(09-15-2015 04:58 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

B.S. No One but Saddam and His Henchmen Knew. His Stall tactics and Our slow build up to going into Iraq gave Him ample time to move stuff out of the country. Iraq even sent Their best fighter jets to Iran so They wouldn't be destroyed.

Link?

(09-15-2015 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 04:58 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

B.S. No One but Saddam and His Henchmen Knew. His Stall tactics and Our slow build up to going into Iraq gave Him ample time to move stuff out of the country. Iraq even sent Their best fighter jets to Iran so They wouldn't be destroyed.

Link?

I found this.

Why Didn’t The Iraqi Air Force Fight During The 2003 Invasion?

Quote:During the Gulf conflict, Iraq followed a similar plan. First, it tried to hide many of its planes by dispersing them throughout the country. When that didn’t work, it decided to send aircraft to the only nation that the Coalition would not hit, Iran. 173 fighters, bombers, and transports were flown to Iran as a result. The problem was, after the war, Tehran did not return the planes, and Iraq lost a sizeable piece of its air force.

(09-14-2015 01:03 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 09:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Of course we aren't going in. This whole agreement is predicated on the fact. In the end, this PR move will zero negative consequences on Obama or the DNC. If Iran complies, then the agreement is seen as triumph of foreign policy and diplomacy. If Iran reneges then proponents will simply state that the deal was the best and only chance to prevent an Atomic Iran.

Agree. It's a PR move and nothing more. A toothless treaty that hasn't been properly vetted and has enough holes in it to be easily circumvented.

Inspectors say we want to go to A, B, and C. Iran says A and B are okay but no way you're going to C. Inspectors find nothing at A and B. What next? It's the Saddam problem all over.

What troubles me is possible opportunity costs. Was there something worthwhile that we could have gotten for unfreezing their assets, instead of this?

Four American political prisoners comes to mind.

Maybe They were "conservatives" so "O" didn't consider Their release important enough.

If they were gay, he'd have done anything to get them back.

On second thought, if they were gay, they'd long ago been thrown off a building.

(09-14-2015 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.
Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

Except, no, we DIDN'T know. We had intel suggesting yes, we had other intel suggesting no, but we did not actually know. That's the problem with intel, it's always a best guess. We will end up in the same position with respect to Iran.

Let's not sell Sadaam short here. By his own admissions he wanted the world to THINK he had nuclear weapons. Specifically his 'good friends' next door in Iran. It was a paper tiger deterrent and it worked. Everyone thought they had nuclear weapons. EVERYONE. Sadaam did a great job with his shell game. The difference in this case is that Iran actually will have one if they don't have one already.

(09-15-2015 12:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 04:58 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

B.S. No One but Saddam and His Henchmen Knew. His Stall tactics and Our slow build up to going into Iraq gave Him ample time to move stuff out of the country. Iraq even sent Their best fighter jets to Iran so They wouldn't be destro

ed.

Link?

I found this.

Why Didn’t The Iraqi Air Force Fight During The 2003 Invasion?

Quote:During the Gulf conflict, Iraq followed a similar plan. First, it tried to hide many of its planes by dispersing them throughout the country. When that didn’t work, it decided to send aircraft to the only nation that the Coalition would not hit, Iran. 173 fighters, bombers, and transports were flown to Iran as a result. The problem was, after the war, Tehran did not return the planes, and Iraq lost a sizeable piece of its air force.

Thanks. But that's for the Gulf war. For this time, that article says:

Quote: Because Saddam did not see the U.S.-led coalition in 2003 as a real threat to his power, he did not want to waste his planes during the invasion, and chose to bury and camouflage them instead. That was the real lesson from the episode, in that it revealed Saddam’s flawed perceptions of the war that would unseat him.

(09-15-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 12:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 04:58 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

B.S. No One but Saddam and His Henchmen Knew. His Stall tactics and Our slow build up to going into Iraq gave Him ample time to move stuff out of the country. Iraq even sent Their best fighter jets to Iran so They wouldn't be destro

ed.

Link?

I found this.

Why Didn’t The Iraqi Air Force Fight During The 2003 Invasion?

Quote:During the Gulf conflict, Iraq followed a similar plan. First, it tried to hide many of its planes by dispersing them throughout the country. When that didn’t work, it decided to send aircraft to the only nation that the Coalition would not hit, Iran. 173 fighters, bombers, and transports were flown to Iran as a result. The problem was, after the war, Tehran did not return the planes, and Iraq lost a sizeable piece of its air force.

Thanks. But that's for the Gulf war. For this time, that article says:

Quote: Because Saddam did not see the U.S.-led coalition in 2003 as a real threat to his power, he did not want to waste his planes during the invasion, and chose to bury and camouflage them instead. That was the real lesson from the episode, in that it revealed Saddam’s flawed perceptions of the war that would unseat him.

[/quote]

Which begs the question as to how exactly a plane will function after it has tons of sand dumped on it and in it. Not sure Sadam thought that through too well.

(09-15-2015 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 12:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 12:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 04:58 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  B.S. No One but Saddam and His Henchmen Knew. His Stall tactics and Our slow build up to going into Iraq gave Him ample time to move stuff out of the country. Iraq even sent Their best fighter jets to Iran so They wouldn't be destro

ed.

Link?

I found this.

Why Didn’t The Iraqi Air Force Fight During The 2003 Invasion?

Quote:During the Gulf conflict, Iraq followed a similar plan. First, it tried to hide many of its planes by dispersing them throughout the country. When that didn’t work, it decided to send aircraft to the only nation that the Coalition would not hit, Iran. 173 fighters, bombers, and transports were flown to Iran as a result. The problem was, after the war, Tehran did not return the planes, and Iraq lost a sizeable piece of its air force.

Thanks. But that's for the Gulf war. For this time, that article says:

Quote: Because Saddam did not see the U.S.-led coalition in 2003 as a real threat to his power, he did not want to waste his planes during the invasion, and chose to bury and camouflage them instead. That was the real lesson from the episode, in that it revealed Saddam’s flawed perceptions of the war that would unseat him.

Which begs the question as to how exactly a plane will function after it has tons of sand dumped on it and in it. Not sure Sadam thought that through too well.
[/quote]
I'm sure they covered them up with a tarp or something. I know we're not talking about the most sophisticated country on the planet here, but I'm sure they were aware they couldn't just cover a plane up with sand without negative consequences.

Which begs the question as to how exactly a plane will function after it has tons of sand dumped on it and in it. Not sure Sadam thought that through too well.
[/quote]



There's ways of covering them up to minimize damage from the elements. And if you've seen the Velocity Channel where mechanics strip a car down to it's innards and then re-do the whole thing the same process goes into bringing an airplane up to snuff.

Also, 'buried underground' doesn't always have to mean encased with sand. It could be in an underground bunker of some sort with a wall and roof structure.

It wouldn't have mattered if they had fully utilized an air force with 3 times the number of aircraft they had. They were flying vietnam era soviet and french planes with cold war era electronics. US pilots would have had a field day in air to air combat.

Hell, Syria is still flying vietnam era planes.

Great...uranium mine to double in size. I warned you all.

Quote:CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — One of the biggest uranium mines in Wyoming, the nation's top producer of the radioactive metal, proposes to more than double in size amid hope that weak prices since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster will begin to climb back upward.

Littleton, Colorado-based Ur-Energy plans to expand its Lost Creek in-situ mine in south-central Wyoming to an area covering some 15 square miles.
Under the plan, production from the site would increase from around 800,000 pounds per year to as much 1.2 million pounds. Total permitted production would increase from 1 million to 2.2 million pounds, which includes up to 1 million tons brought to Lost Creek from elsewhere for processing into yellowcake, a uranium concentrate powder.

The proposed expansion must be approved by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which is now taking public comment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/arti...z3lvqA8eMD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook