Wikileaks: Yellowcake Uranium in Iraq - Page 3

On December 14 2010 09:38 poor newb wrote:
this needs more reliable sources, not a single article about this is found anywhere else on the internet

On December 14 2010 09:30 Krigwin wrote:
Why would they keep a lid on this if it provides justification for the entire war effort?

On December 14 2010 09:34 Grumbels wrote:
Weapons of mass destruction is just a propaganda phrase. You can deal damage with anything if you're resourceful enough, Iraq was always a threat in that regard. Just because they're a threat, it doesn't mean the invasion was justified. One of the awful things about the WMD debate was that it should have been irrelevant. It was just one more argument the Bush administration used - who knows what the actual reasons were - , so discrediting it shouldn't have meant you won the debate. Detractors of his policy always left themselves up for a fall if some chemical weapons or whatever were found. The same thing now happens with Iran, if you accept the premise that WMD -> invasion necessary, then if Iran ever is close to aquiring nuclear weapons, we should attack them. I find that ludicrous however, just to compare, the United States has enough weaponry to destroy the world 7 times over, yet it finds the time to lecture other nations about such things?

On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote:
That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O

On December 14 2010 09:26 Ghostcom wrote:


Are you my twin? I uttered those EXACT words when I read it...

Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb, officials decided that in Iraq's unstable environment, it was important to make sure that it did not fall into the wrong hands.