• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Disagreeable

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Still waiting..........................where did anyone here say the war was Funny........................


Still waiting ...............................................waiting ...............................................waiting :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Steve said:
I do not listen to or watch niether Limbugh or Hannity, I tend to think and believe moderatly. It just really upsets me the personnel attacts disagreeable has made and continuies to make towards myself and others..

No one on this board has been the subject of more personal attacks than me. I can take it and don't whine. You can dish it out, but don't take it very well. You need to get thicker skin, Steve, because I'm not through here.

it would be easy to discus the war in Iraq, with out the personnel attacks on the great work our troops have done,

I've posted over and over my respect and love of the Army. But they have been dishonored and badly used by this Administration. When I post the proof of that on this board, I'm called a traitor. If you have an article, a report, from a respected news outlet, with a link, that you want to discuss, bring it on.

and it would be easy to discus politics in general with out the scum Dis digs up on obscure republicans and actually discus issues, this is not happening because when ever a attempt to do so arrises Disagreeable comes forward with some extreme view and attacks one of the posters or calls them "liers"

"obscure republicans"? Chuck Hagel is not an "obscure republican." Bill Frist is not an "obscure republican". I've called you and Cal liars when you have lied about my claim that Kerry would win the election. I never said that. You lied; that makes you a liar.

yes my words were wrong but I am also tired of the continued attacks against the military and the referances that twist portions of statements I have made to show a view I oppose,

I'm not attacking our military. I'm attacking the Bush admistration for misusing our military. You know that; you just continue to pretend otherwise. There's never any excuse for rudness.

I do not find the militaries actions child's games, and defended that in the same post. But yes my dislike for Dissagreeable and her liberal agenda was over the top. for that I apologise to the other posters and have edited the statement,

You compared the Iraqi war with going to a high school game. I'm not going to look up the post but you referenced supporting your "team" through the first quarter even though they were behind, through the second quarter, etc, as if the Iraqi war was something to enjoy and cheer about. It's out here on the site, Steve, you can't deny it.
 
SDSteve said:
Steve said:
Dis wrote,

Unlike Steve who compares it to a game,

Dis your a complete asshole.!

I compared the undieing support of our troops to the support a parent give one's child, just as a mother's love finds courage to support her child through hard times we must support our troops,

but a dike lesbian anti-military asswipe like your self would never understand,,so call me a lier, and twist the words I use, but NEVER say I find this war or any other war funny, you sick bastard...

why don't you come to Deadwood and we can see who is the real lier....you jack ass,
If I wasn't going to be at the state fair that weekend I would consider going to Deadwood to see what a vile potty mouth such as yourself looks like. You must have broken your keyboard posting that message. I have never seen Disagreable come anywhere close to the crap you post. A right-wing nut is just as bad as a left-wing nut. You really need to think for yourself instead of just parroting what Limbaugh and Hannity preach.

SD, thank you for your comments. Steve's post is a shining example of these people's agenda. From the whispering campaign against John McCain when he opposed Bush for the Republican nomination (they said he was "unstable", that all those years in a VietNam prison camp had affected his mind), the attacks on Joe Wilson and outing his wife as a CIA agent because he told the truth about Niger, right up to Cindy Sheehan, personal attacks are their choice of politics. Enjoy the fair.
 
We as a country have to back our troops and our president no matter what. The whining and backstabbing does no good for our country. We are one.... If something horrific happens to use I would want to be with our troops and president than aginst them. When President Bush's term is up then we can vote for our next leader to lead us and I will back him and our troops then no matter what...It does no good to bad mouth the country and that is just what is happening...
I have tons of respect and pride for our fighting forces and find it quite offensive to have anyone run them down.
 
katrina said:
We as a country have to back our troops and our president no matter what. The whining and backstabbing does no good for our country. We are one.... If something horrific happens to use I would want to be with our troops and president than aginst them. When President Bush's term is up then we can vote for our next leader to lead us and I will back him and our troops then no matter what...It does no good to bad mouth the country and that is just what is happening...
I have tons of respect and pride for our fighting forces and find it quite offensive to have anyone run them down.

Yes, we have to support our troops. I do support our troops. We don't have to ignore the way this Administration has treated them and I won't. How can you defend these people who sent our soldiers into Iraq by using lies? Saddam wasn't buying yellowcake uranium from Niger; there were no WMDs and if Bush had waited another two weeks, the UN inspectors would have verified that. Why didn't he wait, Katrina? Surely a two week wait is worth the lives of almost 2,000 Americans and billions of our dollars.

You didn't support our last elected president; why would anything think you'll support the next one?

Show me where I've "run down" our fighting forces. I've posted the truth about how they're being misused in this war and neglected when they come back to the US.

A professional soldier told Congress we needed "several hundred thousand" troops to invade Iraq and secure the peace. The Bush Bunch did what they always to do people who have the courage to disagree with them, they basically forced him to retire. (They didn't give him a new assignment, but named his replacement.) They didn't send enough troops to secure the munition sites, secure the borders or protect the Iraqi people from thugs, murders and terrorists; the list goes on of their bad decisions. And not a single person in this Bunch has been held responsible for their bad judgment! How can you claim to support the troops and defend these people?
 
Disagreeable said:
Saddam wasn't buying yellowcake uranium from Niger; there were no WMDs and if Bush had waited another two weeks, the UN inspectors would have verified that.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."
 
NewsMax? What a joke. That you will even post a link to their site shows how desperate you are. From your post, and remeber it's all from NewsMax, my emphasis. :lol:

"The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

---not sufficent for a weapon.--- How hard is that to understand. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

"if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level f enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb."

---IF IF IF--

"Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home."

Where are those blueprints, designs - everything? If I remember they found one weird part in his garden that no could every definitely say was part of a nuclear anything. But I can learn. Show me, Cal, where these blueprints, designs, components were found, cataloged and ignored by this Administration and the scientific commuity.

"If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor."

--if these FACTS are undisputed, why hasn't the Bush Bunch brought them to the public's attention? All Bush has to do is call a press conference and lay these FACTS out and everyone will say "well he was right after all" So why hasn't he?--


""In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger"

The 1980s. Give me a break.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/28/110744.shtml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14295
 
Liberty Belle said:
No dis, give us a break. Let's see you disprove any of these stories with REAL facts. Bring it on...
\\From the first link:

"The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday. "

DIRTY BOMBS are not WMDs.

Second link:

NewxMax. That said, the article is the opinion of a Gold Star mom who has had the same cool aide as some on this board. It doesn't mean any more than what Cindy Sheehan says.


Third link:

"Cannot find Server" message.

So you have one article, out of three, that says there was some material that could have been used in "dirty bombs." That's not proof of WMDs.

I say again, if there was any proof of WMDs, the Bush Bunch would have it on the headlines of every newspaper and TV station in the country. That they haven't is all the proof anyone with a brain needs to realize they lied and mislead us into this war.

And I'm not going sort through a mass of sites again. Make it worth my while with a quote or don't bother to post them for my reference.
 
Hey dis - give me your definition of a weapon of mass destruction. I understand it to mean any weapon of any kind that can be used to kill thousands of people, much like the things that Saddam used to kill his own countrymen. Were they not WMD?

Oh, and it's Kool-Aid, not "cool aide". Personally, I stay away from the stuff and highly recommend that you lay off it once in awhile yourself, it's playing havoc with your reasoning and comprehension.

Check that third link again. I had no trouble bringing it up this morning.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14295
 
Liberty Belle said:
Hey dis - give me your definition of a weapon of mass destruction. I understand it to mean any weapon of any kind that can be used to kill thousands of people, much like the things that Saddam used to kill his own countrymen. Were they not WMD?

Oh, and it's Kool-Aid, not "cool aide". Personally, I stay away from the stuff and highly recommend that you lay off it once in awhile yourself, it's playing havoc with your reasoning and comprehension.

Check that third link again. I had no trouble bringing it up this morning.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14295

From your link "* Critics of President Bush, who carped about the so-called fabricated intelligence about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa (Niger), would be wise to wait for a full analysis of the source of the materials that were flown to the US, and the materials that remain at Tuwaitha."

So where is the analysis? I've said from the beginning of my posts on this board, if Saddam had WMDs he'd have used them when the US invaded his country. He didn't. You and others came up with several ridiculous, laughable, reasons he hadn't. But the facts remain, there are no WMDs. President Bush, himself, has said there appear to be no WMDs. Two Bush appointed Weapons Inspectors testifed before Congress to that effect and finally Bush even called off the hunt.

And I'll say again, if there is anything from this find that equates WMDs, the Bush Bunch would have had it on the front page of every newspaper and topping every single newscast in the US. They haven't because it's not true.

Dirty Bombs are not WMDs. Unlike you, I don't have a personal definition of WMDs. There's probably a legal definition online somewhere, but I'm through educating you today.
 
Disagreeable said:
Liberty Belle said:
No dis, give us a break. Let's see you disprove any of these stories with REAL facts. Bring it on...
\\From the first link:

"The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday. "

DIRTY BOMBS are not WMDs.

Second link:

NewxMax. That said, the article is the opinion of a Gold Star mom who has had the same cool aide as some on this board. It doesn't mean any more than what Cindy Sheehan says.


Third link:

"Cannot find Server" message.

So you have one article, out of three, that says there was some material that could have been used in "dirty bombs." That's not proof of WMDs.

I say again, if there was any proof of WMDs, the Bush Bunch would have it on the headlines of every newspaper and TV station in the country. That they haven't is all the proof anyone with a brain needs to realize they lied and mislead us into this war.

And I'm not going sort through a mass of sites again. Make it worth my while with a quote or don't bother to post them for my reference.

Dirty bombs, which create radiation and fallout are not WMD's? I geuss radiation sickness is no big deal, huh?

Are you now admitting that what Cindy Sheehan says doesn't mean much? Glad you're coming around.

So sorry you couldn't pull up that last link, evidentually everyone else had no trouble with it. Here it is:

The UN, Al-Tuwaitha, and Nukes
By Douglas Hanson
The American Thinker | July 20, 2004

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was very upset last week that the US had shipped about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and other radioactive material out of Iraq for disposition in the US. One would think that the IAEA would have appreciated our work in assisting them in the implementation of the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in this particularly volatile region of the world. But one would be wrong.

The actions, or more appropriately, the inactions of the IAEA regarding Iraq since the end of Gulf War I, betray the agency's true agenda. Rather than inspect, report, and implement restrictions in accordance with the provisions in the treaty, the agency has in effect become an enabler of rogue nations who are attempting, or who have already succeeded in developing or acquiring special nuclear material and equipment. In other words, the IAEA is simply a reflection of its parent organization, which routinely delays and obfuscates the efforts of the US and the UK in controlling banned substances and delivery systems.

Time after time, the agency has either intentionally or naively bought into the lies and deceptions contrived by nations of the Axis of Evil during IAEA visits and inspections. In most cases, the IAEA avoids confrontation like the plague in order to maintain access to the facilities. If they are booted out, as was the case with North Korea, their impotence is on display for all to see. In other cases, the agency joins in the deception, thereby allowing these rogue states to level the nuclear playing field with the West and Russia. Their reaction to the shipment of nuclear material out of Saddam's nuclear research center at Al-Tuwaitha is a perfect example of this tactic.

The nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha is a 23,000 acre site located about 20 kilometers south-southeast of Baghdad. Most reports of the transfer of the low-enriched uranium out of the country correctly refer to the source location of the uranium as at Tuwaitha Site C. But there is much more material stored at this huge site, and there are more facilities at Tuwaitha that have contributed significantly to the overall capabilities of the research center. These key facilities are, of course, generally ignored in major press reports.

Site C is a relatively small site as compared to the rest of the reservation, but the amount of material stored there is not insignificant. In addition to the nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium secured by the US, Site C was home to an additional 500 tons of yellowcake uranium,* This is a conservative estimate as initially reported by Coalition personnel from the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Ironically, this initial figure is backed up by, of all organizations, Greenpeace.

Yellowcake is uranium ore that has been milled to produce a pure form of the substance known as Uranium Oxide. Further processes, such as conversion and enrichment, are required to make the yellowcake suitable for use as nuclear fuel in a reactor or for use in a nuclear weapon. Interestingly, a quantity of depleted uranium was also found at Tuwaitha. This implies that some enrichment processes occurred on-site, as depleted uranium is the natural byproduct of the enrichment process.

In addition to the yellowcake, approximately 300 tons of radioisotopes for industrial and medical uses were stored at primarily Site B. These materials, numbering over 1000 radioactive items retrieved from the site, included Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60. Both are extremely radioactive substances that are ideal for use in Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD), or "dirty bombs."

There are also three key facilities on the Al-Tuwaitha reservation that are rarely mentioned in media accounts of the transfer. First, there is the French reactor at Site B, better known as Osirak, which was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981 in Operation Opera. The second facility is the Russian built reactor at Site A, destroyed by the US in Gulf War I in 1991. The third facility is a fuel fabrication plant at Site D, also destroyed in 1991. All three facilities have never been rebuilt. All spent fuel or fresh fuel was sent back to the country of origin after Gulf War I.

Now, the IAEA complains that the Department of Energy (DOE) shipped the radioactive materials to the US without UN permission. The agency's rationale is that there was

some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA.

The material at Tuwaitha is also characterized as being "under IAEA seal and control." The article states that only two tons of yellowcake remained at Al-Tuwaitha after Gulf War I. This is simply incorrect, according to my own sources. Either the AP, the IAEA, or both, are misrepresenting the facts.

All of this begs the question: why did the IAEA allow Iraq to retain such massive amounts of nuclear material, when its three nuclear facilities had been destroyed over 12 years ago, and have never been repaired? In fact, the Russian reactor is so hot, it would take years to clean up the facility; it's a total write off. Iraq had no legitimate reason to have possessed the yellowcake.

And speaking of the storage and accountability of the radioactive material, who maintained those seals, anyway? Let's see the paperwork.

And why didn't the UN ship the yellowcake and the low-enriched uranium out of the country 12 years ago? Wouldn't the UN be interested in denying Saddam the nuclear raw materials, in case he decided to conduct enrichment by calutron at facilities such as Tarmiya and al-Fajar?

It appears the IAEA is not really interested in non-proliferation at all; otherwise this material would have long ago been safeguarded in another country. Thankfully, this overdue evacuation of a dangerous stockpile has finally been started by the DOE, even if much more remains to be done.

Department of Energy officials estimated that the two tons of low-enriched uranium shipped to the US, given further refinement, is enough to produce one nuclear bomb. The number of bombs that could be made from the over 500 tons of yellowcake is frightening, and, had the coalition not attacked Iraq, Saddam's nuclear bomb stockpile may have become reality. The IAEA would have us believe that the massive amount of yellowcake on-site and the depleted uranium find were just due to the Iraqis pursuing enrichment techniques in order to provide fuel for two destroyed reactors. This is what the UN views as nuclear research for "peaceful purposes." Simply put, Saddam had retained a nuclear weapons regeneration capability in the same way he did for biological and chemical weapons production.

The IAEA chief, Mohamed El-Baradei is distraught at the secretive nature of the US transfer of nuclear materials out of Iraq. He also continues to opine about the US confronting Tehran about its 18 year effort to conceal its nuclear weapon activities. Most analysts say the mullahs will produce a bomb in short order. El-Baradei said that he didn't want to take the Iran issue before the UN Security Council because

You are running the risk that the Security Council might not act and therefore the situation would exacerbate. And you run the risk that Iran might opt out of the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and you have another North Korea.

In other words, the chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency doesn't want to notify the member nations of the UN Security Council of the Iranian breach of treaty provisions, because the council might then institute economic sanctions, and then Iran might opt out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and then expel UN inspectors, and then some big US city is blown to smithereens -- well, you get the idea.

The UN and its so-called nuclear watchdog agency have proven again that they are not about preventing the proliferation of WMD, but in reality, unwittingly or intentionally, assist rogue nations' nuclear weapons programs. Their track record over the last decade includes abject failure in North Korea, allowing a sadistic dictator to keep nuclear materials to fuel non-operational reactors, and now they are afraid to truthfully report the critical situation in Iran to the Security Council.

Keep in mind that John Kerry wants to entrust our national security to these same people.

All I have to say is, thank God for the Coalition and George W. Bush.
 
I don't have a personal definition of WMDs

I would say by not defining a WMD, it is easy for you to claim thier nonexistance as no proof can be defined that would satisfy your difinition...

Would enough material for one nuclear bomb be enough? or would it be required to have enough material for Two nuclear bombs to satisfy your non existant definition?

and if we found enough material for one bomb, how many links would you require, and should they be from liberal sources such as Micheal Moore, or would something such as three sources not quoting from each other...

maybe since you are attempting in your own arrogant way to educate US, you could at least give US a sylibus and a standard "definition"....

[/quote]
 

Latest posts

Top