“The Iraqi Cabinet agreed Tuesday to ask the United Nations to extend the authorization for US-led forces in Iraq through the end of next year, but it will be the last time, officials said.”
Going by this, I would say US involvement will change drastically by the end of next year.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey, jackass, I’ve long since directly answered your commentary about the uranium.
Don’t believe me? Look up my posts.
I never said he could produce a wide array of nuclear weaponery from the amount he was purported to have.
I DID SAY that he was obviously trying to acquire enough to make weapons and there was a high probability he’d use them.[/quote]
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1406738&pageNo=8
You said:
[i]"Here is a breakdown of what Iraq imported:
http://www.iaea.org/...nTeam/nwp2.html
NOTICE 50 KG OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM FROM RUSSIA AND FRANCE.
In short, they had highly enriched uranium that can make a variety of nuclear weaponery."[/i]
Direct quote. I note you still can’t spell “weaponry” correctly.
I underlined the relevant bits so you wouldn’t miss them.
You might want to go dowse your pants, they appear to be on fire.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, jackass, I’ve long since directly answered your commentary about the uranium.
Don’t believe me? Look up my posts.
I never said he could produce a wide array of nuclear weaponery from the amount he was purported to have.
I DID SAY that he was obviously trying to acquire enough to make weapons and there was a high probability he’d use them.
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1406738&pageNo=8
You said:
[i]"Here is a breakdown of what Iraq imported:
http://www.iaea.org/...nTeam/nwp2.html
NOTICE 50 KG OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM FROM RUSSIA AND FRANCE.
In short, they had highly enriched uranium that can make a variety of nuclear weaponery."[/i]
Direct quote. I note you still can’t spell “weaponry” correctly.
I underlined the relevant bits so you wouldn’t miss them.
You might want to go dowse your pants, they appear to be on fire.
[/quote]
pookie,
Ok, jackass. We are arguing semantics over a “wide variety” versus some nuclear weapons.
Ok, It takes 50 kg of enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon on the scale of Hiroshima.
SO IF IRAQ HAD 50 KG OF ENRICHED URANIUM THEY COULD MAKE A SINGLE HIROSHIMA BOMB. They couldn’t make a wide variety of weaponry.
Ok, pal? Are we clear?
The point, is that the guy was actively trying to acquire weapons grade uranium. He was likely to use it if not directly, then through surrogates.
Now, do you care to return to the topic at hand?
If not, please keep pointing out spelling issues. It is proof positive that you are losing big.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
SO IF IRAQ HAD 50 KG OF ENRICHED URANIUM THEY COULD MAKE A SINGLE HIROSHIMA BOMB. They couldn’t make a wide variety of weaponry.[/quote]
Assuming they managed to get the first one working without ever running any tests, sure. I hear Middle Eastern technology is really advanced. I mean, just look at all the Arab cars, Arab planes, Persian computers, etc.
I dunno. I think I’ll repost the whole thing a few dozen times just to annoy the hell out of you.
[quote]The point, is that the guy was actively trying to acquire weapons grade uranium. He was likely to use it if not directly, then through surrogates.
Now, do you care to return to the topic at hand?[/quote]
Your story about Evil Saddam and Good King Jordan? Not really.
Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Newkular weaponeries are a complex topic.
…Says the guy with the burnt, smoldering pants.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
SO IF IRAQ HAD 50 KG OF ENRICHED URANIUM THEY COULD MAKE A SINGLE HIROSHIMA BOMB. They couldn’t make a wide variety of weaponry.
Assuming they managed to get the first one working without ever running any tests, sure. I hear Middle Eastern technology is really advanced. I mean, just look at all the Arab cars, Arab planes, Persian computers, etc.
Ok, pal? Are we clear?
I dunno. I think I’ll repost the whole thing a few dozen times just to annoy the hell out of you.
The point, is that the guy was actively trying to acquire weapons grade uranium. He was likely to use it if not directly, then through surrogates.
Now, do you care to return to the topic at hand?
Your story about Evil Saddam and Good King Jordan? Not really.
If not, please keep pointing out spelling issues.
Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Newkular weaponeries are a complex topic.
It is proof positive that you are losing big.
…Says the guy with the burnt, smoldering pants.
[/quote]
pookie,
We could always start a new thread.
In it we could vote yes or no.
I’ll post King Abdullah (in his own words) asking for al zarqawi and being refused by saddam.
Then I’d ask every poster this question: Does saddam’s refusal prove that he supported al qaeda in Iraq?
We could even have follow up questions like: Does anyone think al zarqawi was the ONLY al qaeda being supported by saddam?
Then I could post the less than 10% of the saddam tapes that have been translated. I’ll post the part where bin laden asked and received funding from saddam for anti-Saudi propaganda.
After that I’d ask the question again: Was saddam funding/sheltering al qaeda in Iraq?
I’ll bet you’d be surprised at what a minority you are in.
Oh, please stop fantasizing about my pants. It’s pretty strange.
Thanks.
JeffR
[quote]pookie wrote:
That violence is down in Iraq is great news. There’s been more than enough dying done by all sides.
The problem is that reducing violence was supposed to allow the government and the Iraq political process to get it’s act together and to actually start governing the country.
That doesn’t appear to have happened yet. Whether the US congress is able to pass laws or not is a moot point. Iraq needs to get its political house in order, pronto. A democracy doesn’t spontaneously operate by itself. It needs a whole supporting apparatus (legislative, executive, etc… you know the drill). Iraq appears to still be lacking large portions of those supporting institutions.
If Iraq does manage to establish a functioning government that remains stable after US stand down, then, yes, the surge will have worked and I’ll be quite happy to announce to the world that I was wrong about it being too little, too late. But that political process needs to happen very, very soon.
[/quote]
There has been some good news on the political front as well - though it’s been lost in the Iran headlines:
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/12/04/bush-bashing-is-fun/
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There has been some good news on the political front as well - though it’s been lost in the Iran headlines:
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/12/04/bush-bashing-is-fun/ [/quote]
Finally!
It’s about damn time they woke up and decided they might like to actually run their own country.
Let’s hope there’s ton of similar news before troops begin to draw down.
[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
There has been some good news on the political front as well - though it’s been lost in the Iran headlines:
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/12/04/bush-bashing-is-fun/
Finally!
It’s about damn time they woke up and decided they might like to actually run their own country.
Let’s hope there’s ton of similar news before troops begin to draw down.
[/quote]
Pookie, we disagree often, but I can’t claim that you’re unfair on this issue. I agree, let’s hope this is a real and sustainable start.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ll post King Abdullah (in his own words) asking for al zarqawi and being refused by saddam.
Then I’d ask every poster this question: Does saddam’s refusal prove that he supported al qaeda in Iraq?
[/quote]
I’ll address this one.
To get the answer you’re seeking from the highly qualified jury in this forum, you’d have to prove that Saddam had the ability to extradite Zarqawi. It is of course known now, yet rarely discussed, that Saddam’s regime was rotting from the inside out and hanging by a thread. That thread happened to be the dependency on the regime for sustenance as brought about by Clinton’s genocidal sanctions (off topic).
And you have yet to address the fact that Zarqawi choose to reside in a region where Saddam had no effective control and lived amongst people that wanted Saddam’s head on a plate.
Question: is there a single historical instance of a strong-arm dictator, who maintains power through the illusion of absolute strength and control, who has dared to say, “there are elements within my country that are beyond my control,” ?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pookie, we disagree often, but I can’t claim that you’re unfair on this issue. I agree, let’s hope this is a real and sustainable start.[/quote]
Why anyone would hope for Iraq to fail is a bit beyond me. The situation is what it is; whether you were for or against the invasion is of little importance. If the situation improves and Iraq does become a stable democratic ally in the region, then it’s good for everyone. Iraqis, Americans, Western Nations and even the world.
Personally, if I can tell my grand kids how the Middle East used to be a war torn region and have them say “Oh, you’re really old grandpa, there hasn’t been a war there in over 50 years!” I’ll die a very happy man.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Why anyone would hope for Iraq to fail is a bit beyond me. [/quote]
You haven’t been paying attention, have you? If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.
Some people around here believe that:
I am an agent of Al-Qaeda, and thus would like to see Iraq turned into the-other-Saudi-Arabia.
Europeans are jealous of America (they have smaller penises!) and would like nothing more than to see the US entangled in an everlasting war that bleeds it to death.
The anti-war crowd in the US are either unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers, suicidal maniacs who hate themselves, or politically motivated snakes who want Iraq to fail so they can poke fun of Bush and the GOP.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’ll post King Abdullah (in his own words) asking for al zarqawi and being refused by saddam.
Then I’d ask every poster this question: Does saddam’s refusal prove that he supported al qaeda in Iraq?
I’ll address this one.
To get the answer you’re seeking from the highly qualified jury in this forum, you’d have to prove that Saddam had the ability to extradite Zarqawi. It is of course known now, yet rarely discussed, that Saddam’s regime was rotting from the inside out and hanging by a thread. That thread happened to be the dependency on the regime for sustenance as brought about by Clinton’s genocidal sanctions (off topic).
And you have yet to address the fact that Zarqawi choose to reside in a region where Saddam had no effective control and lived amongst people that wanted Saddam’s head on a plate.
Question: is there a single historical instance of a strong-arm dictator, who maintains power through the illusion of absolute strength and control, who has dared to say, “there are elements within my country that are beyond my control,” ? [/quote]
jb,
I’m assuming this is a joke?
al zarqawi was treated at a hospital run by UDAY HUSSEIN.
saddam was asked several times by his ally (Abdullah) for extradition. You’ll see by my article that Abdullah claims he exerted “big efforts” to get him extradited.
You are new to the site, so I’ll cut you a break. If you enter the politics forum, bring it weak, you are going to get hurt.
Just a friendly piece of advice.
Welcome.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
Would that be the fabled and feared “Internet Weeny Super Annoyance Squad” who terrorizes it’s victims by boring them to death with stories of peace-loving muslims no one has ever actually seen?
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
Would that be the fabled and feared “Internet Weeny Super Annoyance Squad” who terrorizes it’s victims by boring them to death with stories of peace-loving muslims no one has ever actually seen? [/quote]
No, that’ll be the hyped international alliance of religious crazies who blow up innocent people indiscriminately along with themselves, oftentimes with rudimentary explosive devices.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
jb,
I’m assuming this is a joke?
al zarqawi was treated at a hospital run by UDAY HUSSEIN.
saddam was asked several times by his ally (Abdullah) for extradition. You’ll see by my article that Abdullah claims he exerted “big efforts” to get him extradited.
You are new to the site, so I’ll cut you a break. If you enter the politics forum, bring it weak, you are going to get hurt.
Just a friendly piece of advice.
Welcome.
JeffR
[/quote]
JeffR,
You must be the politics forum bully. Thanks for the warm welcome, but if you are the bully then consider me the forum schoolyard shooter.
Bring it weak? I’m going to get hurt? Not from the classical school of debate are you? Tank Abbott’s “Use Your Words” Summer Camp perhaps?
I read your posted article. I know the King asked for extradition, obviously at the request of the US as Jordan is essentially a client state. It’s possible that Saddam was just being his stupid, stubborn self. But why the shift in policy towards militant Islamic groups? What I did in my post was draw attention to Saddam’s declining power in his later years. His actions (or inactions) and rhetoric began to reflect an appeasement policy towards the rising radical Islamic factions inside Iraq. Extraditing Zarqawi may have provoked an uprising.
You have yet to address why Zarqawi choose to live in the Kurdish north if indeed Saddam was his protector and guardian angel.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
jb,
I’m assuming this is a joke?
al zarqawi was treated at a hospital run by UDAY HUSSEIN.
saddam was asked several times by his ally (Abdullah) for extradition. You’ll see by my article that Abdullah claims he exerted “big efforts” to get him extradited.
You are new to the site, so I’ll cut you a break. If you enter the politics forum, bring it weak, you are going to get hurt.
Just a friendly piece of advice.
Welcome.
JeffR
JeffR,
You must be the politics forum bully. Thanks for the warm welcome, but if you are the bully then consider me the forum schoolyard shooter.
Bring it weak? I’m going to get hurt? Not from the classical school of debate are you? Tank Abbott’s “Use Your Words” Summer Camp perhaps?
I read your posted article. I know the King asked for extradition, obviously at the request of the US as Jordan is essentially a client state. It’s possible that Saddam was just being his stupid, stubborn self. But why the shift in policy towards militant Islamic groups? What I did in my post was draw attention to Saddam’s declining power in his later years. His actions (or inactions) and rhetoric began to reflect an appeasement policy towards the rising radical Islamic factions inside Iraq. Extraditing Zarqawi may have provoked an uprising.
You have yet to address why Zarqawi choose to live in the Kurdish north if indeed Saddam was his protector and guardian angel. [/quote]
jb,
First, your “schoolyard shooter” comment is in bad taste.
Second, you make many assumptions that are pretty thin.
For instance, saddam and Jordan were traditionally very friendly.
I believe “intimate” was the word that was used.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iraq/jan-june07/jordan_05-16.html
What exactly would saddam gain from playing games with an “intimate” friend? Do you think he really feared that his “intimate” friend was going to invade?
Rubbish.
Second, if you run into al-zarqawi, please ask him why he moved from place to place so often.
Maybe a more telling question is why, when he was wounded fighting for al qaeda, was his first stop Baghdad?!?
Why check into uday hussein’s hospital?
Finally, you could ask him how many calls saddam’s “intimate” neighbor made for his release?
Did Abdullah call the hospital as Jordanian intelligence claimed they knew exactly where al-zarqawi was and gave the Iraqi government detailed reports on his movement.
Seems like friends look out for friends. Sounds like saddam was willing to piss off Abdullah in order to protect and support al qaeda in their war against the U.S.
You could make a compelling argument that this shows saddam’s priorities.
Finally, I believe al zarqawi was wanted by Jordanian officials for acts committed in Jordan.
I just don’t see the American connection.
Unless, of course, this is just you blowing smoke.
JeffR
Bush loses ground with military families
[i]By Faye Fiore, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 7, 2007
WASHINGTON – Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war’s fifth year.
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush’s job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.
And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.
“I don’t see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that’s why they signed up,” said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. “I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don’t think our president is even sensitive at all to what it’s like to have a child serving over there.”
Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin – particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict.[/i]
Those unpatriotic rascals…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Why do you feel compelled to comment on what is an American, domestic issue? This is none of your business.[/quote]
Domestic issue? It’s about the American troops in Iraq, you nimrod.
Repeat after me: Iraq is not part of the United States.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
jb,
First, your “schoolyard shooter” comment is in bad taste.
[/quote]
So forgive me. You know what the bible says about not forgiving people. It’s against it.
Jordanian people’s relationship with the Saddam regime is not in question. Saddam was the only thing standing in the way of a Shiite Iraq (Jordan is, of course, Sunni). I can’t take the time to write about the massive consequences of an independent Shiite Iraq on the entire landscape of geopolitics.
You are utterly confused. Not an invasion by Jordan. I didn’t say anything about invasion. I said “uprising”; meaning from within, from the militant factions that were gaining strength as Saddam’s wained. Given teetering state of his regime, it is unlikely that he could have withstood a substantial uprising. There is nothing “thin” about this.
You are obviously completely oblivious to the state of Iraq’s infrastructure, particularly its health services, after the decade of sanctions. During the time between the end of the 1st Gulf War and the current invasion/occupation the sanctions are estimated to have killed 500,000 children alone from starvation and disease. The first two directors of the “Oil for Food” program resigned stating that the imposed sanctions were “genocidal.” Baghdad was the only place where one could find an adequate hospital. Obviously, one run by Uday Hussein would get the lion’s share of resources. How many hospitals did Uday run? Just Curious.
So as you see, your second question is not more telling than your first question. I would appreciate it if you would comment on Zarqawi’s choice of residence. Furthermore, has al-Qaeda ever supported any other secularist dictators?
And this is where your argument falls apart entirely. When you post news articles in support of your Iraq related arguments they should 1) Not be book reports carried out by internet reporters based state-side. 2) not contain information that blows up in your face.
If Abdullah was such a great friend of Saddam as you repeatedly claim, then why did Jordan privately support the US invasion (six paragraphs from the bottom)? Why would Saddam cooperate with a regime with such close ties to a superpower that was preparing to invade him for the second time?
The reasons for Jordan’s extradition request are of little consequence to this argument. Discussing the US connection isn’t of immediate concern. To do so would launch an extremely complex and long-winded geopolitical debate.