EPTWikileaks: Yellowcake Uranium in Iraq - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
night terrors
China1284 Posts
| ||
|
Blobskillz
Germany548 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
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 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.htm | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
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? Because this isn't justification. The article is horribly wrong... calling degraded yellowcake and chemicals that WE SOLD TO SADDAM WMDs. The article also claimed that Iraq wouldn't want nuclear power because it has oil, which is an out and out lie. Oil is pretty much their only export, and not needing to use it themselves would be a massive plus; they would have access to more foreign money. Saddam admitted in his trial that he only pretended to have WMDs because he was afraid of Iran and he didn't expect the USA would attack. "Derp we found chemicals in Iraq" is not evidence of a continuing WMD program. If you define chlorine as a WMD, ok, sue me I have WMDs in my house. | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
@teamsolid: The article mentions press coverage of the yellowcake being shipped out of Iraq in 2008. Perhaps this is a case of that dastardly Liberal Media | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
Second, it was already announced in the Duelfer Report over 5 years ago that Saddam wanted to restart his WMD program once sanctions were lifted. So basically this news is not as dramatic as it might seem to be.. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
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? I hate to say, you seem an awful lot like someone who's conceited from the personalities of these people and take for granted the country you live in. The US doesn't want to destroy the world 7 times over. Saddam Hussein was a fascist religious nut who wanted the end of the world to come. Iran as well wants this. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
| ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
| ||
|
Apexplayer
United States406 Posts
| ||
|
rsol
Australia117 Posts
| ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O Wikileaks isn't out to make the US government look bad no matter what. Wikileaks is out to present the truth. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ | ||
|
MoRe_mInErAls
Canada1210 Posts
This is freaking huge. If it was not for the invasion, Iraq would be a nuclear power with Suddam at the helm." Points to consider 1. Having yellowcake doesn't mean Iraq was pursuing WMD, it just means they want to start a nuclear program. The program isn't even necessarily active 2. This isn't news. It might be somewhere in Wikileaks but this information has been discussed to death over two years ago 3. It's political commentary by a far-right website who is using every opportunity to attack "mainscream" media and presenting it as news | ||
|
ViruzZ
Sweden19 Posts
| ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:26 Ghostcom wrote: Are you my twin? I uttered those EXACT words when I read it... Are you my triplets? | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
I could never figure where the Ux U3O8 came from. It was just a lot, a lot of Uranium being purported shipped back from Iraq. No news site ever really covered it though. I couldn't figure out why no one bothered to check if it was really Sadaams or US just confiscated a lot of yellowcake. | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:40 Wr3k wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.htm that was an article from 2008 about yellowcakes, it even specifically stated that yellowcakes are NOT WMDs. It has nothing to do with Wikileaks or WMDs 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. | ||
|
Zips
United States146 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation%2C_alleged_Mobile_Production_Facilities.jpg) | ||
| ||
