IAEA says team denied access to suspected sites!

[Camera]

Iran will not be bombed by IDF or anyone else . -period.. Well, not in the percivable future of next 5-10 years at least. Why? 1) If they destroy Iran who will be responsible for all the bad things that happen on this world? 2) How will you create everyday crysis without Iran or NK nukes and stuff? 3) Whan can actually be gained by just bombing some facilities in Iran? A setback for Iran at most.

This was the argument of the opponents to the strike of Osirak. And the destruction of Osirak was just a setback indeed, because Saddam resumed his nuclear program by other ways. But this setback was long enough to avoid the US' coalition to face a nuclear Saddam in 1991.

[Bankoletti]

But this setback was long enough to avoid the US' coalition to face a nuclear Saddam in 1991.

If Saddam had nukes in '91, he'd never gotten attacked. Iraq got invaded precisely because they didn't have anything nasty to strike back with (read: WMDs/nukes).

[timetraveller]

This was the argument of the opponents to the strike of Osirak. And the destruction of Osirak was just a setback indeed, because Saddam resumed his nuclear program by other ways. But this setback was long enough to avoid the US' coalition to face nuclear Saddam in 1991.

So how do you account FOR NOT ONE WMD warhead found in Iraq .. during the GW prt 2 ... Did Saddam perfom one of the greatest Magic trick of all time by making them vanish overnight or the fact is they actually never existed .

And another thing when Iranian Involvement was found in Iraq ... What action then did the US take ....when reasons then were fully justified to take action against Iran .. but they never botherd making a move ..


Also any Military action against Iran will do more harm than good it will push Oil prices right thro the roof making unaffoardable to some people .. and the only folk that will prosper is the Oil Giants , The current cost of living is increasing

[JGXL836]

or the fact is they actually never existed

Right, and Chemical Ali got his nickname just because it is funny.

[Camera]

If Saddam had nukes in '91, he'd never gotten attacked. Iraq got invaded precisely because they didn't have anything nasty to strike back with (read: WMDs/nukes).

In 1991, Iraq had CW but no nukes thankfully to the destruction of Osirak in 1982. But the destruction of Osiraq did not end Iraq's nuclear program. It was just a setback because Saddam resumed it with other technologies. This program was quite advanced in 1991, but it did not reach yet the state of nuclear capability.

[Hollis]

The IAEA is saying that Iran is CURRENTLY in compliance with its inspections routine agreement with the IAEA, but that there are still outstanding, unresolved issues with regards to ALLEGED work on nuclear weapons. The IAEA has no evidence of this work, but they want Iran to prove it isn't true.

Israel takes this as a valid reason to start a war while it sits on hundreds of nukes, unmonitored.

This is not about Israel, it is about Iran and the IAEA.

Also you really should have done your homework:

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/asset...bruary2012.pdf

[Laworkerbee]

So how do you account FOR NOT ONE WMD warhead found in Iraq .. during the GW prt 2 ... Did Saddam perfom one of the greatest Magic trick of all time by making them vanish overnight or the fact is they actually never existed .

Saddam was playing poker and bluffing with a really bad hand.

That's how I explain it.

[Climber]

If Saddam had nukes in '91, he'd never gotten attacked. Iraq got invaded precisely because they didn't have anything nasty to strike back with (read: WMDs/nukes).

Thats the point, isnt it?

[Camera]

So how do you account FOR NOT ONE WMD warhead found in Iraq .. during the GW prt 2 ... Did Saddam perfom one of the greatest Magic trick of all time by making them vanish overnight or the fact is they actually never existed .
And another thing when Iranian Involvement was found in Iraq ...

I'm speaking about 1991, not about 2003.
Saddam's WMD were dismantled by the IAEA inspectors in the 1990s.

What action then did the US take .... when reasons then were fully justified to take action against Iran .. but they never botherd making a move ..

The failure in 2003 was made by US Intelligence. They said Iran still possessed WMD, but did not find any.
They failed also with their assessment with Osirak in 1982 and with Syria's reactor in 2007.
They are maybe failing again at the present.

Also any Military action against Iran will do more harm than good it will push Oil prices right thro the roof making unaffoardable to some people .. and the only folk that will prosper is the Oil Giants , The current cost of living is increasing

Take the Subway.

[Camera]

Saddam was playing poker and bluffing with a really bad hand.

That's how I explain it.

X2

Exactly he played this game during years… Cheating, manipulating, deceiving the inspectors… Many people were really convinced he was still hiding WMD stockpiles somewhere.

[Hollis]

Saddam was playing poker and bluffing with a really bad hand.

That's how I explain it.

Pretty much it.

[Hollis]

If Saddam had nukes in '91, he'd never gotten attacked. Iraq got invaded precisely because they didn't have anything nasty to strike back with (read: WMDs/nukes).

Damn, you should have been in charge and not General Schwarzkopf. Maybe you should read what he (the real General) had to say. Or maybe you are like Saddam and think you are a great tactician. Stormin' Norman is still around and Saddam is not.

[mechin]

In 1991, Iraq had CW but no nukes thankfully to the destruction of Osirak in 1982.

Explain to the rest of us how 40 megawatt light-water reactor if operational in 1982 would have resulted in nuclear weapons in 1991! I'd appreciate a clearly positioned technical answer on that one.

[Hollis]

Explain to the rest of us how 40 megawatt light-water reactor if operational in 1982 would have resulted in nuclear weapons in 1991! I'd appreciate a clearly positioned technical answer on that one.

Read Camera's post slowly, he said No Nukes. Saddam did have Chemical weapons. 5,000 dead Kurds can not be wrong about that.


Also obtaining something and building it, can be two vary different stories. Not saying he had Nukes.

[Camera]

Explain to the rest of us how 40 megawatt light-water reactor if operational in 1982 would have resulted in nuclear weapons in 1991! I'd appreciate a clearly positioned technical answer on that one.

I'm afraid you were mistaken by some unreliable source.
The first link you get when you Google "Osirak" is to an article on "fas" site. This article says Osirak was a 40MW light-water reactor. But this article is mistaken. (Maybe you got your data there, so you were misled.)
But the French sources I have (and that are confirmed by French sources on the net) say Osirak was a 70MW research reactor fueled by 93% Uranium 235.

Example: Gazette Nucléaire N°45 (June-July 1981). The quote is in French but you can understand the embolden data:

Osirak est la copie du réacteur français Osiris décrit en détail dans la réf. (1) , mis en service en octobre 1966 à Saclay. «C'est une pile à eau légère à c¦ur ouvert (dite «pile piscine») d'une puissance de 70 mégawatts thermiques (MWth) dont le but principal est l'irradiation de matériaux de structure de centrales nucléaires dans un flux de neutrons élevé». Il fonctionne à I'uranium enrichi à 93% en l'isotope U 235 qui seul est fissile; la charge correspondante dans le bloc-coeur est de 13,9 kg d'uranium métal, allié à de l'aluminium, contenant 12,9 kg de U 235.

http://resosol.org/Gazette/1981/45p04.html

Osirak was sold to Saddam by Chirac who was the PM of Vallery Giscard d'Estaing. Osirak was destroyed by the IAF in 1981, shortly before Mitterand was elected president. François Mitterand asked the French expert Georges Amsel to provide him a report about the risk of proliferation Osirak may represent if it was rebuilt.
According to Mr. Amsel, the report he made for President Mitterand confirmed that Osirak had the capacity of producing 5 kg military grade Plutonium per year (almost enough for one bomb per year), if natural or, even better, depleted Uranium, was exposed to its neutrons irradiation:

Notre ra pport a démontré qu'Osirak aurait pu produire environ 5 kg de plutonium militaire par an, autre matière première des bombes, qui en nécessitent 6 kg pour être opérationnelles. Pour cela, il suffisait d'irradier de l'uranium naturel, ou, mieux, appauvri, avec les neutrons produits par le réacteur.

http://web.radicalparty.org/pressrev...etail&par=3290


EDIT:
So between 1981 and 1991 Osirak could have produced enough Plutonium for some 9-10 bombes.