Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (5171)	2/4/2003 7:00:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

Former Top Iraqi Scientist Says Iraq Has No Nukes Mon Feb 3, 1:33 PM ET By Jeffrey Hodgson TORONTO (Reuters) - A former high-level Iraqi nuclear scientist, now living in Canada, said on Monday there is no way Iraq could possess nuclear weapons and the United States is exaggerating the potential threat for its own purposes. Dr. Imad Khadduri, who joined the Iraqi nuclear program in 1968 and was part of a team trying to develop a nuclear bomb in the 1980s, said Iraq's weapons program fell into shambles after the Gulf War (news - web sites) and could not possibly have been resurrected. "All we had after the war from that nuclear power program were ruins, memoirs, and reports of what we had done...on the nuclear weapon side I am more than definitely sure nothing has been done," he told Reuters in an interview. "For (U.S. President George W.) Bush to continue brandishing this image of a superhuman Iraqi nuclear power program is a great fallacious misinformation." Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) is to deliver "compelling" proof to the U.N. Security Council this week that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors who have been combing the country for banned biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The former nuclear scientist, who has spoken in the past to U.N. weapons inspectors, said he decided to speak out publicly after the chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix sharply criticized Iraq last month for not doing enough to comply with inspections. But Khadduri, who left the country in 1998, said while he cannot speak on possible biological or chemical programs, he believes the scientific expertise and resources needed to produce nuclear weapons have been out of Iraq's reach for more than a decade. He said this was due to the combined effect of the Gulf War, economic sanctions and the work of earlier U.N. inspection teams. "To re-initiate such a program, it is not a simple project, it's a huge project. There is no management to lead this rejuvenation. The highly qualified management team has simply hibernated," he said. "Can we hide something as huge an enterprise as a nuclear power program? Look at the establishments deployed in North Korea (news - web sites)...it's an impossibility." The soft-spoken scientist, who now teaches computer science at a Toronto college, said he was not speaking out under any pressure from his home country. Rather, he felt compelled to correct what he says is "misinformation" being put forward about Iraq's nuclear program as the United States amasses and troops and armor in the region. Khadduri began work on the program after earning a masters degree in physics from the University of Michigan. He later completed a doctorate in nuclear reactor technology from University of Birmingham in Britain. At first, the program focused mainly on the use of nuclear energy for power generation. Khadduri said that changed in 1981 after Israeli jets destroyed the country's Osirak nuclear reactor. At that point, he said the program shifted to focus on producing nuclear weapons. At one point Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) put his son-in-law Hussein Kamel in charge in order to improve results. Khadduri said he worked in the mid-level management of the program and had an intimate knowledge of its operation. His work included procuring the technical information needed to build a bomb, as well as maintaining records and reports on its progress. He said the program gleaned much of its information from research on the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bombs dropped on Japan. In a sense he says, the Iraqi scientists were trying to "reinvent the wheel". But he said the program never got more than "10 or 20 percent" of the way to creating a working nuclear weapon because Iraq could never obtain enough fissionable material. Khadduri said that after the Gulf War the program was thrown into disarray. He and many of the other key scientists were transferred to work on reconstruction of power stations and oil refineries. Other scientists involved in the program retired or emigrated. He said those that remain have seen their expertise atrophy. He and other Iraqi scientists were briefly jailed by Hussein Kamel after the Gulf War when U.N. weapons inspectors found a cache of technical documents and the scientists were suspected of leaking the location. Khadduri stayed involved with the Iraqi nuclear program until the late 1990s, contributing to one of the country's last major reports to U.N. inspectors. He later went to work for two U.N. agencies in Iraq, allowing him to earn the money needed to get to Canada. The scientist said he decided to emigrate, which he did without permission, because he had always planned for his three children to be educated abroad. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (5171)	2/4/2003 9:18:19 AM
From: ForYourEyesOnly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

"Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies" ************ Letting George Do It Pondering The World's Mother-In-Law I'm trying to understand American foreign policy. It's like oil-painting on a trampoline, but makes less sense. I'm not sure anybody could do it--not even if you took St. Augustine and Jimmy the Greek and Carl Friedrichs Gauss and wired them together in parallel. It seems that we're going to blow up Iraq. Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies. Iraq is a primitive country and hasn't got a chance. That's convenient, and lots of fun, but it ain't war. Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But…why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire? Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe. I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy. Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really? It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan twice, Laos, Lebanon twice, Iraq almost twice, Yemen, Angola, Kosovo, Cuba, Libya. We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan? Why? Why always us? Can't we just, you know, spend an occasional Saturday night at home? North Korea is South Korea's problem, not ours, and South Korea is an industrial power. If it wants to defend itself, fine. If it doesn't, I don't care. Is Japan upset about North Korea? Then let Japan do something about it. Why are we always the International Mother? What possible reason did we have for bombing Yugoslavia? Last I heard, Yugoslavia was in Europe. Granted, I haven't looked for a while. Maybe it moved to Mississippi or the outskirts of Detroit. Continental drift is like that. But if it's in Europe, I say it's Europe's problem. Let them bomb Yugoslavia till it squeaks. Or not. Why do I care? It's time Europe learned to diaper itself. For that matter, why do we have troops in Europe? I don't get it. NATO was supposed to fight the Soviet Union, I thought, which we don't have one of. Could we stop meddling for even a week? We're in Colombia and Mexico and Peru and God knows where because these folk work in the drug trade, and we have A Drug Problem. We have a drug problem because Americans want drugs. It's not Colombia's problem. It's our problem. Why don't we leave Colombia the hell alone? Think about it. Suppose a Colombian crept up to you in a raincoat, peering around furtively, and whispered, "Hey, Meester, wanna buy some really good polio virus? Great stuff. You'll never walk again. Iron lung, guaranteed. Five bucks." You would probably indicate that you didn't really need any polio just now. The Colombian would run off and starve, or jump his visa and get a job in construction. You can't sell what people won't buy. It's an economic law. (Unless you're the federal government, which consists of the compulsory sale of unwanted services. But Colombia isn't.) Americans love drugs. Middle-schoolers through assisted living, black, white, blue collar, guttural lawyers in pricey turtle-neck sweaters, funny-looking urbanites, suburbanites with the little bag in the closet, country boys cutting ditchweed, growing hydroponic, cooking that righteous crank. It's one of the biggest businesses in America. We'll pay any price, risk jail, do anything for our drugs. The cartel is just a service industry. Half the country wants them, and the other half doesn't have to take them. Why do we expect other countries to let us bomb their peasants to solve our problem? If we have to poke our nose everywhere, could we at least stop being the Moral Nanny? Somebody said (me, actually) that the Brits fight for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for mommyish moral causes. Spare me. It's embarrassing. Europe fought world wars to get the Germans off its back. We fought The War to End All War, and then to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and now Iraq and Korea are the Axes of Evil. (Whether this refers to malintentioned hatchets or indicates that the White House doesn't know that points can't be lines is unclear.) I don't want to be a Manichean baby-sitter. Americans may need to get out more. I recently heard that ferret-like little man in the White House trying to give a speech about Iraq and how we're going to liberate Iraqis and it's for their own good and they ought to welcome us like rich relatives bringing free stuff. Any day now. Can't we put George back into his storage box in Roswell? Last time we were in Iraq, we killed 125,000 of their men, or some other wholesome number, wrecked the country, set up an embargo that starves 60,000 of their children to death a year, and established an aerial occupation of lots of their country. But they're going to welcome us because George has good intentions. We're from the government, and we're here to help you…. Why are we embargoing Cuba? When the Soviets wanted to put runways and missiles there, it made sense. Now we're making life miserable for perfectly decent Cubans because we don't like that tiresome gas bag with the beard. Yes, I know. We're really doing it because Castro runs an oppressive communist tyranny. Like China, with whom we trade like starving encyclopedia salesmen. Consistency and churchy moralism go so well together. I give up. It's beyond me.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (5171)	2/4/2003 6:53:29 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

From your reference: >>>No nation can prove they don't have weapons of mass destruction.<<< Is this worth thinking about? You bet it is! I wonder how many war hawks themselves root for the back-up quarterback when he's put into the mid-game. I'd think anyone with the capacity to root on that level could at least understand that "no nation can prove they don't have weapons of mass destruction." And thus the begging question: Is it worth promoting a war that'll see potentially up to a million deaths, potentially rampant and unparalled environmental havoc and strong potential to create unrest in neighboring countries, perhaps even with the potential to spread beyond the region. All of this because of a failure to understand consequences; a failure to reason that one country should do what no other country can do; a failure to root for what one should be rooting for, i.e., a better condition.