Skip to comments.No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq? Not Exactly
Posted on 10/08/2004 9:12:03 AM PDT by Prost1
Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?
Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Is there that much uranium that's been mined, EVER?
That sounds like A LOT of uranium?
It's not enriched, just the raw stuff called yellowcake
And if you consider that uranium is one of the heavier metals, 500 tons probably isn't all that much.
9/11 #1 lesson... Do not give the threat a chance to materialize.... 500 tons seems to me more than enough justification to claim stockpiles... Why aren't the Republican pundits jumping on this?
LIBS: "Let them eat yellowcake!"
I cannot imagine why the pubbies let the demoncrats have this issue...500 tons is a pile...a big pile....142 weapons yikes....sounds like they could have enriched it given enough time. I hate pubbies for taking illegimate shots from Demons.
Do not give the threat a chance to materialize.... 500 tons seems to me more than enough justification to claim stockpiles... Why aren't the Republican pundits jumping on this?"
I agree - don't let a threat materialize. While we're still STILL focusing on what Saddam had/didn't have, the N. Koreans already have nuke capability, which they've refined while we've been freeing Iraq.
The North Korean threat HAS materialized and Iran isn't far behind. If either of these two foolish nations use a nuke on us, the blame will rightfully be placed at the feet of both Clintax AND Bush. One for appeasing them in 1994 (nod to Jiminy Carter too) and the other for completely doing nothing to stop the nuke threat from 2001-present, even though (unlike Iraq) there's zero doubt of N. Korean nuke capability.
It would have been enriched a long time ago though if the Israelis hadn't taken the wise precuation of blowing up their nuclear reactor. Iran, anyone?
No I don't agree.. The justification for the war in Iraq is simply the fact that we could no longer afford to allow the threat that materialized on 9/11 to happen again... The threat that materialized on 9/11 was Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. Hence homeland Security, Patriot Act, War in Iraq are all fronts on the War on Terrorism.
Bill Clinton appeasement of North Korea by allowing Kim Jong IL to develope Nuclear capability in the first place allowed the North Korean nuclear threat to materialize already. Too late for the President to do anything but go one for one with North Korea... 6 party talks put all neighbors of NK on alert and get them involved... If NK sells to terrorists or uses Nuke on us or neighbors it will be dealt with in total finality by this president... but what would Kerry do? It will never pass the global test and we would have to eat the casualties making us weaker and weaker in the end.
If Iran is allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons via the same appeasement that Clinton used than they will ultimately develope weapons just like Korea did ... Korea is the lesson learned for Iran. If Iran is allowed to pursue it goals and develope the weapons than This President failed to imagine the threat...but I personally don't think that would happen...
Difference is one talks about it and one does something about it....
Everyone knows that Saddam was just waiting until the heat was off. The second the world's attention was diverted to some other trouble spot, he would have been up and running again. To argue that he wasn't a threat is just idiotic.
Here's what I don't get too. Why don't we hear more about the mustard gas shells that the Polish army has been finding?
Why wasn't more made of the sarin shells used as IED's.
I'm not sure exactly what these "experts" think shows proof of an active WMD program...but here's my definition:
If you have ONE shell full of NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) agents...regardless of how long ago it was made...and you maintain that shell in a state that it could be used at a moments notice...THAT is an active WMD program.
If 500 TONS of weps grade uranium isn't proof...then NOTHING short of a nuclear bomb traceable back to Iraq will ever be proof enough for the RATS and the MSM.
The reason is simple. Yellowcake is not a weapon. Calling
a pile of yellowcake a stockpile of WMDs is like calling a
pile of Hematite a stockpile of assault rifles.
Now, the Iraqi yellowcake was NOT a matter to be ignored.
If my arithmetic is correct, depending on the efficiency
with which it is separated, the efficiency of the weapon
design, 500 tons of yellowcake contains enough U-235 to
make between 100 and 150 simple fission bombs.
The separation of the U-235 from the Natural Uranium is a
difficult task. Indeed, it is the ONLY dificult task
involved when making a simple U-235 bomb.
What the original poster did not mention is that the
500 tons of yellowcake had been inventoried by the IAEA
under UNSCOM. It was reinventoried by the IAEA under
UNMOVIC. It was intact up until the inspectors left
shortly befor the invasion began.
Perhaps the original poster failed to mention this
because NewsMax.com published the blatant lie:
And press reports going back more than a decade
give no indication that weapons inspectors had
any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a
staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S.
That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency
was finally able to take a full inventory, and
suddenly the 500 ton figure emerged.
Here is a link to a pre-invasion (1997) report that addresses, in part, the quantity of yellowcake which,
as of that time "remains in Iraq, under the control
of the IAEA".
My arithmetic indicates a total of about 556 tons.
Reading is a powerful tool.
a pile of yellowcake a stockpile of WMDs is like calling a
pile of Hematite a stockpile of assault rifles."
Ok I'll volunteer to ask this.
If the 500 tons of uranium and the 18. tons taht had already been weaponized isn't proof enough for you that Saddam was doing his best to keep an active WMD program;
Is there ANYTHING that will ever be enough "proof" for you?
before I get hammered I put my period in the wrong place. It should be 1.8 tons of weaponized material not 18 like I stated.
"No I don't agree.. The justification for the war in Iraq is simply the fact that we could no longer afford to allow the threat that materialized on 9/11 to happen again... "
So the ONLY threat we're facing is from the Islamosucks? Kim Jong Il is happy to hear that.
"Bill Clinton appeasement of North Korea by allowing Kim Jong IL to develope Nuclear capability in the first place allowed the North Korean nuclear threat to materialize already. "
I've already agreed to that. Don't forget Carter's role in this.
"If NK sells to terrorists or uses Nuke on us or neighbors it will be dealt with in total finality by this president... but what would Kerry do?"
Given Bush's tepid response to the Saudis, who were almost 100% responsible for allowing Al Quaida to grow in their country, I doubt Bush's response to North Korea would be anything with 'finality'. Although, his ties to the North Koreans aren't nearly as established as those to the House of Saud so you might be right. Who knows what Kerry would do? Maybe shoot some North Koreans in the back? I don't bother considering Kerry, honestly, as I foresee a Bush victory. Thus me trying to focus on what Bush should/shouldn't do, rather than waste thought on that idiot Kerry, no offense.
"If Iran is allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons via the same appeasement that Clinton used than they will ultimately develope weapons just like Korea did ... Korea is the lesson learned for Iran. If Iran is allowed to pursue it goals and develope the weapons than This President failed to imagine the threat...but I personally don't think that would happen..."
Good point that I hadn't thought of. Iranian nuclear development would be solely Bush's responsibility and not Clintax's. I agree with your assessment of the situation and hope Bush does the right thing in dealing with the imminent Iranian nuke threat.
"Difference is one talks about it and one does something about it...."
True, but one must also do the right 'something' about it. See 'Appeasement of North Korea' as an example of what not to do.
Since the invasion, no one has found 18 tons of weaponized
anything in Iraq, let alone 18 tons of 'weaponized Uranium'.
_Weapons grade_ uranium is high purity U-235. Kilogram
quantitites were found in the 1990s, as were gram
quantities of Plutonium and both were removed from Iraq.
How was the program active when he had no centrifuges,
calutrons or diffussers, the raw materials were
declared more than a decade ago and have been
locked under IAEA seal ever since?
All that was found to be left of the Iraqi nuclear
weapons program were a small number of old components
buried in someone's yard, blueprints, raw or weakly
enriched Uranium that had been declared to UNSCOM,
and the desire to resume the program when possible.
That is hardly an active program.
No one ever claimed that Iraq would not resume WMD
production if it could, that was one of Bush's lies.
No one ever claimed that Saddam Hussein could be
trusted, that was another of Bush's lies.
But it is clear that the UN sanctions and inspections
program had completely shut down the Iraqi nuclear
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.