quote:

Problem is there are so many horrific regimes in power, if we were attacking them based on that we wouldn't know where to start. Some of them are allies too

You mean Kuwait isn't the great democracy respectful for women which deserves American friendship so much ?

GePap · September 16, 2002, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
This isn't over yet. Bush will have his war on his terms not Sadams. When Sadam refuses access again to a particular site then Bush will attack and the forces will be ready and the UN will be behind it. And the war will be supported by Egypt and others.

What you forget lincoln is the timetable Bush had...

Why did Bush want congress to approve a pro-war resolution by the end of october? Why were they demanding UN action in just weeks, not months? was it because they had breakin intelligence that Saddam was on the cusp of somehting? NO. its because Bush wanted war by January, which meant getting started now. But now, we have to wait months for the inspectors to get rolling (they have to be chosen, budgeted for, equiped, a leader found, so forth), and then they have to start- and once they are on the ground, even when they begin to complain, it woul then take months more to work out new resolutions about complaince, setting new deadlines in the future.

Why was Saddam able to get away wit things for 11 years- because most nations really dind't care that much about Iraq being fully compliant. Bush pushed hard this time and the admin put a lot of pressure, but now that they 'won' and got inspectors back in, the dynamic changes. States more accomodaing to Iraq now have the time to resist the US, and the reason (Iraq gave in). There is a reason Cheney said inspextor were not a solution. Also, all such talk about insectors being a first step becomes more difficult. The only complaint left for the US is that Iraq is being dictatorial- you get all 15 states in the Sec. Council to agree to war for that reason!

fat chance!

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 21:07

Oh s!it. Bush turned it down.

Ned · September 16, 2002, 21:09

GePap, I agree with your analysis that the Arabs forced Iraq's hand. However, the US will continue to pursue a tough UN resolution, along the lines, "You continue to fully cooperate to our satisfaction or else."

Undoubtedly, the US and the UK will want to have its own inspectors inside Iraq to assure itself of Iraqi compliance. Any gamesmanship by the great Iraqi leader may still lead to war.

Bush, primarily, and Blair deserve credit for this achievement.

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 21:11

Fats in the fire and the baby just flew out the window with the bathwater.

Jon Miller · September 16, 2002, 21:11

please explain

Jon Miller

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 21:13

Bush rejects Iraqs offer.

"This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions.

This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail.

It is time for the Security Council to act"

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 21:13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Sep16.html

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 21:14

Hardball.

Capt Dizle · September 16, 2002, 21:16

Now this in from the former SU:

Pyotr Simonenko, the leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party released a sensational statement on Wednesday. In his words, there were 2400 nuclear warheads in Ukraine, although the export of only 2200 of them was officially documented. Simonenko claimed that nobody knows where 200 Soviet-era nukes in Ukraine are.

The official reaction followed the next day, but it was a rather weak one. Deputy chief of the Ukrainian Army Headquarters, Nikolay Goncharenko, declared that Simonenko’s statement regarding the disappearance of the nuclear weapons from the territory of Ukraine was absolutely groundless. The high-ranking military official stated that all weapons of the trilateral agreement concerning the execution of the contract for strategic offensive arms had been handed over to Russia. Ok, but how come the leader of Ukrainian communists counted 200 nukes? It seems that the nuke scandal will continue.