• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

UN: Iraqi Nuclear-Related Materials Have Vanished

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: Reuters

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

While some military goods that disappeared from Iraq after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, including missile engines, later turned up in scrap yards in the Middle East and Europe, none of the equipment or material known to the IAEA as potentially useful in making nuclear bombs has turned up yet, ElBaradei said.
Interesting. No weapons of mass destruction eh?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Your an idiot, this report proves that the handling of Iraq was poor by the Bush administration. It says "COULD" and "potentially" been used for weapons. The Duelfer Report that came out successfully concluded after YEARS of research that Iraq DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your an idiot, this report proves that the handling of Iraq was poor by the Bush administration.
Using that logic, purhaps we are all idiots. I voted for 2 senators and a congressman that all voted for the resolution to go to war. With the same intelligence that Bush had.

Many nations believed there were indeed WMD as well. The intelligence was the same for practically all the nations that voted for action in the UN.

How soon some of us forget that President Bush was not the soul actor in this endeavor.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
No no, first off all congress voted on INCREASED DIPLOMACY in Iraq, and gave the president the right IF HE DEEMED NECESSARY to go to war. It WAS Bush's final decision to go to war.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: White House

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif][font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
(key word underlined above)

[/font]
[/font] Here is the authority to pursue the Iraq Liberation Act.

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
[/font]



[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act ( Public Law 105-330 ) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Iraq Liberation Act was under Clintons watch.

If you believe for one second that this act was about DIPLOMACY (based on name alone), then I don't know what to tell yah. Nothing said or done would change your mind to the facts.


[/font]
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
I agree, force was authorized to be used. But the decision was the president's to go into Iraq and officially start the war.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
vauge said:
Source: Reuters

Interesting. No weapons of mass destruction eh?

Maybe not. Maybe this junk was never there either.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/26/iraq/main651379.shtml


To think that it is an absolute impossibility that a Sadam regime couldnt afford the resources to move a couple of mid yield weapons across a friendly border or two seems slightly naive. Wasn't Syria where the Ba'ath party originated?


"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."


In any case WMD wasn't why I supported the US decision to go to Iraq. I just wanted their oil.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Weren't those the same explosives found by weapons inspectors that went missing? That there is CLEAR VIDEO EVIDENCE of the seals from the IAEA that the bunkers with them weren't tampered with, then they go missing? The same explosives that are being used against our troops? Thanks for making my argument stronger against Bush.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Source: Reuters

Interesting. No weapons of mass destruction eh?
These explosives that went missing ARE NOT WMD's They are conventional explosives that compiled with a whole bunch of other stuff like the "yellow cake" that Bush and his people claimed Saddam was buying Nigar combined together would make WMD's. But these are not WMD's. They are, however, most undoubtly being using at this very moment to blow the living crap out of some of our fine young men and woman.

I know you WANT to prove Bush right here, just like the left WANTED to prove Gore won the 2000 election. You can want all you want, you can spin you heart out- it ain't gonna make it so. Sorry.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
akyron said:
In any case WMD wasn't why I supported the US decision to go to Iraq. I just wanted their oil.
Well at least someone's finally honest about their reasons for going to war. One down, eh 59 million to go. Freedom's on the march.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Source: White House

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif][font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
(key word underlined above)

[/font]
[/font]Here is the authority to pursue the Iraq Liberation Act.






Iraq Liberation Act was under Clintons watch.

If you believe for one second that this act was about DIPLOMACY (based on name alone), then I don't know what to tell yah. Nothing said or done would change your mind to the facts.


[/font]
First off what does the act that was enacted under Clinton really have to do with what congress and Bush did concerning the Iraq war in Oct. 2002? Congress on 10-11-2002 passed a resolution 77-23 giving the President authorization to "attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." Kinda hard to give up what ya ain't got, but? Anyway, goes on to state- "The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed." Also "Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

"http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Iraq Liberation Act proved our position on ousting Saddam. Which was under Clinton. Bush, enacted upon it the authorization to go kick some ass.

In short, this is not Bush's unique idea.

Bush went to finish the job that Clinton started.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
The Iraq Liberation Act proved our position on ousting Saddam. Which was under Clinton. Bush, enacted upon it the authorization to go kick some ass.

In short, this is not Bush's unique idea.

Bush went to finish the job that Clinton started.
So, you content that Clinton was going to invade Iraq- he just never got around to it?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
The Iraq Liberation Act proved our position on ousting Saddam. Which was under Clinton. Bush, enacted upon it the authorization to go kick some ass.

In short, this is not Bush's unique idea.

Bush went to finish the job that Clinton started.
Have you read this "Iraq Liberation Act"? This proves your point does it? I just went and read it. I'm begining to suspect that you've been listening to way too much talk radio. Have Rush, O'Rielly and Hannity all simultaneously invaded an orifice of your body and taken over your brain?

This has nothing to do with the Authorization Bush did legally use to invade Iraq. That resolution, as I've noted, was pass on 10-12-2002 and has nothing to do with this, which was pass on Halloween 1998. The two don't have really anything to do with each other. One authorizes a President to go to war the other "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Not quite an "authorization to go kick some ass" as you put it.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Iraq Liberation Act established our position on removing Saddam from power. It does not provide a request to use force. It mandates a position to remove Saddam from power and gives authority to "pursue" a course of action. The Clinton administration only flew over and dropped a couple of bombs.

The Iraq Liberation Act was then acted upon as a requirement for the "W" plan to request force in 2002.

Bush's administration requested the use of force on TOP of the Liberation act.

Yes, I have read it.
Iraq Liberation Act

These two acts are not completely independant.

Definition - action taken.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
The Iraq Liberation Act established our position on removing Saddam from power. It does not provide a request to use force. It mandates a position to remove Saddam from power and gives authority to "pursue" a course of action. The Clinton administration only flew over and dropped a couple of bombs.

The Iraq Liberation Act was then acted upon as a requirement for the "W" plan to request force in 2002.

Bush's administration requested the use of force on TOP of the Liberation act.

Yes, I have read it.
Iraq Liberation Act

These two acts are not completely independant.

Definition - action taken.
Yes it gives "the gives authority to "pursue" a course of action" just like we had and continue to have many other such resolutions that created such things as "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" and other actions to support the advancment of democracy in communist countries and dictatorships around the goble. None of those give the authority to invade any sovereign nations either, just like this didn't. But I appuald you and the right for coming up with the spin. I'm sure the Bush people will be pushing it shortly on legit. news sources as soon as they "rally the base" around it. Great spin well done:applaud

By the way H.W. Bush and his Admin. voted agaisnt holding Saddam accountable for the use of WMD's upon his on people when the UN tried to do so in 1986: During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
http://www.ottawamuslim.net/US%20vetoes.htm

The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
(looking for a "spin" smilie - attempted to make one a few minutes ago, but it was very ugly)

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338 ) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
[/font]Are you saying that Iraq Liberation Act was never considered in any shape or form?
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
[/font]By the way H.W. Bush and his Admin. voted agaisnt holding Saddam accountable for the use of WMD's upon his on people when the UN tried to do so in 1986:
Did not know that... thank you.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
(looking for a "spin" smilie - attempted to make one a few minutes ago, but it was very ugly)

[/font]Are you saying that Iraq Liberation Act was never considered in any shape or form?
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
Did not know that... thank you
.
I'm not saying it wasn't considered. I'm just saying that pointing to it and saying it proves your point that invading Iraq was the right thing to do is complete spin. But I have no doubt there's a ton of people out there that will be happy to buy that sale.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ah, I still believe it was the right thing to do.

What I was refering to is that it was not "W"'s sole idea or agenda it was already law that we would remove Saddam from power. Clinton only dropped a few bombs on Iraq. Bush, on the other hand, thought that there was WMD (as did the world) and because of that he had a reason to besiege the power to complete the task of turning Iraq into a democracy. The diplomacy route was failing and evidence was mounting that he was a threat.

I think that if Bush knew what he does today - it would not have happened when it did. But, the removal of Saddam was inevitable - regardless of timing.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
I think that if Bush knew what he does today - it would not have happened when it did. But, the removal of Saddam was inevitable - regardless of timing.
Maybe. But I sure wish they would have at least, at least, at a minimum, finished the job of going and getting bin Laden. 10,000 troops committed to get bin Laden and 100,000 plus to nab Saddam. I didn't like those numbers then, and I surely don't like them now, after reading the 9-11 report.

After 9-11 Bush promised me and the rest of the American people he was going to "Get him dead or alive- going to smoke him out, whatever it takes" he said that on November 20th, 2001. Then on March 13th, 2002 he said "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." Then on October 1st, 2004 during the debates he said "I never said I don't spend time thinking about him, never said I wasn't concerned about him."
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bush was going to invade Iraq for it's oil and because he couldn't find Bin Laden. He needed a vent to change the soon to be anger at his incompetence when he realized that if I say Iraq has WMD's then America will believe him. He also couldn't resist on going on another Crusade and persucute Muslims.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Hmm...a little brash there.

There are too many possible reasons for why he went into Iraq. Both can swing whichever way you please. I think it was a diversion from Bin Laden. And the oppurtunity to "fix" what his daddy didn't do. That's about it. Not sure if it had anything to do with oil or crusades.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I can see your point. But lets look at what he's doing in the U.S. Since the economy is in a slump the oil would revive it a bit. Also, he is already ignoring seperation of church and state in the U.S. so what is stopping him from spreading his religious influence throughout the world.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Bush is just a puppet anyway. He doesn't actually run anything.
 

freedom69714

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
211
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi Vauge ( Don't get me wrong I like you but you are all WET about this one)

If you believe this U.N storie I have several bridges for sale !.

Please!!!!!!. How could all this evedance disapaire ( check spelling ) LOOK HERE ARE THE FACTS WE HAVE QUESTIONED HUNDREDS OF TOP EX-LEADERS OF SADAM and came up with very little real infomation WHY IS THAT???????

Please remember what that true american hero SCOTT RITTER said THEIR ARE NO WMD'S in IRQA and he should know because he lead the united nations in 1993-96 to get rid of them "" AND THAT'S A FACT " .

And that was after he served his country in the US MARINES !!! . So what did they do they BLACKED BALLED BY SAYING HE RAPED A YOUNG GIRL and that was proven to be a lie!!

Yours Truly
PRS @ prsaia1@aol.com
 
Top Bottom