cromagnum Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm 710940[/snapback] ...a public service announcement brought to you by the pocketbook of George Soros. Doesn't anyone know what "independent analysis" means anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Apparently it means that if you agree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding doesn't matter but if you disagree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding can be used as a way of dismissing the matter entirely. Do I win a prize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Apparently it means that if you agree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding doesn't matter but if you disagree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding can be used as a way of dismissing the matter entirely. Do I win a prize? 710962[/snapback] He has been equally vocal about ripping anything with bias, regardless of whether he agrees with the position. Nice try. You win nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Apparently it means that if you agree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding doesn't matter but if you disagree with the conclusions presented then the source of the funding can be used as a way of dismissing the matter entirely. Do I win a prize? 710962[/snapback] Best book I've read in a long while was last week. A Middle Eastern history scholar working for DoD spent about 18 months in Iraq researching the insurgency, including first-person interviews, and wrote one of the most well-written and informative books I've read in a long time. He was universally scathing on the US policy towards Iraq that was singularly responsible for creating and propagating the insurgency. And the difference between his excellent book and the tripe linked above is: he didn't have an axe to grind. Soros and MoveOn.org do. It's the difference between information and propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 ...a public service announcement brought to you by the pocketbook of George Soros. Doesn't anyone know what "independent analysis" means anymore? 710949[/snapback] I'd start with the American Petroleum Institute. They know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I'd start with the American Petroleum Institute. They know for sure. 711175[/snapback] Actually, the American Petroleum Institute has one of the best definitions of "independent analysis" I've ever seen. Simple, concise, straightforward, accurate, comprehensive. Basically, it's: "Not us". They borrowed it from the tobacco industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 ...a public service announcement brought to you by the pocketbook of George Soros. Doesn't anyone know what "independent analysis" means anymore? 710949[/snapback] I respect your opinion, but there is quite a bit of info exposing the administration as untruthful. Look at bush's speech in cincinatti, he did not use (yellow cake document) why? because the cia told him it was a forgery. Few month's later, state of the union address to the american public he use's the yellow cake story as proof that saddam is trying to build a nuclar bomb. Then when the story breaks open, that the niger document concerning yellow cake is a forgery to the public, condi rice explains that bush simply forgot because of the fog of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I respect your opinion, but there is quite a bit of info exposing the administration as untruthful. 711310[/snapback] 1) Yes, there is. Or at least exposing them as grotesquely stupid - the interpretation I prefer, as it explains why the administration would indulge such idiocy as trumpeting Nigerian yellow cake when Iraq already have forty tons of its own yellow cake available for use. 2) If there's "quite a bit" of information...why do people have to rely on notorious, proven axe-grinding bullshitters like Soros and MoveOn.org? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Best book I've read in a long while was last week. A Middle Eastern history scholar working for DoD spent about 18 months in Iraq researching the insurgency, including first-person interviews, and wrote one of the most well-written and informative books I've read in a long time. He was universally scathing on the US policy towards Iraq that was singularly responsible for creating and propagating the insurgency. And the difference between his excellent book and the tripe linked above is: he didn't have an axe to grind. Soros and MoveOn.org do. It's the difference between information and propaganda. 711149[/snapback] Since the insurgency didn't exist until the U.S. invaded, I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to issue a scathing review of the ill-advised, irresponsible and downright dumbass policy that caused its creation..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 1) Yes, there is. Or at least exposing them as grotesquely stupid - the interpretation I prefer, as it explains why the administration would indulge such idiocy as trumpeting Nigerian yellow cake when Iraq already have forty tons of its own yellow cake available for use. 2) If there's "quite a bit" of information...why do people have to rely on notorious, proven axe-grinding bullshitters like Soros and MoveOn.org? 711323[/snapback] When there is documented proof with video, showing that the administration purposely told the american public that they found wmd's ( bio-chem mobile labs) month's after it was proven that in fact it was( weather- balloon trucks)..What media source would be acceptable to say the same thing as the one I provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 When there is documented proof with video, showing that the administration purposely told the american public that they found wmd's ( bio-chem mobile labs) month's after it was proven that in fact it was( weather- balloon trucks)..What media source would be acceptable to say the same thing as the one I provided. 711340[/snapback] One that doesn't consist of proven axe-grinding bullshitters like Soros or MoveOn.org. Which basically means: no one. Turn of the TV and try to find some independent sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Since the insurgency didn't exist until the U.S. invaded, I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to issue a scathing review of the ill-advised, irresponsible and downright dumbass policy that caused its creation..... 711337[/snapback] Evil B word Snake Woman. Where's my f-you smiley? There is a difference between just saying we caused the insurgency, and actually explaining in some detail what we did to cause it. Hell, there's a difference between calling it "the insurgency", and outlining what it really is, for that matter. I particularly like the part of the book where he outlines some forty different insurgent organizations fighting the occupation (a good many of which represent the "Sunni majority" in Iraq - in their words, not mine). That's not insurgency, that's anarchy...and it hardly supports the typical image of unity of Iraq against the occupation. It also hardly supports the image of unity of Iraq for the democratic process the administration's shoveling. Reality, again, is very complex...and in Iraq, schizophrenic to boot. "Sunni majority." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 One that doesn't consist of proven axe-grinding bullshitters like Soros or MoveOn.org. Which basically means: no one. Turn of the TV and try to find some independent sources. 711344[/snapback] How can actual video's of the administration in their own words caught lying ,be junk whether, its the wsj or moveon .org or the whitehouse press release, providing that info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 CTM, Your one smart person, I need to ask you a question.. On the aluminum tubes in iraq could they have been used to build a centrifuge, for the purpose of making fissionable material for a nuclear bomb. excuse the use of this thread, just figured it would get your attention, and hopefully you could help me out with question., thank's man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 CTM, Your one smart person, I need to ask you a question.. On the aluminum tubes in iraq could they have been used to build a centrifuge, for the purpose of making fissionable material for a nuclear bomb. excuse the use of this thread, just figured it would get your attention, and hopefully you could help me out with question., thank's man 711910[/snapback] I honestly don't know. Theoretically, they could have been centrifuge parts. As a practical matter, it depends on the tolerances they're milled to. From what I've heard (anecdotal), the tolerances of the tubes were not enough to be used in a uranium centrifuge... ...for a Western nuclear program. But if you're willing to run your centrifuges at lower speeds (or accept greater risk of catastrophic failure), you can use lower-tolerance material. So really, the question of "Were the aluminum tubes intended for a nuke program" is kind of ambiguous - theY could have been, but you can't just look at the tubes themselves and get a concrete "yes" or "no" answer. My gut feeling is: probably not. I don't think Iraq in 2002 was pursuing a meaningful nuclear weapons program, for the simple reason that such a program requires a rather extensive and obvious industrial base that just wasn't apparent from any of the information (same with missiles - and as opposed to chem, which can "hide in plain sight" in dual-use programs like agricultural or petrochemical industries, or bio, which could be performed in a $10k basement lab.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 I honestly don't know. Theoretically, they could have been centrifuge parts. As a practical matter, it depends on the tolerances they're milled to. From what I've heard (anecdotal), the tolerances of the tubes were not enough to be used in a uranium centrifuge... ...for a Western nuclear program. But if you're willing to run your centrifuges at lower speeds (or accept greater risk of catastrophic failure), you can use lower-tolerance material. So really, the question of "Were the aluminum tubes intended for a nuke program" is kind of ambiguous - theY could have been, but you can't just look at the tubes themselves and get a concrete "yes" or "no" answer. My gut feeling is: probably not. I don't think Iraq in 2002 was pursuing a meaningful nuclear weapons program, for the simple reason that such a program requires a rather extensive and obvious industrial base that just wasn't apparent from any of the information (same with missiles - and as opposed to chem, which can "hide in plain sight" in dual-use programs like agricultural or petrochemical industries, or bio, which could be performed in a $10k basement lab.) 711921[/snapback] Thank you for your reply. Ok I have a site that was giving to me ,cia.gov site, I'm going to post it ... It in they are releasing captured documents from iraq that have been translated, and one is on the centrifuge, claiming that yes it's nuke grade...Fact is, Im trying to ascertain if this is fact, and I'm not very good at using a computer and im basically a mental midget compared to you...I 'll post it and tell me what you think, and there are many more newly released doc's that have been translated, claiming all kinds of new evidence. Fascinating stuff if true. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_20...hap4.html#sect6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I honestly don't know. Theoretically, they could have been centrifuge parts. As a practical matter, it depends on the tolerances they're milled to. From what I've heard (anecdotal), the tolerances of the tubes were not enough to be used in a uranium centrifuge... ...for a Western nuclear program. But if you're willing to run your centrifuges at lower speeds (or accept greater risk of catastrophic failure), you can use lower-tolerance material. So really, the question of "Were the aluminum tubes intended for a nuke program" is kind of ambiguous - theY could have been, but you can't just look at the tubes themselves and get a concrete "yes" or "no" answer. My gut feeling is: probably not. I don't think Iraq in 2002 was pursuing a meaningful nuclear weapons program, for the simple reason that such a program requires a rather extensive and obvious industrial base that just wasn't apparent from any of the information (same with missiles - and as opposed to chem, which can "hide in plain sight" in dual-use programs like agricultural or petrochemical industries, or bio, which could be performed in a $10k basement lab.) 711921[/snapback] True. And making it even more unlikely, using aluminum in Zippe-type centrifuges went out in the 1960's, when they started using a stronger steel alloy for the rotors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Thank you for your reply. Ok I have a site that was giving to me ,cia.gov site, I'm going to post it ... It in they are releasing captured documents from iraq that have been translated, and one is on the centrifuge, claiming that yes it's nuke grade...Fact is, Im trying to ascertain if this is fact, and I'm not very good at using a computer and im basically a mental midget compared to you...I 'll post it and tell me what you think, and there are many more newly released doc's that have been translated, claiming all kinds of new evidence. Fascinating stuff if true. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_20...hap4.html#sect6] 711947[/snapback] There's lots of fascinating stuff coming out of the ISG's work...much of it points to Iraq having certain WMD programs in limbo or at a low rate of activity. None of it that I know of points to Iraq having weapons "cocked, locked, and loaded", as the administration used as one of its 19 different bull sh-- reasons to invade Iraq. The link is...interesting. The "81mm rocket" story strikes me about as unlikely as the centrifuge story. My artillery books - yeah, I have reference books on modern artillery, I'm weird, we all knew that already - are still packed, so I can't easily look up other rocket types to see what their bodies are made of. Steel, or even cast iron, fragments better than aluminum, hence makes a better munition in many cases - but not all. So it's possible. But basically, after skimming that link, I see a lot of "We have theories...but we don't really know." Which, despite media reports to the contrary, is how the world usually works anyway. Certainty only exists in the mind of Dan Rather; too bad the rest of us have to live in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 True. And making it even more unlikely, using aluminum in Zippe-type centrifuges went out in the 1960's, when they started using a stronger steel alloy for the rotors... 711949[/snapback] But again...like I said, that's what a Western program would do. Iraq - were they pursuing a nuclear program - doesn't necessarily have to use state-of-the-art technology. Hell, they don't even have to use state-of-the-art '60's technology...they're perfectly welcome to come up with their own solutions to engineering problems (and have - "dusty mustard" is a nasty chemical weapon they invented). Just because the US hasn't used aluminum in 40 years, doesn't mean no one else can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts