What is your opinion on this article?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by av8torntn, Dec 1, 2007.

  1. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I am not looking to get into an argument with some of the people on here who do not know anything about the Iraq war. I was curious what the ultra liberal people were saying about this and also to a lesser extent about the attack with chemical weapons on our troops in the second year of the Iraq war.

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/11/army_radiation_071130w/
     
  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I looked over the article but I'm a bit hesitiate to comment because of the following statement.

    Based on your POV I don't know exactly where I fall in regards to that comment so until I get an official ruling, I'll assume your point and respect your wishes and not comment. But thanks for the link as it was a good article. Opps, forget the good article part as I wasn't suppose to comment as this violates the rules!
     
  3. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    I do not make the rules I was trying to ask nicely for some that cannot form thier own opinion to keep to theirselves for little bit. I will keep my opinion on this article to myself for the time because there are several that take the opposite view as I do no matter what the topic.

    If you just want to say something like see this proves that Bush does not take care of the soldiers this would come across to me as someone who cannot form an opinion and only repost what they read others before them have said.

    If you have an opinion on the care of these guys or what you think this place is or was or what you think was there and why those are the kinds of things I am interested in. If you just want to say that this was the place they found the 250 tons of enriched uranium and it was going to be for nuclear power I do not think you have enough knowledge to form an opinion.

    I am very interested in seeing what people from all sides have to say on this but I am looking for opinions from people that can think for themselves first.

    I am no expert on all things Iraq but I do have the ability to see some things in the news and piece them together with things I have seen for myself and form an opinion. I am very curious as to where stories like this one lead as more and more come out. Will the debate lead to the care of our military men and women or will the debate lead to the WMD direction? Will people just dismiss these stories as they did after the Gulf war? Will these stories lead some other direction that I do not see?

    On a personal note I know one of these men that are sick and I would ask that those that could keep him and others in your thoughts and or prayers.
     
  4. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    This article reminds me of the after 9-11 tests that said that ground zero was safe for the folks to work there and now they are coming up sick.

    All different kinds of testing can come up with different results.

    Remember how "safe" it was for the soldiers to watch nuclear testing up close at Nevada test sites in the 50's?
     
  5. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    Reminds me of the militarys response to illness caused by agent orange in Nam.
     
  6. SimpleUPSer

    SimpleUPSer New Member

    This article also reminds me of post Desert Storm when it was discovered that an age old practice of using insect repellent to make it easier to apply your camo-stick "may" not be a good thing.

    It is easy to say that there is not potential impact - no, but years down the road who knows?

    Radiation is easily measured and monitored. I hope that the facts are not being manipulated, especially for those soldiers, and their familes, sakes.
     
  7. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Interesting thanks guys.
     
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Doesn't seems like much if you ask me. One soldier has a concern and might not be a bad idea to hold some people to the fire just to be sure as Satdriver's point about Nam is worth remembering. Appears as of now that no high risk exposures were seen and that the army will continue to monitor. Seems prudent to me.

    What did strike me with interest is the following from the 3rd post in the thread:

    Why I found this comment so interesting was because of what I had read from Global Security on their website after the American takeover and securing of these same areas. For example, to quote from an GS report:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm

    Several tons verses 250 tons is quite a difference and 250 tons IMO would constitute a major find. But believe it or not the 250 tons is a valid claim, but the timeline may be a bit off. From a Nov. 1990 NY Times piece about Iraq and the growing nuclear concerns we find the following on page #2

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/18/w...arsenal-by-2000-intelligence-experts-say.html

    There's your smoking gun and from what I can tell, this one seems to be valid but a few paragraphs further, it gets real interesting with the following:

    Seems one of Iraq's "Merchants of Death" is someone near and dear to our hearts!

    Remember, this article was written in late 1990' although 3 months after Saddam stormed the gates of Kuwait but up until that point we and Saddamee were good buddies! He was our store bought bad dog. We just have a bad habit of buying and backing the wrong guy in the longrun do we not? Just look at our 20th century track record.

    Now having Yellow Cake doesn't make nuke weapons an automatic because you need to go through a process to enrich to get to that point. This process involves taking the yellow cake and converting to a gas uranium hexafluoride which is then processed through a cascade of gas centrifuges to achieve enriched uranium 235. Here's a link to that basic process:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20070627115104/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centrifuges.html

    For more background on 1980's Iraq aquisition of gas centrifuge technology:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121031005226/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121213215942/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart2.html

    What would a building or facility look like that would house such equipment? Well Iraq had one according to Global Security and declassified documents.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/al-furat_a100802a.jpg

    supporting link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_furat.htm

    OK, we got a known transfer of yellow cake in the 250 ton range to Iraq back in the 70's and 80's. We have intel as to the chemical process of yellow cake to uranium hexafluoride gas which is the precursor step to the gas centrifuge process of enrichment and we have a building in the late 1990's and early 2000' alledged to be just that but what does it look like on the inside? What does a gas centrifuge cascade look like?

    Here's a picture from the inside of an American enrichment plant of cascading gas centrifuges

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_centrifuge_cascade.jpg

    So I would assume the inside of the above alledged building would look in some way similar to the one at the link above. Seems logical does it not?

    OK, forget the late 1990's, Joe Wilson and Africa, we got a confirmed yellow cake transfer to Iraq in the 1970's and 1980's. We got evidence of the chemical process of yellow cake to uranium hexafluoride gas. we got evidence of gas centrifuge technology being sold via German company to Iraq. We got a building alledged to hold such centrifuges and now all we need to do is see what is inside that buidling. Anyone got any pictures? Anyone seen any pictures? Here's the chance once and for all to about prove Saddam and Iraq were nuke capable if we can just prove the centrifuges exist. Can't have weapons grade U-235 without those centrifuges so physical centrifuges IMO would be the smoking gun.

    Look, Saddam had WMD of various kinds and I've no doubt given the chance would likely go for it again. But IMO, the WMD I'm talking about is mostly pre-1991' stuff. I'd agree it's possible there was some small WMD amounts made post 91' but Saddam at best had to shelve this stuff because of snooping UN folks. Even Colin Powell after the fact admitted some of the intel he used before the UN was not factual to the level he was lead to believe it was. IMO there was an underlying current of policy shakers and movers manipulating the scenes in the Bush adminstration to advance their own cause and agenda. Saddam was a bad guy, no arguement but to use our legit fears in the wake of 9/11 to advance a theory they knew was weak if not out and out bogus in order to achieve their own ends is IMO totally and completely against the Constitution, their oath to it and to their duty to the United States. I myself don't believe at this point that like Nixon who was, Bush is a bad guy. I do think some people around him did feed him false data and abused their power and position. Time and history may say otherwise about Bush but I do think time and history will prove the others to be true as guilty!

    Get me those centrifuge pictures and you got yourself a pretty hard case to beat. I wonder why after the area was secure that the Bush adminstration never showed us the pictures of those centrifuges. Seems rather odd!
    :wink2:

    JMHO
     
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Thanks Wkmac that was well thought out. I think there may be other types of centrifuges than the ones in the link you posted. The declassifed amount of uranium found was 500 tons of which 250 was enriched. I also think your picture link was wrong but it has been a couple of years. For some odd reason I really think the main research facility was underground and next to a river.

    I will say that I do not think the uranium is the smoking gun ,major find. When you say it is odd that the government has not released pictures of centrifuges I will kindly ask why. I am doing a little personal research here. I understand that most people only know what the news tells them.

    The first time I read the article I thought there was no way these men were exposed to radiation. I read it again and now I really am not so sure.

    I kind of take it like you are making light of the situation that there is just one guy that is having trouble. I think there are more than one soldier having troubles. Whatever the cause is I do hope they find a cure as I think the condition gets worse over time.
     
  10. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    I am with you 100% on this.
     
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Yeah, there are a number of different type centrifuges but in the process to enrich uranium, to my knowledge the gas centrifuge is the most common for the enrichment process. Another process that came from the Manhattan Project was called gaseous diffusion which also takes the uranium hexaflouride through a cascade process to seperate and enrich the U-235. In the case of Iraq, the gas centrifuge seems the most likely choice since earlier hard evidence points to Iraq having acquired that technology via German sources.

    This 2003'-2004' IAEA report on Iraq's nuclear activities over the years documents early centrifuge testing where they learned on the less complex type centrifuges before moving into the more advanced. To me, it's like you can't do college level algebra and advanced mathematics if you never took high school mathematics. I mean you could still take it but what are the chances of success?

    http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html

    I'm doing the same thing in asking why. If the key to completing the picture of Saddam having or near having nuke capability, then IMO the enrichment process would be the lynchpin to proving that point. We know Saddam was toying around with it and if the evidence of such existed proving he had fooled the UN, Hans Blix and the IAEA and had post 1991' and later material especially post 1998' which would make Clinton look bad too, then why not reveal it? Could make their claim to go in and remove Saddam a pretty valid one IMO.

    No argument prior to 91' and even a little activity post 91' does suggest he was heading in that direction but where is the hard physical evidence? But the greater question is the the one you are asking and that is, "why have they not shown it?" You are dead on the money for asking.

    At the Global Security article, there are actually 3 facilites listed and the one you speak of near a river is most likely the Rashdiya Engineering Design Center which is on an island north of Bagdhad. This island was also home headquaters to the Northern Iraq Republican Guard so that should also raise a few eyebrows. From the International Atomic Energy Agency report of 1995' from Hans Blix himself, on page 4 page #5, it list 2 major suspected centrifuge sites in Iraq with Rashdiya and Al Furat being 2 of the 3.

    http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/reports/s_1996_14.pdf

    Also from the IAEA, a list of suspected WMD sites.
    http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/971203_sites.htm

    I found pics of Al Furat but so far any pics of Rashdiya that were on the net have been killed. Go ahead and ask why again because I don't have the answer. I do plan on hitting Goggle Earth shortly and see if the area in which Rashdiya might be located has any blurry sections. Don't know but here's a question for both of us. Let's say the Rashdiya area is blocked, what should we be thinking? Interesting thought is it not?

    From the article you posted the link too:

    Making light of? Not at all. As I read the above on one soldier, Sgt. Boatright emailed a concern as to potential exposure. Now he said there were more than 200 others concerned and this may or may not be true. Let's give the benefit of doubt and go with it that it is. Col. Melanson decides to hold 3 Town meetings on the issue and only 3 soldiers show up for the 3rd meeting according to the article. With this article only and nothing else, where am I suppose to go? Are you suggesting the gov't is lying or some coverup or conspiracy? Are you suggesting we shouldn't believe them?

    OK, I was being a bit cute there but I understand your point of concern and it is valid. As SatDriver pointed out with Nam and AO among other past issues, you have good reason to ask more questions. And forget the politics in all of this, I want our guys taken care of period! Even though I will argue the policy that sent them there, if they are there and Congress by vote continues to have them there, they should get off their arse and see to it these guys have everything they need to do the job. Again I disagree on the policy but back up what you passed or rescend by vote.

    But in closing I want to return to the cute part just for something to think about. Just a tiny seed to hold in your pocket for a rainy day. As I read over the responses of everyone, I get the underlying presence of untrusting thoughts towards the military and I would think could extend to the civilian gov't itself since said military is civilain commanded at the top. I'm not for one minute suggesting your concerns are not legit and in fact I think they are healthy. But what I find interesting is that the only thing we have to go on in relationship to this whole issue is the article linked by AV8 in the opening thread. No other hard data, no basis of actually cases of exposure, no evidence of harmful exposure at the site in question.

    Are there reasons because of the location itself to have questions? Absolutely. Again, I commend the healthy skeptism on all your parts and it's not because of political idealog that I say this. What I am getting too is you should also have this same level of question in all matters until hard provable evidence is shown to support any gov't action. Forget republican, democrat, etc. and just sit back with as neutral a view as you can muster and look hard at the evidence and also look at some of the YouTube videos of various clips of our leaders. Sure, some are funny but they also show a pattern on both sides of misleading, falsehood, deception and downright lying.

    Deep down you know what I'm saying is true because look at your comments in the posts. You really don't trust them either deep down where it counts and you are a great American for doing so. And I don't say this thinking you are coming to my POV. I'm happy that you are wanting hard facts.

    Be a sketic and cynic to a point and force them to prove everything. Truth will always be truth no matter how hard you push it and the harder you push it the more truth proves itself and thus becomes a very powerful immovable object that makes a nearsayer such an obvious idiot that they just disappear never to be heard again. If you have truth on your side, a naysayer is your best ally in delivering that truth to the masses!

    Now that said I want to pose this question not for debate here and I'm gonna ask everyone to reframe from further discussion of what I am about to ask. This is something we should all ponder and ask of ourselves. Leading up to the War in Iraq, we all knew Saddam was a bad dude. We knew he had used and did have WMD. IMO there was no question there. It was the basis of the UN sending in inspectors to find, identify and remove this stuff and I don't think there is any argument that stuff was found and that Saddam was playing cat and mouse. That said, after especially Powell's speech to the UN in 2002', when we did go in, and here's the question to ponder. Were you expecting a much larger or at least more than was found cach of various types of WMD based on what we had been told leading up to the war? I'm not asking about all the other stuff around this, I'm only asking to ask yourself, were you expecting more or has enough been found to equal what you expected?

    Just a thought to ponder!

    Let's keep these soldiers in our prayers and hope that no exposure took place. Forget the politics, that would be the best news of all!
     
  12. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    A big thank you to everyone who took the time to respond. I just wanted some first impressions of this article and for this I am grateful.

    According to the article some of these soldiers were exposed to radiation but not harmful levels. Nobody saw this as a problem which is why I was asking for the opinions of others. I all to often transfer my own experience into some of these news articles. My example is after 32 IED's 2 VBIED's and way to many mortar and rocket attacks to count my hearing is shot. I can no longer understand what people say on the telephone. Yet the government says my hearing is "clinical normal". I know that hearing levels are easily measured like radiation levels so my first thought was that some of our military had some other enviornmental exposures to blame for these troubles. But it was easy to transfer my own experience onto the article. Again thanks to everyone who took the time to answer.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007