Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

BAGHDAD, July 21 (UPI) -- Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered in trenches near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"The three missiles were discovered by chance when the Iraqi security forces captured former Baath party official Khoder al-Douri who revealed during interrogation the location of the missiles saying they carried nuclear heads," the sources said.

They pointed out that the missiles were actually discovered in the trenches lying under six meters of concrete and designed in a way to unable sophisticated sensors from discovering nuclear radiation.

The sources said al-Douri, who is related to former Vice Chairman of the Iraq Revolution Council and Saddam's right-hand man Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was captured after Iraqi police intercepted an e-mail message in which he set a meeting with another former Baath official.

The report could not be authenticated by the interior ministry or the national security department, but the paper noted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zibari made a surprise request recently to Mohammed el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to resume inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Link

If this turns out to be true. Granted, a BIG IF.... but if this is in fact true how many people would say this qualifies as a legitimate threat of WMD's? Or would he have had to have 10, 20, 50 or 100 for those saying "Bush liied" to say the WMD threat was real.

IF this is true, then I will admit that there is some merit to the war in Iraq. However, if I were Saddam Hussein, I would have used those suckers when I was being invaded so I doubt this, but if it is true, then damn.

If these are found and they weren't planted there then it does add a little bit of legitimacy to the war. But I would wonder if he has/had them, why not use them when under attack?

Nuclear arms aren't something you'd plant like a .38 on a shot criminal. That stuff is so heavily guarded it's ridiculous. If it were planted you don't think the entire town would come out and say we just dug a 10 meter pit, filled it with concrete and said "Walla, nuclear arms!".

If they used nuclear arms, gas or biological our doctrine has only one response. Nuclear. Use gas on US troops? Nuclear response. That's why he wouldn't use them. We would have made Iraq Glassparkinglotistan.

"Don't belive everything you hear in the news."

Actually I think this is a major defense alot of Pro-Bush people use.

Iraq Interior Ministry Says Report on Nukes 'Stupid'
Email this story

Jul 21, 9:43 AM (ET)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq's Interior Ministry dismissed as "stupid" a report in a local newspaper Wednesday that said three nuclear missiles had been found near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.

A senior U.S. military official told reporters he had no information on the report in the Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah. He said officials were checking the report.

Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior Ministry said: "It's stupid."

The report, picked up the United Press International news agency, sent the U.S. dollar higher against other major currencies on the foreign exchanges.

Al-Sabah opened last year with backing from the former U.S.-led administration in Iraq.

The United States and Britain launched last year's invasion of Iraq over accusations that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. But no stockpiles of banned weapons have been found.

We instigate a nuclear war and we will stopped by nuclear weapons.

The UN policy on nuclear war differs from that of the US.

Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops?

Yes, unless you consider the fact that there are other hostile countries with CONFIRMED nukes that we are ignoring. North Korea, for example, has made OPEN THREATS to use their nukes on us.

And besides, I thought liberation was the reason for this war.

Oh wait, terrorism.

Oh wait, they tried to kill Bush's dad.

Oh wait, I haven't read the lates PR release - why are we there this week?

Do the math, 900+ lives DOES NOT EQUAL 1 political agenda


EDIT: corrected grammar...Doh!

you can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

Originally Posted by joystickz you can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

Originally Posted by peteloaf Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops? Yes, unless you consider the fact that there are other hostile countries with CONFIRMED nukes that we are ignoring. North Korea, for example, has made OPEN THREATS to use their nukes on us. And besides, I thought liberation was the reason for this war. Oh wait, terrorism. Oh wait, they tried to kill Bush's dad. Oh wait, I haven't read the lates PR release - why are we there this week? Do the math, 900+ lives DOES NOT EQUAL 1 political agenda EDIT: corrected grammar...Doh!

Try to follow along here...

A. The good of the many outweighs the good of the one, that means the Iraqi citizens freed from tyranny and the millions of lives possibly saved if the nuclear weapon story turns out to be true outweighs the lives of 900 American Soldiers.

B. If you have any concept of Indo-China politics and have any inkling of what North Korea's latest actions have been.. ever since we opened a can on Iraq, they've gotten really peaceful and quiet (they learned to not mess with the big dog)

C. Without even touching terrorism, daddy's unfinished business, oil, money, whatever... As the world's leading supervisor everyone agrees we have a responsibility to help feed, clothe and educate people in need.. but somehow we dont find an onus upon us to liberate people dominated by a tyrannical government.

D. If you really believe the media's slant about Iraqi's not wanting us there.. you obviously have never talked to a soldier that's been there. Over two dozen people have all told me the same story.. they're thanked by Iraqis daily.

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb C. Without even touching terrorism, daddy's unfinished business, oil, money, whatever... As the world's leading supervisor everyone agrees we have a responsibility to help feed, clothe and educate people in need.. but somehow we dont find an onus upon us to liberate people dominated by a tyrannical government.

Bush cut billions from US education in the leave no child behind act.
Many schools could not affford to teach the whole 180 days last year.

And China's government is a much more brutal regime than Sadam. Should we not have gone there first? No, they are too rich.

Excuse me, but the US pays more for schooling than any other country in the world. It's yet another bottomless pit that we throw money into, like welfare. There are reasons that the American education system are sub rate, but it is not because it is not properly funded.

Originally Posted by Squirms Excuse me, but the US pays more for schooling than any other country in the world. It's yet another bottomless pit that we throw money into, like welfare. There are reasons that the American education system are sub rate, but it is not because it is not properly funded.

Don't even get me started on welfare, social security and all the other anti-capitalist, completely socialist, bullshit programs we have to put up with daily.

But yes, we sink tons of money into our school system, our largest problem is A. apathy on part of the students, B. major apathy on part of the parents (how many parents help their kids with math or check with the teacher to see how they're doing these days?) and C. a major difference in funding between economic regions.

YAWN, another Pro Bush Post....

Get 'em Cornfedwb!

So THATS where we left them!!! *runs from black suv*

Originally Posted by Quackzilla Bush cut billions from US education in the leave no child behind act. Many schools could not affford to teach the whole 180 days last year. And China's government is a much more brutal regime than Sadam. Should we not have gone there first? No, they are too rich.

How many billions did Bush cut from total education funding? An exact amount and a link would help.

It sounds to me like we have a constitutional crisis if Bush has cut education funding. Funding is a function of Congress.

I've seen this argument before (school lunches, defense, education) from both parties. One party wants a 5% increase in funding. The other wants 3%. They compromise on 4%. Then the party that wanted the 5% increase claims funding has been cut.

Get your facts straight.

Obviously if WMDs have been found finally, it means it was OK to go to war - because we knew for a fact they existed at that time (retroactively, of course - or should that be radioactively?)

So THATS where we left them!!! Smile *runs from black suv*

I can just imagine that. People thinking a bunch of CIA guys pull up in a caravan of black Suburbans with blackened windows and go "WHOA! Lookie here at a what a we found! What faulty intelliegence? HAW HAW HAW HAW! Hey Buuba, get us a Bud for the pictures of us over da warheads!"

And at that point the war is justified, the left is silenced and we live happily ever after.

I'm having fun people, and kidding, no need to make this a flame war.