Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What is your opinion on this article?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 273861" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>What did strike me with interest is the following from the 3rd post in the thread:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm" target="_blank">http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm</a></p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/18/world/mideast-tensions-iraq-could-have-atomic-arsenal-by-2000-intelligence-experts-say.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/18/world/mideast-tensions-iraq-could-have-atomic-arsenal-by-2000-intelligence-experts-say.html</a></p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Seems one of Iraq's "Merchants of Death" is someone near and dear to our hearts!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070627115104/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centrifuges.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20070627115104/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centrifuges.html</a></p><p></p><p>For more background on 1980's Iraq aquisition of gas centrifuge technology:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121031005226/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20121031005226/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html</a></p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121213215942/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart2.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20121213215942/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart2.html</a></p><p></p><p>What would a building or facility look like that would house such equipment? Well Iraq had one according to Global Security and declassified documents.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/al-furat_a100802a.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/al-furat_a100802a.jpg</a></p><p></p><p>supporting link: <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_furat.htm" target="_blank">http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_furat.htm</a></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Here's a picture from the inside of an American enrichment plant of cascading gas centrifuges</p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_centrifuge_cascade.jpg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_centrifuge_cascade.jpg</a></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>JMHO</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 273861, member: 2189"] 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: [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm[/url] 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 [url]http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/18/world/mideast-tensions-iraq-could-have-atomic-arsenal-by-2000-intelligence-experts-say.html[/url] 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: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20070627115104/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centrifuges.html[/url] For more background on 1980's Iraq aquisition of gas centrifuge technology: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20121031005226/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html[/url] [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20121213215942/http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart2.html[/url] What would a building or facility look like that would house such equipment? Well Iraq had one according to Global Security and declassified documents. [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/al-furat_a100802a.jpg[/url] supporting link: [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_furat.htm[/url] 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 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_centrifuge_cascade.jpg[/url] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What is your opinion on this article?
Top