No, they were not a lie. They were cleverly disguised to look like piles of rusting iron! Oh, that sneaky Saddam. But they were not calutrons. That is right out!
Saddam is so sneaky that he has apparently threatened Curveball from the grave to admit to Fox News nonetheless that the mobile WMD production facilities were all a lie.
You’d think Magiver would accept a Fox News Report but he must have better sources than the best news agency in the entire universe. But there slogan is 'We Report You Decide" I guess that’s for when they have no choice but to report accurately.
Yes elucidator, I know what a calutron is. We were talking about them a decade ago.
??? He used them in the war with Iran and on the kurds.
Out of curiousity, is English your primary language?
There is no such thing, now or ever, as a “mobile calutron”. “Curveball” famously claimed that Saddam had mobile chemical weapons labs, and that proved to be bullshit. Which still isn’t a calutron.
You have unlocked the achievement of being wrong about bullshit. Congrats.
he had Calutrons on truck beds.
Yeah, when we were on Saddam’s side. I’ve mentioned in English “March 2003” regarding the reason Bush said we had to invade Iraq. It was not because Saddam gassed the Kurds when he was on our side. Can you please find your way to 2003 and beyond that fateful decision by Bush to invade Iraq because he told us that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors at that time. That was not true. Do you have any facts that lead to a conclusion that it was true?
No.
Not in 2003, Magiver. Saddam had all kinds of VX and other CW and a program to build a nuclear bomb… we know… But in 2003 he had nothing and was hiding nothing and he called Bush a liar for saying he was hiding them from inspectors. He was right and Bush was wrong. Where do you want to go with the facts of this time period - let’s say from September 2002 to March 2003? Why do you go back to the Reagan era?
And why don’t you recognize that Assad has admitted he has CW and will give them up? Because Hussein gassed the Kurds over two decades ago?
You are trying to argue that dictators who used CW can’t be trusted to give their CW up. But Saddam Hussein gave them up, said he gave them up and Bush got 4,486 Americans killed and ten times that wounded just to prove that Saddam told the truth and that he was a bungling idiot to invade Iraq.
I just can’t see a pattern of facts that supports your complaints about Obama’s handling of the situation in Syria.
There was no bloodletting going on in Iraq in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground there.
We will soon have UN inspectors going into Syria. And as long as they are making progress I will be quite upset if Obama pulls a Dubya and tells the inspectors to get out so he can start a war.
But you should know and I know that Obama is much more intelligent and wise than that.
Iraq made a deliberate effort to make its nuclear program self-sufficient and to reduce reliance upon foreign suppliers. In 1981, Israeli aircraft destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha. After the bombing, there was a debate in Iraq on how to recover. It was then that they decided to reduce their reliance upon foreign suppliers and attain nuclear self-sufficiency. At that time, Iraq appears to have made a political decision to send its nuclear program underground.
The decision to invest billions of dollars in uranium enrichment through electro-magnetic isotope separation, the so-called calutron program, is an example of how Iraq went about implementing this policy of self-sufficiency. The program did not have to depend on sophisticated imports needed for more modern and efficient methods of uranium enrichment. The Iraqi calutron program was largely indigenous and was an improvement over the technology used by the United States in the 1940’s. Iraq had been preparing secretly to operate hundreds of the relatively simple devices.
truck reference here:
Saddam had a history of lying and hiding material from inspectors. He never consistently cooperated with the inspectors. I gave the calutrons as examples.
In 1991, according to your cite. Which were destroyed, according to your cite. As well, the fact that an object may be transported on a truck bed is not the same thing as saying it is “mobile”. Pretty sure you know that.
Again, the world leader other than Obama who came out in support of military intervention is François Hollande.
You just got done saying they didn’t exist. So I’m guessing you use your truck to move goal posts around. Handy things those trucks.
Why is it Obama’s screw up because many leaders refuse to stand up against a ruthless dictator that used CW on his own citizens? China’s objection to military action was based upon their worries that the price of oil would go up $10 a barrel and that would cut .25 off economic growth.
Cameron supports Obama, but his PMs don’t. That doesn’t make that major world leader himself opposed to a military strike.
And your statement is not supportable by the public record.
Of the world’s biggest economies Obama was at 10 of 10 for support with some waiting for the UN report and hoping for a UNSC resolution.
But you take **10 of 10 **to mean one out of twenty - one out of the whole world… .What drew you to that conclusion?
And you never will admit you got it wrong.
I am undone. The mass and density of your authority combined with the crystalline clarity of your intellect makes no argument possible.
Or he thinks Saddam had a time machine to allow him to go back to 1991 to get them.
The MPs reflected the view of 75% of the British public.
What did the public in the US want to happen?
That’s nice. I know that. My point was and is “That doesn’t make that major world leader” opposed to US Action. Do you dispute my point?
Is your point the “major world leader” ignores the majority view of the people he represents?