|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login | |
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 2:33:33 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Barack Obama declared yesterday that he would shift “the central front in the War on Terror” from Iraq to Afghanistan, promising a “new era of international co-operation” in which America would once more lead — rather than alienate — the rest of the world. Mr Obama said yesterday that he wanted to secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, adding: “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.” He reiterated that the US forces should be ready to cross into Pakistan without permission “ to take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights”. Man was where Obama in 2003 when we invaded the wrong country? : / At least he's for putting the troops in the right place to fight on the right front.
_____________________________
-Roger This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it. http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 3:00:09 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
Better yet maybe Obama will send enough troops to Afghanistan: quote:
The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq. I know that was another True Liberal Islamo Fascist Satanist Commie that said that! Oh wait, that was Admiral Michael Mullen chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Perhaps we should praise Obama for seeing the truth about Pakistan. For example here's what Dubya had to say about Pakistan: quote:
US Secretary of State Colin Powell brought good news to Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf on Thursday. The United States will elevate its military relationship with Pakistan as a major ally outside of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That is the ultimate reward for Musharraf's willingness not only to do a lot of heavy lifting to capture or kill the top al-Qaeda leadership, but also for risking the very stability of his country by getting so close to Washington. But risks for Pakistan might not be as heady as they appear at a glance. For India and China, the elevation of Pakistan by the Bush administration poses new questions. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FC20Df01.html Yet today what is happening? quote:
“There is a deep concern about cross-border infiltration into Afghanistan and then back [across] the border,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a briefing in Washington on Monday. Pakistan understands “the importance of engaging in the counter-terrorism fight”, he added. The soldiers were killed in Kunar province in north-eastern Afghanistan, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said in a statement. A group of about 200 gunmen raided a US post in the deadliest attack on US forces in Afghanistan in three years, the Associated Press reported. The Pakistan government says it is combating extremism through the selective use of force and a strategy of economic and political development in the tribal regions. The US and NATO say Pakistan's policy of holding talks with militants in the Tribal Areas has led to increased attacks by Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C07%5C16%5Cstory_16-7-2008_pg7_57 So let's get on this GWoT bandwagon together and get the job done. The job to be done is in Pakistan not Iraq.
_____________________________
-Roger This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it. http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 3:30:42 PM
|
|
|
djv1255
Posts: 152
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Conservatives: Read all the non-USA comments to the story like this one: "Obama's presidency would be even bigger disaster for whole world as GWB's presidency. "
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 3:39:25 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2713
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: djv1255 Barack Obama declared yesterday that he would shift “the central front in the War on Terror” from Iraq to Afghanistan, promising a “new era of international co-operation” in which America would once more lead — rather than alienate — the rest of the world. Mr Obama said yesterday that he wanted to secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, adding: “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.” He reiterated that the US forces should be ready to cross into Pakistan without permission “ to take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights”. London Times I don't think McCain has definitively ruled it out (could be wrong - Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?) GW has apparently allowed it already. My opinion is that it's a mistake regardless of who advocates it.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 4:09:34 PM
|
|
|
cog41
Posts: 640
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: The Great State of Texas
Status: offline
|
I think BO is all talk. And it's idea who's oppurtunity that has come and gone. Afghan business should have been finished long ago.
_____________________________
Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you." Hook'em Horns! Roll Tide!
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 6:00:21 PM
|
|
|
saved9201
Posts: 728
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Obama to invade Pakistan What do you expect from a muslim? - Julius
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 7:01:02 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Glad to hear there are very few terrorists where we have placed our soldiers. Oh, wait. We have soldiers in Afghanistan, too. That means there are few terrorists there, too. Hallelujah! Well, the government has 600,000 real good reasons why invading Iraq didn't help us in the GWoT. Those resources invested in Afghanistan would have brought us a much better return. Now that Iraq is winding down though I guess the troops can go to Afghanistan that next great bastion for those wishing to kill Americans and collect their 72 virgins in the afterlife. At least we can finnally put all those troops that were in Iraq chasing around all of those non-existant WMD's to the work of actually fighting bin Laden and his cohorts.
_____________________________
-Roger This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it. http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 7:50:18 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 501
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Let me see if I have this right. It is not ok for a Republican president to launch a large scale military operation against hostile country, or head of state for any number of possible, or provable reasons, but it is ok for a Democrat president to launch a large scale military operation against a friendly country, or head of state for no justifable or understandable reason. It is not ok for a Republican president to use dipolmacy to seek resolution with a hostile country/ head of state, and then seek assistance and support from the "world community"either through the UN or in private discussions with other countries, before engaging the military; but it is okay for a Democrat presidet to totally by-pass diplomacy, and the "world community"either through the UN or through private discussions before seeking a military solution to a perceived wrong. It is okay to unilaterally pull military personal from a hostile situation that is on the verge of resolution and have these same personal go into another hostile and more dangerous situation and start from scratch. Where is the logic? Where is the concern and support for the military? Where is the concern for the innocent victims that are bound to get caught in the middle? Where is the concern for "peace in our time"? Where is the arguement that the United States is neither expected to be, suppose to be, nor see itself as the police force for the world? Where is the change?
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 7/16/2008 9:47:21 PM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/16/2008 9:27:47 PM
|
|
|
djv1255
Posts: 152
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj At least we can finnally put all those troops that were in Iraq chasing around all of those non-existant WMD's to the work of actually fighting bin Laden and his cohorts. Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs.
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 12:59:27 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1040
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. I assum you can provide evidence for this assertion?
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 3:32:54 AM
|
|
|
djv1255
Posts: 152
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady quote:
Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. I assum you can provide evidence for this assertion? Pick a newspaper web site and do a search on "canada yellowcake iraq".
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 9:27:00 AM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 432
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady quote:
Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. I assum you can provide evidence for this assertion? Here's the first one that popped up for me: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080706_Iraq_s_nuclear__yellowcake__moved_to_Canada.html
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 9:32:39 AM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 432
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady quote:
Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. I assum you can provide evidence for this assertion? Here's another one...from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/144703/output/print
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 9:42:32 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1817
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: djv1255 quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj At least we can finnally put all those troops that were in Iraq chasing around all of those non-existant WMD's to the work of actually fighting bin Laden and his cohorts. Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. Yellowcake? First off, there's probably yellowcake in the ground in your backyard. Yellowcake on its own is nothing special- you can get raw U-235 out of: -Your backyard -Seawater -Most rivers The vast majority of yellowcake produced today is used for energy generation. After all, enriching yellowcake to being reactor grade takes a lot of work and infrastructure that a nation like Iraq wouldn't have. Also, it appears that the site this yellowcake has been removed from hasn't been operational since 1991.
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 9:44:55 AM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 432
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc quote:
ORIGINAL: djv1255 quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj At least we can finnally put all those troops that were in Iraq chasing around all of those non-existant WMD's to the work of actually fighting bin Laden and his cohorts. Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. Yellowcake? First off, there's probably yellowcake in the ground in your backyard. Yellowcake on its own is nothing special- you can get raw U-235 out of: -Your backyard -Seawater -Most rivers The vast majority of yellowcake produced today is used for energy generation. After all, enriching yellowcake to being reactor grade takes a lot of work and infrastructure that a nation like Iraq wouldn't have. Also, it appears that the site this yellowcake has been removed from hasn't been operational since 1991. Then why would someone like Sadam have so much of it?
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 10:11:46 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 392
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn quote:
ORIGINAL: relady quote:
Few American newspaper readers learned that on Saturday the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake was shipped from Iraq to a firm in Canada. Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, the raw material from which nuclear bombs are made. According to Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex in England, the yellowcake shipped from Iraq was enough to make 142 nuclear bombs. I assum you can provide evidence for this assertion? Here's another one...from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/144703/output/print Good link! quote:
And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration. Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts. Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said. quote:
Then why would someone like Sadam have so much of it? His nuclear reactor project? Yellowcake is used in the preparation of fuel for nuclear reactors, where it is processed into purified UO2 for use in fuel rods for PHWR and other systems using unenriched uranium. - Wikipedia And must be refined even for reactors - quote:
It is necessary to enrich the U-235 isotope concentration from its natural composition of 0.7% for use in either reactors or bombs. Reactor grade uranium contains from 3.5 to 4.0% U-235, while the Hiroshima uranium bomb contained more than 80% of the lighter U-235
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 10:45:11 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 392
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP What percentage would it take to make a dirty bomb? If it is only 4%, would that hurt people? Can't find a % And it's been a long nite of work, so I need to get to bed! But - The Newsweek link said - "While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast". Wikipedia has this - quote:
In order for a terrorist organization to construct and detonate a dirty bomb, they must first acquire radioactive material either by stealing it or buying through legal or illegal channels. Possible RDD material could come from the millions of radioactive sources used worldwide in the industry, for medical purposes and in academic applications mainly for research. Of these sources, only nine reactor produced isotopes stand out as being suitable for radiological terror: americium-241, californium-252, caesium-137, cobalt-60, iridium-192, plutonium-238, polonium-210, radium-226 and strontium-90,[7] and even from these it is possible that radium-226 and polonium-210 do not pose a significant threat. By the way, from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) - quote:
What are the main dangers of a dirty bomb? The main danger from a dirty bomb is from the explosion, which can cause serious injuries and property damage. The radioactive materials used in a dirty bomb would probably not create enough radiation exposure to cause immediate serious illness, except to those people who are very close to the blast site. However, the radioactive dust and smoke spread farther away could be dangerous to health if it is inhaled. So, the main danger from a bomb is explosion! I think they waited until the 4th week (hand grenade training) in Basic Training in the Army to tell us that important stuff!
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama to invade Pakistan - 7/17/2008 11:10:05 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1817
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP What percentage would it take to make a dirty bomb? If it is only 4%, would that hurt people? U-235 on its own doesn't hurt people- at least on a radiological level. It's the fission products that pose a radiological problem. That's why dirty bombs would probably be made from spent nuclear fuel. So no. Yellowcake poses no dirty bomb risk. Heck, there's probably yellowcake in your backyard. quote:
I wonder what Valerie has to say about this? How about her husband? Was is not established that Iraq's pursuit of yellowcake was bogus? It appears that this U-235 was acquired before 1991. Valerie's husband investigated a claim that Iraq tried to purchase U-235 after Saddam signed the UN agreement where he would give up WMDs.
|
|
|
|
|