aliasinkhorn's favorite nuclear-weapons pages, page 1

Online nowAliasinkhorn: .Ink. is a single guy from Huntington, New York, USA.; Likes 3,860 pages, 78 videos, 338 photos • 187 fans • Received 43 reviews; Member since Nov 01, 2007

Favorites » His nuclear-weapons pages

Display:
List
• Grid

American Thinker: Disconfirmations Disconfirmed: Saddam Had Nuke Program: Jul 7, 10:12am 5 reviews iraq, wmd, saddam-hussein, nuclear-weapons
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/disconfirmations_disconfirmed.html; Disconfirmations Disconfirmed: Saddam Had Nuke Program (Updated) From the page: "The media have been telling us for years that Saddam had no WMD, so "Bush's War": was based on a "lie." And those who believed Saddam did have WMD or WMD programs were delusional or worse. But today, on July 6, 2008, the Associated Press reports that * Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program * At the Tuwaitha nuclear complex just south of Baghdad * Which included 550 metric tons (over 1.2 million pounds) of "yellowcake", or concentrated uranium * And multiple devices that could be used in a nuclear weapon. The AP does not say alleged nuclear program. It does not add "according to military experts." It simply says "Saddam Hussein's nuclear program."" Having spent time in Asia, it is evident that much of the news on Iraq in America is driven by political postures or ideologies. Democrats have had wars under Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and a whole series of small conflicts under Clinton, as opposed to Republicans who had ... I'm confident the reader can finish the sentence. It always looks like the Rebublicans are warlike for those on the Left. Did Bush do the right thing in Iraq? I was disturbed when it was clear the US would go into Iraq, and angry when it was decided they'd stay, both reactions for solid reasons beyond the pale of American juvenile partisan politics. As time has gone on, it is clear that American military presence did not make problems, it exposed them. And it became clear that America's enemy was also Europe's, other Muslim countries', as well as Israel's enemy. Al Qaeda and associates had the blood of nations dripping from their lips, blood that crossed national, ethnic and religious divides. Tho I am reluctant to concede this, what America did in Iraq was moral. How it did it was mangled in the beginning, but has clearly demonstrated significant improvement over time. There have been horrible, unintended consequences which eventually generated deliberately good outcomes overtime. But I'm still uneasy. .

DEBKAfile - US Military Option on Iran Is Back on the Table: Mar 26, 2:37am 1 review us, saudi-arabia, iran, nuclear-weapons, oman
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1342; Iran is still in the news. It's state objectives haven't changed. It's initiatives in nuclear weapons haven't waned, and its continued provocations in the Strait of Hormuz are signals it's ultimate objective is intimidation and manipulation or stopping oil transport in the event of conflict. When the US brought Hussein down, it swept away the only buffer between Iran and much of the rest of the world. From the page: "Our sources report exclusively that his talks are focusing on two aspects of the Iranian nuclear threat: 1. The Bush administration's decision to distance itself from the National Intelligence Estimate released last December. Its conclusion that Iran's nuclear arms program was shelved in 2003, which rendered America's military option superfluous, is now deemed a mistake. 2. The administration now buys British, German, French and Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran is indeed pressing forward with programs for building nuclear weapons, warheads and ballistic missiles for their delivery. The vice president will listen closely to his hosts ideas about joint efforts for containing Iran's aggressive expansionist thrusts across the Persian Gulf and Middle East and halting its progress towards nuclear armaments. The vice president's choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again. American will need the cooperation of all four - Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey - to mount a military attack on Iran. Oman hosts the big American air bases which are the core of the defense shield for the Strait of Hormuz and for the US Navy, Marine and Air Force units deployed in the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia is the senior Gulf and Arabian trendsetter and the key to pan-Arab endorsement for a US offensive against Tehran. Riyadh has opposed military action until now. Israel is the only regional nation willing to actively participate in an attack on Iran's nuclear sites; its military has been putting together plans for going it alone."