US dirty bomb fears after nuclear looting

Post-9/11 Era Forum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,960446,00.html
US dirty bomb fears after nuclear looting

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday May 21, 2003
The Guardian

The Pentagon yesterday dropped its opposition to allowing UN nuclear inspectors into Iraq, amid rising concern that looters stole radioactive material during the war.
The announcement was made by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who said the Pentagon had "no problem with" the inspectors' return, but the final decision is expected to be hammered out at the UN this week, when the overall shape of postwar Iraq is to be debated.

The US has come under increasing pressure to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country after the failure of American troops so far to find weapons of mass destruction. Some members of the security council also argue that only the UN can verify that Iraq is free of banned weapons, and therefore lift sanctions.

However, the apparent disappearance of radioactive material from Tuwaitha - the Iraqi nuclear research centre near Baghdad sealed by the UN after the last Gulf war - after looters ransacked its network of bunkers during and immediately after the recent war, has caused alarm at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Earlier this week, the agency's director, Mohammed El Baradei, said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports from Tuwaitha.

According to some of those reports, uranium was simply emptied on to the ground from metal containers, which were then taken for domestic use, such as milking cows.

IAEA officials are concerned that the uranium could fall into the hands of terrorists who could use it to build a so-called dirty bomb, whereby conventional explosives are used to scatter radioactive nuclear material.

The Pentagon had opposed the return of UN inspectors, believing that they would interfere with its own investigation, but Mr Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that that opposition had been dropped.

"I've checked with General [Tommy] Franks, the combatant commander, and he has no problem with their going in [to Tuwaitha]," the defence secretary said.

"The reason I think it might not be a bad idea for them to come in is that they probably have inventories of all of that and would be in a position to know what was there, or what they thought was there, and where the seals were and what it looked like the last time they were there."

just my opinion: they will find nothing and if a dirty bomb is dropped somewhere it will be the UN fault ..... as usual ......

just my opinion .......

Earlier this week, the agency's director, Mohammed El Baradei, said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports from Tuwaitha.

And he was the one who said they had no nuclear capability.
And there are NO WMD either. Right....
Who's kidding who here?

USA1

having nuclear material doesn' mean having WMDs ......

you can use nuclear material in medecine, by small quantities .... now use the same material in a dirty bomb - means more than small quantities - and you will see the result .....


uranium : what's uranium ? enriched ? no ..... remember thos amunition used to make a hole in a thank ? take 20 of them, get the uranium from these and build a dirty bomb ... and you will see what will happen ....

remember the old watch with the sign brightening during the night ? why do you think they have been removed from the shops ? nuclear material ..... very very small quantities, but still nuclear material ......... eat one piece of that - children - and you will have some stomac problems ....


didi you saw those who stole the barrels which contained nuclear material ? now they use it to stock water !!!! but it's also nuclear material .....

nuclear material doesn't mean WMDs ......

nowar,
I never said that the nuclear material found equaled WMD. The point is the the inspectors and Baradei said there was neither a nuclear capability or WMD.
It's not just barrels of cooling water there. You don't get radio active water by pumping it from the ground. They have or have had both nuclear and WMD and have NEVER disclosed either the destruction of or the location which, is what the resolution was all about. Saddam had every opportunity to prevent any action and chose to hide and subject his country to this war. Matter doesn't disappear, it only changes state. So, it is there, it's just a matter of finding. Besides, if they find that it was destroyed at a location, that is a great thing and they can no longer be used and this is what the world wanted in the first place. He was in breach.

about the barrels: they have contained radioactive materials and Iraqi are using them to keep their water. I never said that it was pumping radioactive water .....


and yes they had - long time ago - nuclear material - it's well known - but If you had seen the barrels you should had noticed how they were: having a lot of rust holes.

Now how much time is needed to get this type of barrels having rust holes in the desert ?

You are defending Saddam here like he didn't have to comply because he said "We don't have them". Why didn't he show the proof and end the issue? You still don't seem to believe that he ever had them for some reason. Why are there trucks used to produce Biological and chemical wepaons if he didn't have any?
Why would they decieve the UN if they didn't have any?
Why was radio active material found if he didn't have any?
Geez man, wake the hell up.
Like I said, matter doesn't disappear. It is still there. If it's buried, it's still there. If he sent it to Syria the day before then, it's in Syria and not in Iraq. He lied and decieved the UN. This could have been solved by Saddam. Tell us you sent it to Syria, what's the problem?
There were more findings of Radio Active material than just those barrels. There were radio active material containers found too. Some of them were looted. They should have been brought forward by Saddam and properly disposed of by UN inspectors and the war would have been postponed.
If you believe that the U.S. would go into a war over a lie and risk everything to the world views of America, you are nuts. If you think that America would go to war simply based on one mans agenda, you are nuts. Information provided to justify this war was provided by 12 different countries and many are Arab counties. Because you don't agree with American policy is your right but, your views seem to be based soley on an anti-war and pacifism. Talking may have solved this war but Saddam decided it was only war that would decide it. We complied.

USA1,

where did I said that he never had them ?

did you read my "romantic" story ? seems not. Do a search in my posts or those from Charles and use the word: romantic .......

And I've never defended Saddam, sorry.

About the barrels, it was just one example and the base example as the nuclear materials were stocked in, barrels = containers too ...... and what was in these containers ? nobody knows .....

for the rest I didn't saw an explicit list of what have been stolen ..... has they have been stolen - if any - before having the list .......

About the truck, I'm surprised that we don't hear anything about them. Why ? maybe because they made another mistake as those about the white powder found or the barrels full of dangerous products during the war ?

Where are those ****ing trucks ? THE proof of the WMDs ?

quote:

If you believe that the U.S. would go into a war over a lie and risk everything to the world views of America, you are nuts. Information provided to justify this war was provided by 12 different countries and many are Arab counties

I hope you are kidding with that sentence ..... almost everything - strong proofs - which have been used to build the case against Iraq was ..... fake and lies and as far as I know, fake means lie ...

I don't say that they - mainly US - build the fakes doc - UK did well - but when you build a case which can lead to a war the first thing to do is ensuring the validity of the docs you have, especially when US gov say: we have the best information services in the world ...... except of course if you have already decided to go at war .....

quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2931126.stm CIA reviews Iraq intelligence By Justin Webb BBC correspondent in Washington The CIA is to conduct an inquiry into intelligence assessments of Iraq before the war. No proof of banned weapons has yet been found in Iraq Officials say the inquiry was planned even before the war took place. But critics of the agency have been suggesting that alleged evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was exaggerated in order to make the case for war. The review is being conducted by four retired senior intelligence analysts. It will look at the work of the Central Intelligence Agency and other American intelligence bodies in the run-up to the war. According to one official it will ask "How did we do?", "What did we get right?", "What didn't we get right?" The president's spokesman said such exercises were a common and healthy practice. But the inquiry comes as the Bush administration finds itself under ever increasing pressure to explain why it has been unable to provide evidence on the ground in Iraq to back up its very precise claims about weapons of mass destruction made before the war. Some CIA operatives have claimed privately that war intelligence provided by the agency was not essentially flawed but was exaggerated and misused by politicians.

quote:

your views seem to be based soley on an anti-war and pacifism

oh no, based on facts and on the so bad US gov History ....... sorry.

nowar,
Your glass is always half empty.
Mine is half full.

no no, yours is already full before having filled a third of it, that's the diff ....

and sorry again but up to now nothing except oil in Iraq seems to go the way the 'coalition' wanted to go and even for the oil .....


and you didn't comment my so "romantic" story .......

nowar,
I can't go through life with a closed mind only to find the negative in things. There positive things in life too you now.
What makes you think we need the oil? We could give a crap about it here and everyone from other countries can't seem to get over it. For some reason it seems to be the only reason for the Anti-war people. How we never hear of the France/Iraq connection to oil and their support for Saddam to get it?
Bush doesn't need the money. He's already rich. It's not his agenda. We all know it, how come the world can't?

1. positive things ? yes, they are free from Saddam ..... just from Saddam, now we will wait to see what will come and I really hope it will be good things ....


2. did I said somewhere that the war was only for oil ?

no, I said, based on fact, sorry again, that only oil seems to go the way they - the 'coalition' - wanted ......

but we can speak about oil and the importance of oil for US:

first supplier of oil to US: Saudi Arabia. Too bad, US doesn't trust them anymore due to 911 and their support - financial - to terrorists groups ....

the others suppliers: how much US import from these countries ? adding the fact that Venezuela is not anymore a good friend, too bad

Alaska ? as far as I know Bush didn't get the authorisation to go there, for the moment

Arctic ? everybody is against ....

Now the question is: why Bush need to go in these place ? lack of oil in US ? US oil is too expensive ? I don't know but if Bush doesn't need it why trying to go there ?

Oil production since 1960:

http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/petrole/images/prodbrut60_00.gif

Pays du golfe persique = Persian gulf countries
Autres pays = other countries

Take a look at the US production, adding the fact that they can't rely anymore to the Saudi Arabia ....

Now look at the OPEC (labeled here in french OPEP) :

http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/petrole/images/shareOPEC.gif

OPEP is (should say 'was') mainly Saudi Arabia .....

Now look at the oil consumption:
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/petrole/images/consoworldfuel71_00.gif
Note the US consumption .....

Now the export:

http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/petrole/images/exports2000.gif

Now the import:

http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/petrole/images/imports2000.gif

Shake all these graphics, see who will be in trouble if he loose OPEC oil - so Saudi Arabia -.

Nowar,
Do you ever have a rational though of your own? You really should stop letting others guide you.
You seem to be irrational and confused.

on what do you base your opinions ? on what you think you have heard from God ?

not me, sorry .....

it's based on what US gov people say and official analysis - it's only numbers but real numbers - ....

and these are facts ...... sorry again

by the way, read the "Oil ?" main thread I made, you will have some more official saying and facts ....

you don't like ? don't read and don't reply .....