|
WikiLeaks' de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off. President George W. Bush, in the 2003 State of the Union address, uttered the infamous "16 words": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson sprang into action and, in an op-ed piece, in effect wrote, "No, the Cheney administration sent me to investigate the allegation -- and I found it without merit."
Put aside that Wilson's CIA-employed wife, not the evil Vice President Dick Cheney -- as Wilson implied -- sent him on the African errand. Put aside that the British still stand by the intelligence on which Bush made the claim. And put aside that the anti-Bush Washington Post, in an editorial, concluded that Wilson had lied about not finding evidence to support the Iraq-in-Africa-for-uranium claim, since he told the CIA the opposite when he reported back from Africa.
Bush claimed that Iraq sought uranium, specifically "yellowcake." What is yellowcake, and why would its presence or attempted acquisition corroborate the nearly unanimous assumption that Saddam possessed WMD?
The Associated Press called yellowcake "the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment" and said that it "also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road" headlined a euphoric Time magazine July 2003 piece -- written when the Bush administration began backtracking from the Iraq-sought-uranium-from-Africa claim. Time said no yellowcake equals no WMD equals bogus basis for war.
The article led with this ripper: "Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa."
Time hoisted (the now discredited) Joe Wilson on its shoulders as The Man Who Told the Truth to Power: "Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it."
Never mind that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Wilson's report "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal" sought by Iraq in Niger.
But ... there ... was ... yellowcake. This brings us back to WikiLeaks.
Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found:
"By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."
In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized:
"The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake -- the WMD Bush supposedly lied about -- a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/larry-elder-wikileaks-vindicates-president-george-w-bush
EDIT: SECOND SOURCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.htm
This is freaking huge. If it was not for the invasion, Iraq would be a nuclear power with Suddam at the helm.
|
wow usa might regain some world credit?
|
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O
|
of course there were wmds, america was the one who gave them to iraq in the first place.
but damn, this changes everything..
|
On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least
|
woah what? @_@
i'm a bit confused, would welcome corrections
hmm reading it more closely, it seems they did lie about the evidence, but their suspicion was correct? That they did find yellow cakes but it wasn't top quality stuff? so there was evidence of them trying for nuclear stuff, but its not enough to tell if its for weapons or power? And they are saying theres no reason to make nuclear power if you're sitting on oil to begin with?
|
Denmark4782 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O
Are you my twin? I uttered those EXACT words when I read it...
|
mind=blown
Holy shit all these years of mocking Bill O'riely.. and..
|
On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O
That is exactly what I was thinking.
But it makes me wonder, if the US goes out of its way this much to jail Assenge, why not go out of its way to get credibility and inform the world that Iraq HAD wmd's?
|
On December 14 2010 09:26 BROotogy wrote: mind=blown
Holy shit all these years of mocking Bill O'riely.. and..
Bill'O'Reily is still pretty damn stupid and ignorant, but yeah. This is a giant +1 to war supporters.
|
LOL.
User was warned for this post
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Isn't this news like 2 years old?
|
|
Did you read the article?
|
Braavos36372 Posts
whaaaaaaaaaat
edit: this is really hard to believe and I'm super curious about getting more info about it.
|
I'm not informed on the situation, but if there's anything I've learned I'm taking anyone who says 'mainstream media' with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm one part of the hivemind, but I'd rather see a 'mainstream media' report on this.
|
now my question is why would they cover this up.
I want to call fake but have no evidence that it is so I'll just blame it on Bush's horrible PR not to show evidence.
|
Why would they keep a lid on this if it provides justification for the entire war effort?
|
On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least Agreed. This will look very good for both the US and wikileaks as the provider of this info.
|
|
On December 14 2010 09:29 Redmark wrote: I'm not informed on the situation, but if there's anything I've learned I'm taking anyone who says 'mainstream media' with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm one part of the hivemind, but I'd rather see a 'mainstream media' report on this. time to break apart from the hive mind my friend, the mainstream media doesn't usually get to these kinds of truths
|
On December 14 2010 09:30 NoobieOne wrote: now my question is why would they cover this up.
I want to call fake but have no evidence that it is so I'll just blame it on Bush's horrible PR not to show evidence.
Well technically having yellowcake uranium doesn't qualify as a WMD. Without an enrichment program it can't be used to make weapons very easily. So when Saddam told UN inspectors to fuck off and they saw he was seeking uranium voila, justification for a war. Perhaps they thought it would make their war effort appear a bit pre-mature by releasing this, after all, some raw uranium is hardly a WMD. I supported it all the way anyways since Saddam was a crazy fucker with chem/bio weapons and a history of mass murder.
Also... This was old news in 2008.
|
This is from a far-right web site with a clear agenda. In 2008, when this yellowcake was supposedly removed from Iraq, George W. Bush was still president. Obama was not inaugurated until Jan 2009. Don't you think 550 metric tons of yellowcake found in Iraq would have been reported in the "mainscream" media during the Bush administration to help justify his war? The use of that pathetic phrase alone discredits this pathetic article.
In reality, Dick Cheney outed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative because her husband, Joe Wilson, did not return Cheney the evidence he wanted. Consequently, over 70 US informants were assassinated.
|
I tried to find source to thoose wiki documents, but couldn't find any in his article. Can anyone help me find it?
|
Why the hell... This makes the movie Greenzone a lie.. :<
|
Wow... I don't know what to say.
edit: I kinda want the direct source for this. This is something I really want to read if it really is true.
|
So uh, WikiLeaks actually helped the US on this one giving them justification/credit for the war.
|
Well, then. That's something else.
Kudos to Wikileaks for not specifically playing to one side of the spectrum with their releases, though.
|
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?
|
wasn't the founder of wikileaks just arrested?
|
I do, bullshit.
If they had the information they would jump at the chance to prove the war was justified. Not have it "leaked" by a website which at this moment is undergoing huge pressure from the elite.
It's just logic not to buy into it.
|
If you google "wikileaks wmd", this headling started popping up sometime in October. It was even on the NYTimes website.
|
The daemoncrats wrong again? Wow. What a surprise.
|
On December 14 2010 09:35 scyper wrote: wasn't the founder of wikileaks just arrested?
He was not the founder, but was the public spokeman. Wikileaks is founded by a group of people.
|
On December 14 2010 09:35 scyper wrote: wasn't the founder of wikileaks just arrested?
For a crime he was found innocent of years ago.
If you google "wikileaks wmd", this headling started popping up sometime in October. It was even on the NYTimes website.
And there you go, not just far right people are going on this.
|
On December 14 2010 09:36 Mr. Nefarious wrote: The daemoncrats wrong again? Wow. What a surprise.
lol, anyway you can make this a political, go ahead. www.Foxnews.bias reported the same thing.
|
All the people acting surprised are ignoring the fundamental flaws in this article, and missing that is and obvious piece of propaganda.
|
this needs more reliable sources, I can not find a single article about this anywhere else on the internet
|
Kinda funny this leaks (is this new news?) when the whole julian assange thing is going down.
|
I'd call it bullshit, might as well just be some decoy who knows.
|
This makes no sense, why the hell would Bush cover up something like this. There's obviously some facts missing in all this.
|
|
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.
|
Hitchens fuckin called it
@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
|
First, the article clearly states the findings as "remnants." For all intents and purposes, Iraq didn't have WMD, and finding abandoned remnants or materials isn't going to change that.
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..
|
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.
|
This title is misleading, ought be changed rlly.
|
Bush said on his memo that he was shocked no WMDs were found, why would he lie about such a major justification for his war?
|
|
How are you morons buying this? It's a goddamn opinion piece about gas weaponry left over from the gulf war and yellowcake. Neither of those things were ever contested, and neither of those things were ever used as the justification for the iraq war. This is just glenn beck nonsense
|
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.
|
|
This thread is unnecessary on so many levels, the title is wrong and it misinforms. The OP clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and takes it out of context completely by stating unreasonable assumptions like
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
|
How is this confirmed?? The article is an opinion with NO SOURCES what-so-ever.
|
On December 14 2010 09:26 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O Are you my twin? I uttered those EXACT words when I read it... Are you my triplets?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I think I heard about this about 2 summers ago when I was following Cameco (which I am still following.) Cameco bought all of the stuff sometime in 2006 for something like $60/pound (U3O8). Uranium had just gone through its mania phase and collapsed back to 50 or so.
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.
|
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.
|
Did they ever find these things:
|
On December 14 2010 09:44 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: This thread is unnecessary on so many levels, the title is wrong and it misinforms. The OP clearly takes it out of context and states unreasonable unassumptions like
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
Yeah, since Suddam Hussein was a totally nice and swell fellow who was only looking to start an energy program.
I'm not a conservative by any means, I despise them. However, this is pretty obvious.
|
|
This was in wired a couple of months ago. To me it never seemed like they actually found evidence of new weapons being made like Bush implied. There were some leftovers from an earlier era butn nothing major.
edit: Antisocialmonkey posted while I was rereading the wired article (note: read then post don't start a post then read)
|
Degraded materials and remnants of the dismantled stockpiles of Saddams chemical weapons programme does not equal they were actively pursuing WMDs or had plans to do so. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and that article does not prove anything other than we already know - that it had already been dismantled, as confirmed by thorough inspections prior to the invasion.
|
I don't understand why we are supposed to take everything leaked as gospel. Assuming everything wikileaks releases is actually what they claim it is, people bullshit or are just plain wrong in memos/reports/etc all the time.
We are getting what the ambassador from blah blah really thinks about something but it is still just his opinion... or more accurately the opinion he is presenting to his boss.
This has been irritating me since the original dump on Afghanistan. Everyone (the media, etc) is acting like we know the "real" story just because it the information was restricted and has now been leaked.
It would be sort of like assuming you would get the "real story" about TL if only you could read the moderator forums or something... it's just another perspective.
|
On December 14 2010 09:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's a nice basis for international law: the US can do such things because they're good, other countries can't, however.
|
This may not be what it appears to be. We need to see the actual text in context. If the Bush administration had a smoking gun why didn't they simply show us?
|
On December 14 2010 09:44 rsol wrote: How are you morons buying this? It's a goddamn opinion piece about gas weaponry left over from the gulf war and yellowcake. Neither of those things were ever contested, and neither of those things were ever used as the justification for the iraq war. This is just glenn beck nonsense Seems like you already know within your post...
|
Q: how do you make news in America?
A: reprint old news from 2008
|
|
On December 14 2010 09:30 NoobieOne wrote: now my question is why would they cover this up.
I want to call fake but have no evidence that it is so I'll just blame it on Bush's horrible PR not to show evidence.
that's exactly what i'm pondering.
Iraq was a massive PR failure, if they did in fact find evidence of WMDs, i fail to see why they would not present it to the public as a vindication of their invasion. hmmph.
very interesting indeed.
On December 14 2010 09:52 zeru wrote: How about links to wikileak sources instead. Or is this all just made up bs.
i agree, sources are needed to confirm this. it just doesn't make sense otherwise
|
On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least
No it doesn't. They should have done an inspection, not bomb hospitals, shell peoples houses and kill thousands of innocent victims.
I can't believe people would even say this, omg.
|
So I have read all of Bob Woodwords books on the Iraq war as well as a couple others so I think I am in quite a good position to comment on this. It is no secret that US troops found chemical weapons labs or labs that could have been used to make WMDs or could have been used to make soap. Soldiers captured insurgents with chemical weapons knowledge so what that doesnt change anything and it makes sense since all the scientists with the expertise would have been high level bathists and might have just been listed as insurgents when captured. You cant question a civilian in a military prison after all. They havnt found any WMDs I dont care what that article says I would like to see more than one opinion piece stating that they have before I change my opinion.
What he might be confusing it with is that they did find the prerequisites for creating biological and chemical weapons but no actual fully assembled weapons that could be fired. Instead Sadam had the capability for a rapid production of WMD since it didnt have the resources to actually keep them but the system was obviously taken by suprise by how agressive America was. If Iran has put weapons into Iraq after the war how is that relevant to the reasons for attacking Iraq?
They had yellowcake but no means to produce a nuclear weapon for I think I read three years and that is the most extreme estimate, some put it at a decade. The CIA saw that the Iraqis has procured something like 60,000 aluminium tubes which my have been used as centrifuges in the production of a nuclear missile but the real reason was the terrible state of the Iraqi bureaucracy. I cant remember exactly the details but one of Sadam's sons owned the factory that produced rockets but they were shitty quality. So instead of embarrassing Sadams son and risking death they just spent the extra money and covered up the mistake. This is not a government that was capable of creating a nuclear missile and in fact wasnt even trying to before or during the war.
TLDR: This changes nothing and is just an attention grabbing headline at best or a terribly researched article at worst.
|
On December 14 2010 09:53 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:30 NoobieOne wrote: now my question is why would they cover this up.
I want to call fake but have no evidence that it is so I'll just blame it on Bush's horrible PR not to show evidence. that's exactly what i'm pondering. Iraq was a massive PR failure, if they did in fact find evidence of WMDs, i fail to see why they would not present it to the public as a vindication of their invasion. hmmph. very interesting indeed. Because it's all stuff that was widely known (note the OP's 2nd source is an article from 2008), remnants of old dismantled programs, and absolutely nothing that showed pursuing it in modern times.
Doesn't anyone read the thread?
This is the problem with having a disingenuous OP.
|
can we get the OP updated so we don't mislead people to think this is new news or even relevant
|
|
On December 14 2010 09:47 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:42 Roe wrote: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. That's a nice basis for international law: the US can do such things because they're good, other countries can't, however. Do you know the conditions for which a country may be invaded stated by the UN?
|
I had to read the OP thrice to make sure I didn't miss out on anything. The OP still doesn't make sense.
|
I am going to go ahead and say that while I didn't care much for Bush Jr., I do think he feels he was justified in going to war with Iraq at the time, however I think he allowed D.Cheney and others to take advantage of him for their own personal gain. I just wish Nigeria would have the guts to call for Chaneys extradition for his bribery involvement but thats not going to happen.
|
Wow...to think what would have possibly happened if the heat WAS let off of saddam's crew....jesus
|
I'm sure they did have yellow cake uranium, but you can't make a bomb out of it, 90% of yellow cake is uranium oxide, which is useless in making bombs, to get something weapons grade you need to extract the pure uranium, and then separate out the little U-235 (natural uranium is about 0.7% U-235) there is. It would have taken Saddam years and billions upon billions to create enough U-235 to make an actual viable bomb.
In regards to left over gas from the gulf war... I'm not really surprised some managed to avoid destruction.
All in all, this article is nothing but praying on the uneducated masses.
|
On December 14 2010 09:26 BROotogy wrote: mind=blown
Holy shit all these years of mocking Bill O'riely.. and.. I am not gonna stop mocking Bill O'Reilly bcause of this.
Well finally we actually learn the truth about what happened back then, without propaganda from the right win nor the left wing.
|
yeah thread title is misleading. It confirms yellowcakes but not WMDs
|
I miss the old days when TL wasn't so large. The first page of comments makes me sad, doesn't seem like anyone even bothered reading the article or even thought about trying to refute it. I usually prefer to read every comment before I post in a thread but now it's impossible when there are 5,000 people posting whatever is on their mind and a thread is 20 pages within the first hour.
|
On December 14 2010 09:40 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's exactly my point. If we are to assume there is some justification to the war effort, then we are also to assume it was covered up by people who would have a lot to gain from revealing said justification. That clearly makes no sense.
Which raises my question to the OP: why would they keep it secret if it's justification as he claims?
|
On December 14 2010 10:02 BlackJack wrote: I miss the old days when TL wasn't so large. The first page of comments makes me sad, doesn't seem like anyone even bothered reading the article or even thought about trying to refute it. I usually prefer to read every comment before I post in a thread but now it's impossible when there are 5,000 people posting whatever is on their mind and a thread is 20 pages within the first hour.
You realize a mod commented on the first page too, right?
|
Generalizations are the only politic ways to insult mods, or didn't you understand?
|
Mods aren't above mistakes.
|
On December 14 2010 10:02 BlackJack wrote: I miss the old days when TL wasn't so large. The first page of comments makes me sad, doesn't seem like anyone even bothered reading the article or even thought about trying to refute it. I usually prefer to read every comment before I post in a thread but now it's impossible when there are 5,000 people posting whatever is on their mind and a thread is 20 pages within the first hour.
Well put, OP need to change the headline, its missinformed and the quoted article is old news not adding any new facts.
|
On December 14 2010 10:05 BROotogy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 10:02 BlackJack wrote: I miss the old days when TL wasn't so large. The first page of comments makes me sad, doesn't seem like anyone even bothered reading the article or even thought about trying to refute it. I usually prefer to read every comment before I post in a thread but now it's impossible when there are 5,000 people posting whatever is on their mind and a thread is 20 pages within the first hour. You realize a mod commented on the first page too, right?
Yeah and that doesn't make your post any less subpar
|
On December 14 2010 10:02 BlackJack wrote: I miss the old days when TL wasn't so large. The first page of comments makes me sad, doesn't seem like anyone even bothered reading the article or even thought about trying to refute it. I usually prefer to read every comment before I post in a thread but now it's impossible when there are 5,000 people posting whatever is on their mind and a thread is 20 pages within the first hour. that happened in the 'old days' as well, quite often actually since they were more lenient back then
|
Toss in reference to wikileaks, make exaggerated opinion claim, pray no one does their homework? This might start popping up everywhere with subjects relating to anything.
|
On December 14 2010 10:02 BlackJack wrote: I miss the old days when TL wasn't so large. The first page of comments makes me sad, doesn't seem like anyone even bothered reading the article or even thought about trying to refute it. I usually prefer to read every comment before I post in a thread but now it's impossible when there are 5,000 people posting whatever is on their mind and a thread is 20 pages within the first hour.
This. Read the article. Nothing new at all. All it seems to state is that their were some non-active and minimal remnants of the weapons programs of the pre-gulf-war era when it was known that Iraq was attempting to develop WMDs, and Iraq was on friendly terms with the US, especially for their war against Iran.
It isn't indicative of a more recent weapons program, it isn't new or surprising information, the thread title is terribly misleading.
|
Just yet another misleading title on TL.net
Nothing to see here.
|
This looks like old news, but LOL! I wouldn't be surprised if the wiki leaks turns up something that the liberal news doesn't like. There are nasty secrets everywhere and if this guy is just posting everything with no agenda, everyone should be scared.
|
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 nothing found actually amounts to a weapon. Just the capacity to make one.
+ Show Spoiler +In a herp derp chemicals = weapons kind of way.
|
Almost every third world country in the world has some sort of access to yellow cake. The fact that Iraq had some lying around doesn't mean they had a WMD program now. In case everyone forgot, the Iraqis had a nuclear program sometime in the 80s. It isn't hard to believe they had materials left over from after the israelis bombed it.
|
On December 14 2010 10:00 Pkol wrote: All in all, this article is nothing but praying on the uneducated masses.
If it actually gets people to read the rest of leaks, the US can have all the confirmed-but-hidden WMDs in Iraq that it wants.
The US corporate media has been talking around the wikileaks issue since the leaks started generating press at more independent news agencies. It turns out we can ignore war crimes and politicians being generally horrible people but something that vindicates the chest-thumping conservative opinion (see post below), it could actually cause them to stop dismissing anything that wikileaks releases out of hand.
Major media hasn't actually been reporting the leaks, just the fact that Assange is chilling in a British prison.
|
Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out. It was a calculated provocation which he lost. I'm glad Saddam is dead. I wish we were not nation building for these Islamic savages that kill their own children for honor.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
GWB FTW!! Guess the stupidity was just a trick-play, eh.
|
I wonder if this is actually part of the anon disinformation shit they've been doing.
|
wow. if this claim stands up to scrutiny then this means that we were all wrong about Bush. i know it seems paranoid of me but i'm going to tentatively believe this claim. i feel like the US would do anything (even INCEPTION reporters) to get anything out of the wikileaks "problem".
|
Has anyone corroborated this? I mean at least screenshots, PDFs, whatever of the actual evidence saying so. I'm well aware of The Examiner's spin (they're distributed in my area, since I live in the DC metropolitan or "DMV")...but if this is true, then it would settle this once and for all.
|
i dont think anything can settle anything at this point. US does have counter intelligence agencies you know.
|
Ok intresting reason to attack but they could have just said so in the first place... but no now they just use it as a weapon in the war on information. YES THE WAR ON INFORMATION is see this thread derailing into a discussion about iraq that's to be suspected.... IF this is leaked to wikileaks then .gov just lost the war on info cause they will only leak known stuff like this on purpose. Realy i hope this is not an eye opener for people in here, But the main job of a goverment is to make ppl listen and obay the law. Their main tool is information. The news will tell u the "truth" every day just like they do in every country and if they are right or wrong is for U to decide and for U only. Yes even the things posted on wikileaks...And this is why there is an upset... cause for all country's things got out of hands. The only thing i am surprised with is that ppl actually got to see this shit about wikileaks on the news. And tbh i dont realy do conpiracy theory i just think this is pretty much the truth eventough western media (europe more then us maybe) will bring u what they think is the truth indepently.
|
United States22883 Posts
WMD is a purposefully vague term, so it doesn't surprise me that they found something, even in poor condition. But then again, I didn't buy into the intelligence being deceitful, just misinformed. The first attacks were carried out with the belief that chemical weapons were going to be used on our soldiers and even the Republican Guard were surprised to find out that they weren't available anymore.
|
Yellowcake in Iraq? Welcome to multiple years ago.
People referring to yellowcake as evidence of WMDs are fucking dumb.
|
Read the NYT article, it entirely discredits the OP's quoted article. Bravo OP, at least you're not disingenuous enough to have us searching after the story that sets proper all of the bullshit spin you quoted.
|
Who the hell is wikileaks?
|
Wait, so how many people in this thread are jumping to conclusions based off a quote in an OP from an internet website based on an unconfirmed source of a supposedly leaked article that they haven't seen...?
Lets Occam's razor a bit and say that all those people who were being tortured would say something about active nuclear warheads. If we want to go to war on the potential dangers in the world, we may as well try to take over the whole thing and tell everyone else to fuck off to the moon.
|
Like some have said before me this is nothing new and they didnt find ANY ACTUAL WEAPON.
|
On December 14 2010 09:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least No it doesn't. They should have done an inspection, not bomb hospitals, shell peoples houses and kill thousands of innocent victims. I can't believe people would even say this, omg. Well to be fair, that's not exactly what they did. Full-scale invasion? Yes. Killing thousands of innocent victims? That falls more on the terrorists.
|
i vaguely recall reading something about this in 2008. yellowcake isn't the same as a wmd...
|
On December 14 2010 11:01 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least No it doesn't. They should have done an inspection, not bomb hospitals, shell peoples houses and kill thousands of innocent victims. I can't believe people would even say this, omg. Well to be fair, that's not exactly what they did. Full-scale invasion? Yes. Killing thousands of innocent victims? That falls more on the terrorists. True, the USA killed hundreds of thousands.
|
This isn't really a WMD, it's a bunch of shit uranium. It's like saying a block of metal is a fully automatic rifle.
Big difference is that this can't be used for anything besides nuclear power and WMDs.
Just want everyone to realize how hard it is to turn a pile of uranium into something that will blow up.
|
God i hope they lock assanage up for a long time, but this is good news i loved Bush
|
The only reason why US would even invaded Iraq was because they didn't have WMD or any capability to use it. Anyone with half a brain would know not to attack a WMD capable country; hence we have a cold war and the conservative approach with North Korea.
It is sad, but the truth is WMD does protect your country and give you a bigger seat at the bargaining table.
|
On December 14 2010 11:12 ERGO wrote: This isn't really a WMD, it's a bunch of shit uranium. It's like saying a block of metal is a fully automatic rifle.
Big difference is that this can't be used for anything besides nuclear power and WMDs.
Just want everyone to realize how hard it is to turn a pile of uranium into something that will blow up. might want to go into that more, you weren't even clear in the part you did say
|
I can't believe people here just read the title of the post or the op-ed and respond like they have. Please read the actual link posted to a real report of the story.
The NY Times story (now added to the original post) says:
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.
Read: No WMD
and continues to say:
The yellowcake removed from Iraq - which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa - could be used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. ... The vast Tuwaitha site has been bombed repeatedly since 1981, when Israeli warplanes destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor there before it could be used to make weapons-grade uranium. American warplanes bombed the site in 1991 during the first Gulf War.
Read: This was old leftover yellowcake from Saddam's first nuclear program (which was totally bombed and shut down.) According to all the evidence we found, there was no attempt to restart the program nor to purchase additional yellowcake as asserted by Bush - and this article supports that.
Honestly, what was Saddam going to do with the leftovers from his previous endeavors (yellowcake & non-functional chemical weapons)? Flush them down the toilet? Of course we found that old leftover stuff, but that had nothing to do with any active programs or actual WMD threat.
I don't see what the 'revelation' is. The only revelation would be if we HADN'T found that stuff.
|
oh Bush, you had me fooled all this years
|
10387 Posts
Well.. this is delightfully ironic haha
|
You need something like 97% enriched uranium to produce bombs, I highly doubt they found large quantities of that...
The yellowcake removed from Iraq - which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa - could be used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing would it become low-enriched uranium, which could fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs.
I don't see what this changes. At ALL. He still made false claims and lied, and by luck they ran onto some uranium... FAR, really FAR from a bomb. And those chemical stocks can hardly be called WMD, too.
I'm in the military, if you wonder...
|
"The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power"
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again?
|
Seriously, this entire WikiLeaks business is going to stir some major shit across the globe.
|
I don't believe it, if it sounds to good to be true then it probably is, also reading all that was very confusing, I normally never have a problem understanding what I read but I didn't comprehend all that whatsoever.
Where does it confirm WMD? That term has been overblown by the media, and now they're talking about how it would take 4-5 years before Iran will acquire WMD's like it's post 9/11 all over again and another excuse to invade a country sitting on 25% of the world's Oil Reserves (Usefull information)
I'm tired of misleading and confusing information. The US media can't explain anything simple or truthfully because they are not there to write the truth but twist it up to make you believe in what suits their political agenda's.
|
On December 14 2010 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power"
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again?
Apparently exports are irrelevant too. Obviously if you were sitting on a ton of oil as your only export you would want to sell as much of it as you could.
|
On December 14 2010 11:36 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power"
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again?
Apparently exports are irrelevant too. Obviously if you were sitting on a ton of oil as your only export you would want to sell as much of it as you could. I'm almost certain it would be cheaper for them to use oil than nuclear power, it's not like the plants are free to create, maintain and operate...
On December 14 2010 11:04 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 11:01 synapse wrote:On December 14 2010 09:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least No it doesn't. They should have done an inspection, not bomb hospitals, shell peoples houses and kill thousands of innocent victims. I can't believe people would even say this, omg. Well to be fair, that's not exactly what they did. Full-scale invasion? Yes. Killing thousands of innocent victims? That falls more on the terrorists. True, the USA killed hundreds of thousands. That's fair and balanced, good one
On December 14 2010 11:40 us.insurgency wrote: I have no proof or any sources for this comment but I bet the US sold the yellowcake. Why else would they want to hide this information? I wonder how much money that much yellow cake would cost. Because we live in a world of infinite possibilities and biased speculation is worthless. Is your whole argument really "What else could it be?"
On December 14 2010 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power"
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again?
For Iraq? I'd be shocked if they gave two fucks about carbon emissions, they aren't exactly a leader in that category and their were and are some far more pressing issues...
|
I have no proof or any sources for this comment but I bet the US sold the yellowcake. Why else would they want to hide this information? I wonder how much money that much yellow cake would cost.
|
[conspiracy hat] plea bargain from wikileaks and the US govt. Wikileaks avoids prosecution by leaking information that makes the US look good.[/conspiracy hat]

totally kidding but im very interested in how this plays out..
|
|
Since Day1 of the wikileaks cable case a satiric political show in france pointed out a verry interesting about those "so called" leaks : they tend to support all the foreign politics of the USA of the past years.
Also it is quite strange that there is absolutely nothing about israel or palestine and it's supposed to be verry sensible topic...what about that to ?
Anyways big conspiracy theory here, i guess we'll never know like usual.
|
Welp, that was unexpected.
|
On December 14 2010 11:39 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 11:36 Romantic wrote:On December 14 2010 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power"
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again?
Apparently exports are irrelevant too. Obviously if you were sitting on a ton of oil as your only export you would want to sell as much of it as you could. I'm almost certain it would be cheaper for them to use oil than nuclear power, it's not like the plants are free to create, maintain and operate... Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 11:04 lowercase wrote:On December 14 2010 11:01 synapse wrote:On December 14 2010 09:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 14 2010 09:24 Frah wrote:On December 14 2010 09:22 Coagulation wrote: wow usa might regain some world respect? Gives definite justification for what they did at least No it doesn't. They should have done an inspection, not bomb hospitals, shell peoples houses and kill thousands of innocent victims. I can't believe people would even say this, omg. Well to be fair, that's not exactly what they did. Full-scale invasion? Yes. Killing thousands of innocent victims? That falls more on the terrorists. True, the USA killed hundreds of thousands. That's fair and balanced, good one Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 11:40 us.insurgency wrote: I have no proof or any sources for this comment but I bet the US sold the yellowcake. Why else would they want to hide this information? I wonder how much money that much yellow cake would cost. Because we live in a world of infinite possibilities and biased speculation is worthless. Is your whole argument really "What else could it be?"
it's a well known fact to everyone but the US government that almost one million people have died since the war in Iraq started. the US is directly responsible for a couple hundred thousand of them. Even the lowest estimate from third party sources is 98,000 civilians. Wikileaks puts it at 109,000.
|
On December 14 2010 11:48 Marou wrote: Since Day1 of the wikileaks cable case a satiric political show in france pointed out a verry interesting about those "so called" leaks : they tend to support all the foreign politics of the USA of the past years.
Also it is quite strange that there is absolutely nothing about israel or palestine and it's supposed to be verry sensible topic...what about that to ?
Anyways big conspiracy theory here, i guess we'll never know like usual.
H'es released maybe a thousand documents out of over 200,000. There's way more we don't know yet.
|
Jesus fucking Christ with a yarmulke on his dick...
This yellowcake was public knowledge before 2003. It was in possession of Iraq sealed up in storage under lock and key, where Saddam was not allowed to access it.
The chemical weapons and whatever have also been public knowledge since, what, the 1980s, when Iraq fought Iran with chemical weapons that we gave them.
That these are new information, or that they were the justifications for our invasion of Iraq, is a bald-faced lie that preys on the public's ignorance of public knowledge.
Of course, several posters have already pointed this out... but we're still getting derpilicious commentary on how new a development this shit is...
|
On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O
yeah thats crazzzy. I wonder if they are still going to try to indicte (spelling?) him on espionage charges after he pretty much confirms the truth for the iraq war.
|
How is possessing the materials necessary in a long process of creating a WMD the same as WMD? And how does this vindicate Bush? Looking back at everything Iraq cost us, do any of you really think it was worth it to remove these materials? Keep in mind the many alternatives that we could have used instead of war in keeping Saddam from building and stockpiling WMD.
|
Circus is in town, all are welcome, aall aaree weelcomee.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 14 2010 11:57 Severedevil wrote: Jesus fucking Christ with a yarmulke on his dick...
This yellowcake was public knowledge before 2003. It was in possession of Iraq sealed up in storage under lock and key, where Saddam was not allowed to access it.
The chemical weapons and whatever have also been public knowledge since, what, the 1980s, when Iraq fought Iran with chemical weapons that we gave them.
That these are new information, or that they were the justifications for our invasion of Iraq, is a bald-faced lie that preys on the public's ignorance of public knowledge.
Of course, several posters have already pointed this out... but we're still getting derpilicious commentary on how new a development this shit is...
Yup. It wasn't long before the war where the media claimed that OF COURSE Saddam was trying to make WMD's he was just way too far away from ever getting them for it to be a danger. This is the exact same thing they say about Iran and N. Korea today. They said this about Pakistan before Pakistan got nukes as well.
Sadly, only Iraq got invaded. Why is that? Who knows. This is the circus that is the MSM. Constant diffusion of MISinformation to keep the masses entertained. That's what my recent thread was about, yet so many still fail to understand how deep the ignorance goes
|
How do we know this isn't the U.S. government planting and faking this?
|
On December 14 2010 12:20 Kezzer wrote: How do we know this isn't the U.S. government planting and faking this? Because we read before posting.
|
On December 14 2010 09:29 Redmark wrote: I'm not informed on the situation, but if there's anything I've learned I'm taking anyone who says 'mainstream media' with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm one part of the hivemind, but I'd rather see a 'mainstream media' report on this. \ 1) Mainstream media thrives off profits, thus whatever story will net them the most audience--be it a story in the St. Louis post dispatch about one doctor who had a deviant sexual desire to rub people who didn't desire it, and did so twice, makes front page. Think about the message in that. "Don't trust doctors." Front page, full color picture. When there are other world events and stuff like this going on, seriously, they write a story throwing shame onto the doctor oversight committee and a particular doctor. Fucking agenda-setting waste of social filler
I'm a major in communication so I try to be intensely aware of all the facets which go into every message. I suggest you break away from habit and go cold turkey on mainstream media. They've put tons of money into making it seem like a friendly relatable community, I used to be in the habit of watching "The Today Show" every morning. Amusing, but ultimately a huge waste of my time. Read around and seriously reconsider..
1.5) When Julian Assange was brought in for questioning on allegations of rape, the only thing the mainstream US media focused on was "Is Julian Assange a rapist?" Now check out that other wikileaks thread again. The actual story going on here is that there's an information control war going on and the internet is the battleground.
1.5 pt 2) The Airlines patdown thing. It really didn't fucking matter, but the media system fed back on itself and made a huge non-issue seem like a huge issue.
2) Wikileaks has no obligation to entertain, only an obligation to the truth. Their method is "scientific journalism" which means they'll analyze an article, but then link you back to their sources so you can make your own critical analysis. Believe me, on the scale and profile its at this is COMPLETELY different than anything else in history and this transparency is a huge deal. When the mainstream can no longer set the agenda for public discourse, and the public is given the resources to make their own conclusions...fuck you miley.
|
Wait, so how credible is wikileaks?
|
On December 14 2010 12:38 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote: Wait, so how credible is wikileaks? rapist! rapist!
|
I'm a major in communication so I try to be intensely aware of all the facets which go into every message. I suggest you break away from habit and go cold turkey on mainstream media. They've put tons of money into making it seem like a friendly relatable community, I used to be in the habit of watching "The Today Show" every morning. Amusing, but ultimately a huge waste of my time. Read around and seriously reconsider.. Thing is, there is no real reliable source of information. When it comes down to it, I'd still trust the big newspapers/news services over something like the Washington Examiner (wikipedia page is lols). At least they come under more scrutiny, so if there are false facts it'd probably be known pretty quickly. I don't know if you're saying that alternative news sources are more reliable than mainstream ones, but if you are I guess you have more discerning eyes than mine.
|
On December 14 2010 09:27 omfghi2u2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O That is exactly what I was thinking. But it makes me wonder, if the US goes out of its way this much to jail Assenge, why not go out of its way to get credibility and inform the world that Iraq HAD wmd's? After the whole incident, who would have believed them? That's my thought, anyway. It is hard to argue that you are right when everyone is convinced that you are wrong.
|
nvm, i need to stop posting
|
You cannot possibly take Larry Elder seriously. The man is a few beers short of a six-pack. Good thing, too, I almost took the thread title at face value until I realized the story's author and skimmed it for pertinent details.
EDIT: While I'm here, Julian Assange is egomaniacal, degenerate scum, and I hope he suffers for all the people he's condemned to death by leaking those state department documents.
|
|
On December 14 2010 11:36 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 11:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power"
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again?
Apparently exports are irrelevant too. Obviously if you were sitting on a ton of oil as your only export you would want to sell as much of it as you could.
It would be far cheaper for any middle eastern country to simply use the oil they produce to generate power, rather than go through building nuclear technology for energy purposes. MUCH cheaper. Not only do they not have uranium ore, which would make their energy supply volitile (political and market factors) but they would have to engage in the massive costs of figuring out how to build nuclear technology (decades of R&D) and then build the plants (so much more expensive than any other sort of plant). It just doesn't make economic sense.
And if you think the 3rd world gives half a rats ass about global warming when they could be seeing enhanced economic growth and standard of living increases, you're dreaming.
|
nice trick to get alot of clicks on your website atm, bringing up a fuckold story and making it sound like it has anything to do with current cables, you so tricky larry elder
|
On December 14 2010 13:26 Starfox wrote: nice trick to get alot of clicks on your website atm, bringing up a fuckold story and making it sound like it has anything to do with current cables, you so tricky larry elder Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found:
And it doesn't have crap to do with the cables but the older leaks.
This is just affirming something from an somewhat outside source instead of directly from the state. Technically it's still has to do with wikileaks.
|
It is almost too easy fool a mass of people who can read without thinking. I was almost shocked as to how many people here were too enthusiastic to throw away common sense and believe George bush again Knowledge of history is a very important thing...especially when it hasn't even been 10 years....
and to add siomething simpler, you don't even need to history that well, even remembering that the gov't forged documents to the Congress...unbelievable.
|
|
Mind=Blown. This is heavy.
|
Come to think of it, I bet this might be one of the reasons some in the military helped leak this information.
|
I don't know...it feels like wikileaks is being used as propoganda.
|
i never doubted bush! so proud of our soldiers that continue to fight this terrible war, hopefully it has gained some more purpose even if it has shifted to Afghanistan
|
Didn't anyone actually read the articles? Most specifically, the NY Times one?
This is NOT the same yellow-cake that the Bush administration was going after. This was not provided by Africa, it was provided by the Soviet Union before the 1980s. It was not weapons-grade even when the U.S bombed the facilities during 1991. This is old news, and this does not vindicate Bush because there is still no evidence that weapons-grade uranium was ever obtained from Africa.
Misleading bullshit.
|
Wow, so it was actually right..... this wikileaks thing is getting very interesting.
|
On December 14 2010 13:50 Sanguinarius wrote: Wow, so it was actually right..... this wikileaks thing is getting very interesting.
no.
See the post above yours.
|
this is sad, the OP is a blatant lie and people here just read the title and believe it without reading anything or verifying the sources at all
mods please close this thread, it is a disgrace to TL
|
I agree, this sorta sounds like bull shit..... Sorry to say but it does.
|
The mods need to change this. Its so misleading.
|
On December 14 2010 13:48 wherebugsgo wrote: Didn't anyone actually read the articles? Most specifically, the NY Times one?
This is NOT the same yellow-cake that the Bush administration was going after. This was not provided by Africa, it was provided by the Soviet Union before the 1980s. It was not weapons-grade even when the U.S bombed the facilities during 1991. This is old news, and this does not vindicate Bush because there is still no evidence that weapons-grade uranium was ever obtained from Africa.
Misleading bullshit.
Toxic weapons too. Even if 550 tons of nuclear stuffs can't be converted into Nuclear weapons that wouldn't answer the toxic weapons. I haven't forgotten that Saddam got in the way of every UN investigation team.
|
ARE YOU GUYS EVEN READING THE ARTICLE? Sorry for caps but it is complete bullshit and a OPINION COLUMN by Larry Elder is not credible whatsoever, especially when the wikileaks source is not even cited.
Also the Times articles is more of a history lesson and does nothing to confirm anything written be Elder. Oh, also it was written in July 2008. Have you guys read any of Elder's other articles? perhaps the one where he backs Sarah Palin running for office... and also shows his absolute incredible bias while hes at it. http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2010/11/larry-elder-sure-sarah-palin-ready-primetime
I honestly can not believe the amount of belief that people put in believing this is true, just simply because someone takes the time to post bullshit right-wing propaganda and has a "source".
|
This thread proves once again, that most people don't read the OP. Also, language is pretty powerful, as it persuades people to buy into misleading propaganda phrases that don't really mean anything (ex: WMD). Works really well when we don't read the news, apparently.
Please change the thread title to "Wikileaks confirms that Iraq still had a little bit of shit Yellowcake Uranium (which does NOT equal a nuclear weapon) that the US sold them in the 1980s"
|
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Got to read this one when I get the time...
Just kidding read the posted OP and am like mlargh now.
|
On December 14 2010 14:01 pi_rate_pir_ate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 13:48 wherebugsgo wrote: Didn't anyone actually read the articles? Most specifically, the NY Times one?
This is NOT the same yellow-cake that the Bush administration was going after. This was not provided by Africa, it was provided by the Soviet Union before the 1980s. It was not weapons-grade even when the U.S bombed the facilities during 1991. This is old news, and this does not vindicate Bush because there is still no evidence that weapons-grade uranium was ever obtained from Africa.
Misleading bullshit.
Toxic weapons too. Even if 550 tons of nuclear stuffs can't be converted into Nuclear weapons that wouldn't answer the toxic weapons. I haven't forgotten that Saddam got in the way of every UN investigation team.
What the hell are you talking about?
Let's not forget so quickly that the U.S. has known for decades about the chemical weapons stockpiles. This was not a justification for war used by the Bush administration until AFTER the invasion. It's also baseless, because these weapons were so old that they were degraded and completely useless.
The Bush administration tried to cover its own backside by claiming that we had found chemical weapons, when the initial justification was that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program because of uranium provided by Niger. This weapons grade uranium was never found, and the intelligence was shown to be fake. All the yellocake that was found was decades old, from Soviet Union stores and barely usable even for nuclear fuel. This was known back in the 1980s. The chemical weapons that the U.S found were also known to exist for decades, and were completely unusable when found anyway.
The fact remains that the 2003 invasion was based on falsehoods and remains unjustified today. Bush remains a criminal.
|
On December 14 2010 14:06 LunarC wrote:Mods, please edit the OP with a link to this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.aspand close the thread. I nearly believed the thing until I saw the Snopes link. Good thing I have a habit of reading before posting... not to mention the wired article he cites hardly supports his position. the guy twisted the words around, almost borderline lying
here's a key quote OMITTED
A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were led to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.
oh hey...
|
Well, let's see if a more reliable news source publishes something then.
|
PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.
It exploits Wikileaks' good name to support a blatant lie. Many people are being tricked - "Wow, a liberal anti-government site of good repute says Saddam had WMD? I guess he must really have!"
No, of course Wikileaks never fucking said that.
|
In addition to my earlier posts, I forgot to mention that the article in the OP actually makes no reference to wikileaks. The guy just casually mentions that wikileaks supports his blatant lie, but this lie has been around for more than two years. Wikileaks has nothing to do with this; the bush administration has not been vindicated.
|
On December 14 2010 14:16 wherebugsgo wrote: In addition to my earlier posts, I forgot to mention that the article in the OP actually makes no reference to wikileaks. The guy just casually mentions that wikileaks supports his blatant lie, but this lie has been around for more than two years. Wikileaks has nothing to do with this; the bush administration has not been vindicated.
The first article he quoted does say that the source is Wiki Leaks. Obviously he is posting something that he read elsewhere. You don't have to like the source. We should all hold off our world crashing in until a more reliable source is found.
|
On December 14 2010 14:21 pi_rate_pir_ate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 14:16 wherebugsgo wrote: In addition to my earlier posts, I forgot to mention that the article in the OP actually makes no reference to wikileaks. The guy just casually mentions that wikileaks supports his blatant lie, but this lie has been around for more than two years. Wikileaks has nothing to do with this; the bush administration has not been vindicated. The first article he quoted does say that the source is Wiki Leaks. Obviously he is posting something that he read elsewhere. You don't have to like the source. We should all hold off our world crashing in until a more reliable source is found.
stop posting, and read the thread
|
incredible amount of fail in this thread, it's actually representative of people's naivete in regards to anything slightly political.
|
I think what is needed here is an actual linking to the original leaked document, which I don't see cited in the opinion piece.
The NYT article is two years old and (as you might expect) doesn't mention Wikileaks.
|
To all the people confused; The justification for the war in Iraq was that Saddam had WMD, in particular Nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons was the focus. Saddam had used WMD on the Kurds and Shiite late in the previous century, of course he had the ability or possession of WMD. It's the nuclear part that the Bush administration is ashamed about. WMD is chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
Surprise in this thread is the equivalent of ignorance of the subject.
|
|
I'm embarrassed for a lot of ppl in this thread..
User was warned for this post
|
![[image loading]](http://goldderby.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c2c4f53ef01157099a1a9970c-800wi)
User was warned for this post
|
I think everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons and was trying to get nuclear weapons. The question is, how close was he? Saddam was awful and was in violation of a billion international laws so I think the war might be justified, but is it worth it and will things get sustainably better in Iraq?
|
I'm gonna go back to watching Huk :D
|
So USA indeed invaded Iraq because it really did have WMD's?
I heard these frenzied screams about "No Blood for Oil" and alleged connections to Halliburton for so many Bush years. This Wikileaks revelation is humorous now, to say the least.
|
On December 14 2010 14:48 Danglars wrote: So USA indeed invaded Iraq because it really did have WMD's?
I heard these frenzied screams about "No Blood for Oil" and alleged connections to Halliburton for so many Bush years. This Wikileaks revelation is humorous now, to say the least. read the article not the title, if u cant be helped then just skim through some posts here in this thread.
everyone is being mislead, this is no revelation and def not a turning point. in fact close and delete this thread.
|
On December 14 2010 14:35 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: I think everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons and was trying to get nuclear weapons.
after 1991? The ISG begs to differ.
|
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?
Do they need justification for the war?
|
United States33128 Posts
I think a lot of people don't actually remember why they were opposed to the war in the first place :o
|
On December 14 2010 15:07 Waxangel wrote: I think a lot of people don't actually remember why they were opposed to the war in the first place :o
can't blame them though. its been too long and it doesn't even feel like its a war, its more like an invasion. like bullying an already 'broken' person.
|
TL plz, close this topic.....
|
Seems like the thread should be renamed as something more accurate.
|
This thread delivers. Unbelievable.
and they keep coming.
if this was op's intention, he is a true genius. all hail to the mastermind, sorting the crop.
|
Let me put my thinfoil hat on and say Wikileaks = Disinfo (to a degree), and Assange=CIA Asset.
Usually lies are mixed in with truth to give the lies credibility.
|
On December 14 2010 15:18 A3iL3r0n wrote: Seems like the thread should be renamed as something more accurate.
That, or it could be left open in order to help TL identify and purge itself of people who post without reading
Either would work.
|
On December 14 2010 15:22 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 15:18 A3iL3r0n wrote: Seems like the thread should be renamed as something more accurate. That, or it could be left open in order to help TL identify and purge itself of people who post without reading Either would work. How is it a case of people not reading the OP if the OP is false?
|
For me it's sitting back and waiting for what happens next The south park guys would have their fun with this one i guess. It's really ironic that wikileaks kinda defends bush/america here ^^
|
On December 14 2010 15:33 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 15:22 Mindcrime wrote:On December 14 2010 15:18 A3iL3r0n wrote: Seems like the thread should be renamed as something more accurate. That, or it could be left open in order to help TL identify and purge itself of people who post without reading Either would work. How is it a case of people not reading the OP if the OP is false?
Do you see any mention of the OP in my last post?
|
lol it's hard to believe the US govt doesn't lie everytime they say something?
/eyeroll
|
On December 14 2010 09:32 sely wrote: This is from a far-right web site with a clear agenda. In 2008, when this yellowcake was supposedly removed from Iraq, George W. Bush was still president. Obama was not inaugurated until Jan 2009. Don't you think 550 metric tons of yellowcake found in Iraq would have been reported in the "mainscream" media during the Bush administration to help justify his war? The use of that pathetic phrase alone discredits this pathetic article.
In reality, Dick Cheney outed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative because her husband, Joe Wilson, did not return Cheney the evidence he wanted. Consequently, over 70 US informants were assassinated.
do you believe everything in the movies? your last paragraph is wholly untrue
|
|
On December 14 2010 15:58 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 15:33 Craton wrote:On December 14 2010 15:22 Mindcrime wrote:On December 14 2010 15:18 A3iL3r0n wrote: Seems like the thread should be renamed as something more accurate. That, or it could be left open in order to help TL identify and purge itself of people who post without reading Either would work. How is it a case of people not reading the OP if the OP is false? Do you see any mention of the OP in my last post? You left your statement vague to the point where it's not possible to tell if you meant future posters who haven't read all of the then-existing posts in the thread or if you meant failing to read the OP.
Improve your writing instead of making snide remarks.
Love, Craton
|
On December 14 2010 16:11 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 15:58 Mindcrime wrote:On December 14 2010 15:33 Craton wrote:On December 14 2010 15:22 Mindcrime wrote:On December 14 2010 15:18 A3iL3r0n wrote: Seems like the thread should be renamed as something more accurate. That, or it could be left open in order to help TL identify and purge itself of people who post without reading Either would work. How is it a case of people not reading the OP if the OP is false? Do you see any mention of the OP in my last post? You left your statement vague to the point where it's not possible to tell if you meant future posters who haven't read all of the then-existing posts in the thread or if you meant failing to read the OP. Improve your writing instead of making snide remarks. Love, Craton
In context, which includes my other posts in this thread, my meaning was quite clear.
|
I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran.
|
On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope"
|
Chemical Weapons are also considered to be WMDs. The wikileaks clearly show that chemical weapons programs existed in Iraq. Hussien had no problems using those against the Kurds in his own country. The WMDs aren't even that important, they're just the reason everyone agreed on. He was an evil man that took advantage of his people for his own personal benefit.Now, of course the reason we care about Iraq more than other places is oil. Not to steal oil, but to make sure it keeps flowing. Oil runs the world. Sucks that America has to have a secondary motive to help people, but it still happened because Hussien was bad for the world. His own people sentenced him to hanging after all.
|
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this?
|
On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this?
Seems like a damn good assumption to me.
|
My buddy was in Air Force Intel, him and everyone else in Intel was 100% convinced that Saddam had weapons.
It wouldn't have been a stretch for him to get the WMD's out of the country, before a big invasion, to try and avoid prosecution.
|
On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope"
that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony
|
Sounds like counter-espionage to me ^_^
|
On December 14 2010 17:39 Aberu wrote: My buddy was in Air Force Intel, him and everyone else in Intel was 100% convinced that Saddam had weapons.
It wouldn't have been a stretch for him to get the WMD's out of the country, before a big invasion, to try and avoid prosecution.
Yes it would... because he wouldn't have been tried for having WMDs anyway. He would have been tried for crimes against humanity (which he was).
I find it really funny that anyone even began to think this article was accurate, don't you guys think that if the U.S. had documents (which WikiLeaks was able to get a hold of and leak) which proved that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, they would have already released them of their own accord?...
|
On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"?
|
so there were in fact ghost academies researching things other than cloaking...
|
This.. is pretty freaking weird. I don't know what to say or think about this.
I am so confused now. I thought it was basically common knowledge that the WMDs were complete bullshit. But now..
This is really, really, really interesting.
|
On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran.
The dictator that commits genocide on his own people while funding terrorist organizations that constantly attack the rest of the world is collecting materials used in the construction of nuclear weapons. I wonder what he's going to do with it......?
You also act like anyone even takes the media seriously. Everyone that isn't retarded knows most of the shit on the news are either absolutely exaggerated or outright false information. It is like that in the entire world.
|
Well, yellow-cakes is "far" from what you'd need to make the material for a bomb, it would not be too difficult especially if you sit on ohh, I don't know, 15-20%? Of the worlds oil supply. In case of Sadam, it was not a case of "IF" he would make them but "when". We've been saying that N.K is a decade or more away from creating a nuke, then all of a sudden estimates put it that N.K could potentially have over 20 nukes at the moment. heh.
It was also known that Sadam had many chemical weapons, but hey guess what, as part of the peace thing back ohh in 1990's he was supposed to destroy them, that's why you had those "UN INSPECTORS" go into his country, you know the ones that got kicked out? to inspect for those type of weapons/nukes.
Did it justify a war? Hard to say, Sadam was unstable, used chemical weapons on his own people, thousands died each year at the hands of government, people tortured etc etc...So you might deal with him now, while non of those weapons are built, or when he has them and create tons of unnecessary casualties for your army. The only issue is that the U.S. fell in the same pitfall as Russia did, lot of insurgents that are hard to get rid of, forcing you to stay there until the government is strong enough to support themselves.
It's the same situation now with Iran, they have the technology to build the nukes, but will they do it and if they do it what should the world do about it?
The right to have nuclear weapons for any nation had never been actually about keeping nations away from the technology. It had more to do with the possibility of those weapons getting into hands of extremists/terrorists, you know, the people who would not second guess themselves in actually using the weapons. This is especially true for the situation in Pakistan and the Taliban insurgency, what if the government collapses, what happens to those nukes?
But yeah, argument is lot of IF's.
|
On December 14 2010 18:11 .Aar wrote: This.. is pretty freaking weird. I don't know what to say or think about this.
I am so confused now. I thought it was basically common knowledge that the WMDs were complete bullshit. But now..
This is really, really, really interesting.
ROFL
i mean yea nobody reads anything but the headline of this thread.
nor any pages and posts in here, like there are thousands and thousands that shortly sums up what is up.
i follow it with joy and grief how everybody shows his true self. but. that was too amazing, thank you for your post that was making me laugh like i did not long long times before. ... just thank you.
like how right your are but how close you shred the point is just amazing.
|
On December 14 2010 18:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 18:11 .Aar wrote: This.. is pretty freaking weird. I don't know what to say or think about this.
I am so confused now. I thought it was basically common knowledge that the WMDs were complete bullshit. But now..
This is really, really, really interesting. ROFL i mean yea nobody reads anything but the headline of this thread. nor any pages and posts in here, like there are thousands and thousands that shortly sums up what is up. i follow it with joy and grief how everybody shows his true self. but. that was too amazing, thank you for your post that was making me laugh like i did not long long times before. ... just thank you. like how right your are but how close you shred the point is just amazing.
All I said was that it was interesting. I made no actual point regarding the validity of the headline of this thread.
-kind of an bad-tempered note edited out; matter was resolved via PM-
|
Wired is know to publish anti Wikileaks articles, this is a derivation from one.
Like it was said, recycling old news, nothing new.
They didn't even link the article to wikilieaks files.
|
Trolled by OP some1 change the title!
As if owning over half of Iraq's oil fields wasn't reason enough for Bush to kill 80k civilians.
|
On December 14 2010 18:11 .Aar wrote: This.. is pretty freaking weird. I don't know what to say or think about this.
I am so confused now. I thought it was basically common knowledge that the WMDs were complete bullshit. But now..
This is really, really, really interesting.
Ah see I thought by now most people realized that we really thought there was WMD's but people just want to say we went for oil...
I have read this thread and how people say its falsified but still think its true ^^.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
So, the WMD thing is just a fake, right?
Because if there were WMDs that would be the first thing that the US military would make public.
|
It is likely that the US put a lid on confirming the WMD because they wanted nations who may have attempted something, not to, by making it a "may/maynot be true" nature.
Russia and the US have the biggest nuclear stockpiles, so if they went ahead and confirmed "Hey guys its true!" then its likely someone else would have tried and stepped in, who otherwise didn't have the resources, to get it before the US could come.
I'm probably wrong...but its a train of thought at least.
|
On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"?
"I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them"
plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this.
|
On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source.
|
On December 14 2010 19:23 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"? "I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them" plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this. And what exactly is stupid about it? Apparently lots of people in this thread do take it as yellowcake=wmds. Even after I posted there are plenty of people with that line of thought. Where did they get that information from? Fearmongering media, or not? Maybe not specifically from this article but from a mindset of paranoia they were instilled with through bombardment with reports like this over the years. I ask you again: what slippery slope were you referring to? And why would that specific line you just quoted be stupid to say when it is reinforced by many posts in this thread?
|
"The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power."
This sentence sticks out to me. On one hand, it was Saddam's Iraq, so maybe it's true, on the other hand, isn't there always a peaceful need for nuclear power? Vast oil reserves aren't some miracle, they're just a resource. That's like saying you don't need to take regular expansions once you have a gold expansion.
|
On December 14 2010 19:38 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:23 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"? "I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them" plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this. And what exactly is stupid about it? Apparently lots of people in this thread do take it as yellowcake=wmds. Even after I posted there are plenty of people with that line of thought. Where did they get that information from? Fearmongering media, or not? Maybe not specifically from this article but from a mindset of paranoia they were instilled with through bombardment with reports like this over the years. I ask you again: what slippery slope were you referring to? And why would that specific line you just quoted be stupid to say when it is reinforced by many posts in this thread?
Since you won't read between the lines, the slippery slope is you judging an entire country through your own media and a stupid OP. You assume that since there are some stupid people in here, and from what you have seen/heard about how stupid our media is, that you should be scared of americans.
|
On December 14 2010 19:43 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:38 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 19:23 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"? "I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them" plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this. And what exactly is stupid about it? Apparently lots of people in this thread do take it as yellowcake=wmds. Even after I posted there are plenty of people with that line of thought. Where did they get that information from? Fearmongering media, or not? Maybe not specifically from this article but from a mindset of paranoia they were instilled with through bombardment with reports like this over the years. I ask you again: what slippery slope were you referring to? And why would that specific line you just quoted be stupid to say when it is reinforced by many posts in this thread? Since you won't read between the lines, the slippery slope is you judging an entire country through your own media and a stupid OP. You assume that since there are some stupid people in here, and from what you have seen/heard about how stupid our media is, that you should be scared of americans.
he does not judge an entire country just through that post, but it REMINDED him why he is scared of americans and how they are influenced by their media.
so its like he encountered numerous examples just like this with many americans apearing to be blinded by their media and this thread just reminded him how scared those numerous encounters make him.
|
On December 14 2010 19:53 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:43 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 19:38 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 19:23 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"? "I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them" plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this. And what exactly is stupid about it? Apparently lots of people in this thread do take it as yellowcake=wmds. Even after I posted there are plenty of people with that line of thought. Where did they get that information from? Fearmongering media, or not? Maybe not specifically from this article but from a mindset of paranoia they were instilled with through bombardment with reports like this over the years. I ask you again: what slippery slope were you referring to? And why would that specific line you just quoted be stupid to say when it is reinforced by many posts in this thread? Since you won't read between the lines, the slippery slope is you judging an entire country through your own media and a stupid OP. You assume that since there are some stupid people in here, and from what you have seen/heard about how stupid our media is, that you should be scared of americans. he does not judge an entire country just through that post, but it REMINDED him why he is scared of americans and how they are influenced by their media. so its like he encountered numerous examples just like this with many americans apearing to be blinded by their media and this thread just reminded him how scared those numerous encounters make him.
k dude. when i want to know what a country is like, I read my own media and visit gaming site forums. It makes me feel really smart, let me tell you.
maybe you should read his answer again which references people's posts in this thread about yellowcake.
|
Consider that you are all being manipulated. This man is most likely an agent provocateur working for a flag-less nation.
|
On December 14 2010 19:59 Redunzl wrote: Consider that you are all being manipulated. This man is most likely an agent provocateur working for a flag-less nation. That theory is so ridiculous. Assange's life history is so well documented by now that there really can't be any doubt he's an authentic person. If there is any trickery going on it would have to do with the leaked information, but it's more probable it actually is legit -- with the information so easily accessible it was bound to happen at one point.
|
On December 14 2010 19:43 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:38 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 19:23 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"? "I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them" plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this. And what exactly is stupid about it? Apparently lots of people in this thread do take it as yellowcake=wmds. Even after I posted there are plenty of people with that line of thought. Where did they get that information from? Fearmongering media, or not? Maybe not specifically from this article but from a mindset of paranoia they were instilled with through bombardment with reports like this over the years. I ask you again: what slippery slope were you referring to? And why would that specific line you just quoted be stupid to say when it is reinforced by many posts in this thread? Since you won't read between the lines, the slippery slope is you judging an entire country through your own media and a stupid OP. You assume that since there are some stupid people in here, and from what you have seen/heard about how stupid our media is, that you should be scared of americans. I don't judge an entire country and never any person specifically. I am aware that it is a generalization and I use it only as that. BUT, and that is the thing, I know what "your" media looks like and I can add to the reasonableness of a generalization whenever I see anybody of that group falling into its pattern, like the op and many people in this thread.
Now maybe you are suggesting that the op is merely a troll and that it is impossible to tell - that I fell for it. The reason for which I didn't question that is because, again, I have seen how your mediascape looks like, how polls in your country go and thus decided that it is plausible that he is serious - just as serious as all the people in this thread who are going from yellowcake directly to wmds.
Lastly I do not think that I have shared any information about the media outlets that I follow with you. But since you mentioned it I can now defend myself. I don't own a TV, nor radio, am not subscribed to any newspapers or blogs or only any one other news source. Instead I follow many sources who themselves follow plenty of different sources (in the end that amounts to a combination of fox news, msnbc, cnn, cspan, russia today, theyoungturks, moxnews, the "whitehouse" channel on yt and the rss feed of tagesschau.de (german public service tv web outlet) and I criticize all of them to the extent where other people start to question why I am following them at all).
Long story short. I will ask you one last time to provide any false assumption I might have made and explain why it is so, so that I can either defend my position or change it. But as it looks now you just assumed that I take generalizations for more than they are, which I don't.
|
Talk about a misleading OP. Just read the New York Times article...
|
Read the article; wikileaks confirms no such thing as nuclear weapons in Iraq. AFAIK, there is still no documented evidence anywhere on the internet or any other source which suggests that nuclear weapons did exist in Iraq. Further more, I believe that if such documents did exist, they would be thrust into the news headlines of every major USA media outlet.
|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source.
Not really since atomic energy is everything but clean.. what to do with the toxic waste is something no one knows how to deal it.
|
On December 14 2010 09:27 omfghi2u2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:24 Plexa wrote: That puts an interesting twist on the whole wikileaks situation O_O That is exactly what I was thinking. But it makes me wonder, if the US goes out of its way this much to jail Assenge, why not go out of its way to get credibility and inform the world that Iraq HAD wmd's? That is exactly what I am thinking. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that WL would not have announced THAT information. More importantly, there is no way that if the US had that information, THEY wouldn't have made it public BEFORE WL would make it public. This just doesn't make any sense.
I smell bullshit.
|
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?
I was wondering the same thing, wow future history books will look upon this period differently, now that this info has come to light.
|
On December 14 2010 20:08 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:43 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 19:38 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 19:23 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 18:01 enzym wrote:On December 14 2010 17:46 maliceee wrote:On December 14 2010 16:42 rabidch wrote:On December 14 2010 16:35 enzym wrote: I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them... Yellowcake is a very long way away from being able to be called anything close to wmds, and it isn't even material for wmds exclusively. Yellowcake is basically nothing but a more concentrated form of raw uranium. It is concentrated ore, so to speak. And yet the op, many people in this thread and probably the big chunk of american people will buy into it and believe that this must mean that Saddam pursued wmds.
This is scary, scary shit. I have a hatred for unreflecting people and for others who are doing their best to push that thoughtlessness further or use it to their ends.
Please, people, take 100 steps back and observe things from a wider angle before completely flipping out over things. This article changes NOTHING.
edit: Also can't wait for the continuation of reports telling about Iran's obtainment of yellowcake and how it must mean that they are pursuing nuclear weapons (I actually believe that I have seen such a report just a few days - 1week back), and that we now must go to war with Iran. i dont agree with you 100% but one thing that annoys me is the prevalence of the "slippery slope" that slippery slope goes both ways. the guy you quoted fails to see that irony "The guy you quoted" supposedly has a name to address him by. Since he quoted my I'm going to assume that you are also referring to me. I don't see where any slippery slope relevant to the discussion is coming into this from just the words I used, though. Maybe you mean that inversely there can also be no guarantee that they were not going to use it for wmds. But that's a stupid point to make. We don't invade countries or imprison people because any materials they have in their possession could possibly be used to cause harm. Why? Because ANY materials can be used to cause harm. Possibility does not equal intent. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "that slippery slope"? "I read the op and am immediately reminded of how scared I am of americans and the amount of control the media exerts over them" plz remind me why I should take you seriously when you say something as stupid as this. And what exactly is stupid about it? Apparently lots of people in this thread do take it as yellowcake=wmds. Even after I posted there are plenty of people with that line of thought. Where did they get that information from? Fearmongering media, or not? Maybe not specifically from this article but from a mindset of paranoia they were instilled with through bombardment with reports like this over the years. I ask you again: what slippery slope were you referring to? And why would that specific line you just quoted be stupid to say when it is reinforced by many posts in this thread? Since you won't read between the lines, the slippery slope is you judging an entire country through your own media and a stupid OP. You assume that since there are some stupid people in here, and from what you have seen/heard about how stupid our media is, that you should be scared of americans. I don't judge an entire country and never any person specifically. I am aware that it is a generalization and I use it only as that. BUT, and that is the thing, I know what "your" media looks like and I can add to the reasonableness of a generalization whenever I see anybody of that group falling into its pattern, like the op and many people in this thread. Now maybe you are suggesting that the op is merely a troll and that it is impossible to tell - that I fell for it. The reason for which I didn't question that is because, again, I have seen how your mediascape looks like, how polls in your country go and thus decided that it is plausible that he is serious - just as serious as all the people in this thread who are going from yellowcake directly to wmds. Lastly I do not think that I have shared any information about the media outlets that I follow with you. But since you mentioned it I can now defend myself. I don't own a TV, nor radio, am not subscribed to any newspapers or blogs or only any one other news source. Instead I follow many sources who themselves follow plenty of different sources (in the end that amounts to a combination of fox news, msnbc, cnn, cspan, russia today, theyoungturks, moxnews, the "whitehouse" channel on yt and the rss feed of tagesschau.de (german public service tv web outlet) and I criticize all of them to the extent where other people start to question why I am following them at all). Long story short. I will ask you one last time to provide any false assumption I might have made and explain why it is so, so that I can either defend my position or change it. But as it looks now you just assumed that I take generalizations for more than they are, which I don't.
You should word your statements more carefully then. I absolutely agree that many americans are un-informed and media driven, but my conclusion is much different than yours. What I find through personal experience and following as many different news outlets as possible(I find it is much better to follow news aggregators than news sites, such as huffpost/drudge/sometimes bbc), is that there are two extremes here. You have the type that follows only fox news and usually does not know what economic theory is. It tends to focus solely on hot topics like punishments for child molestors or terrorism claims. The other extreme is the type that agrees with anything european, ignoring any problems that it has.
In the middle is a more silent and much larger majority than news outlets bother to notice. This site has plenty of the extremes but few of the middle because it has a mostly younger and less traveled following. They either watch the daily show or sean hannity and assume that makes them more informed than the next guy.
If you did not mean to generalize all americans, I agree with you. On the other hand, you should not take posts on this site as any indication of....anything.
|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source.
i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future!
|
On December 14 2010 20:25 undyinglight wrote:Show nested quote +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? I was wondering the same thing, wow future history books will look upon this period differently, now that this info has come to light.
did you read any of the posts in the page you posted?or the article? no wmds in Iraq,remnants of pre gulf war,nothing in wikileaks,and author of the *article* biased nutjob.
Please edit the op,it'd be a shame that 50% of the people reading it think it's true :/
|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. Nuclear Energy isn't clean. It's the cleanest one available to produce the amount of power we need, yes, but clean ? hell no.
As seen in Iran centrifuges used in making 'civilian' grade uranium can be used to make bombs. If Iraq had a way to refine uranium for a reactor then they had the capability to make bombs. But they had neither.
|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. So it's like I thought after reading the OP. They have the ingredients but it doesn't mean they'll make it  Thanks for the extended explaination though. U gotta wonder though what if he did have that technology to refine it enough to get U235.
|
On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment?
|
On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed.
TL;DR: "omg".
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your own question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stop trolling or start to think for a second before posting.
Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O Before the waste decays our planet will be filled with nuclear waste everywhere!
|
On December 14 2010 21:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed. TL;DR: "omg". He fucking operated a nuclear power plant. He knows what he's talking about. You don't. Stop buying into sensationalist popular movements that go wild at the mention of nuclear and read a book learn about how nuclear reactors work. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear energy, with no environmental consequences.
Edit: And also to stay on topic, it seems the first pages of responders never bothered to read the NYTimes article, which shows that the discovery is no surprise at all and completely in line with the orthodox view. Read the Washington Examiner article, scroll down and read the last comment and you realize that it is nothing but uninformed, biased reporting.
|
On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in concrete/lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways. ie. it is hardly radioactive when it is put in the ground.
|
This is old news and doesn't change anything.
|
On December 14 2010 21:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed. TL;DR: "omg". Please show how what he wrote is wrong in any way, I would love to see that. (Except the sentence that they have no effect whatsoever, but that is wrong only if you are a nitpicker, and they are still cleaner than basically anything else we have).
Nuclear power generation is maybe not clean in some ideal sense, but I would like you to show me what power generation system is cleaner except maybe tidal wave-based power plants. Yes there is potential danger in nuclear power plants mostly related to storing waste, but if done properly there is no realistic danger, and even the worst nuclear disaster caused very small damage compared to other viable power plants(relative to power output of course).
|
On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your own question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stop trolling or start to think for a second before posting. Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O Before the waste decays our planet will be filled with nuclear waste everywhere! No, and you are not the one who does not think. There is not enough uranium on Earth to fill much of anything so there is no worry about there being waste everywhere. Also waste stored deep in the stone caverns has no effect on environment if by that you mean biosphere, otherwise your definition is useless for this discussion. Also please do show what cleaner practical options we actually have to generate power.
|
|
On December 14 2010 21:29 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways.
Think for 1 sec. Burying it or not it's still nuclear waste.
Even if you put it lead. What if somehow one day it gets released. You can't guarantee the thing will stay there unaltered for 1M years.
Drilling holes in the earth and stuffing highly toxic and dangerous materials is destroying our planet aka our environment.
Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1 million years
SNF = Spent Nuclear Fuel. 1 million years it stays there....
|
On December 14 2010 21:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed. TL;DR: "omg". So in an effort to counter his argument, you make blind statements about where he received his education from and then proceed to insult that place. I would love to hear what you have to say about what is wrong with his post, maybe you can show us your so valued education.
|
On December 14 2010 21:44 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:29 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways. Think for 1 sec. Burying it or not it's still nuclear waste. Even if you put it lead. What if somehow one day it gets released. You can't guarantee the thing will stay there unaltered for 1M years. Drilling holes in the earth and stuffing highly toxic and dangerous materials is destroying our planet aka our environment. Show nested quote + Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1 million years SNF = Spent Nuclear Fuel. 1 million years it stays there.... You haven't mentioned a single way how this remotely affects the environment.
|
Someone needs to seriously edit this OP title because it's just false.
|
Why wasn't the name of the topic edited yet?It's basically propaganda
|
Scary how many people have fallen for this without any kind of fact checking/googling/reading the source.
I hope some moderator would edit the thread title so not more people waste their time.
|
First of all, the thread title in sensationalistic. Wikileaks don't (haven't and can't) confirm WMDs in Iraq. Its the opinion of a partisan columnist that the documents wikileaks released prove that they were _planning_ on making WMDs, although he opens his column by stating they had WMDs even though he later clarifies the point.
There is literally nothing new or interesting about the article. No new evidence has come to light.
The yellowcake that was removed in Iraq in 2008 was known to the international community and catalogued and stored by U.N representatives. It had been there for decades, since before the first gulf war, remnants of an old abandoned nuclear reactor program.
It was merely removed in 2008 for safety reasons/disposal.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
Edit: Saw link was posted earlier.
|
Belgium8305 Posts
yeah renamed - the OP's article is right wing garbage
|
On December 14 2010 21:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your own question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stop trolling or start to think for a second before posting. Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O Before the waste decays our planet will be filled with nuclear waste everywhere! No, and you are not the one who does not think. There is not enough uranium on Earth to fill much of anything so there is no worry about there being waste everywhere. Also waste stored deep in the stone caverns has no effect on environment if by that you mean biosphere, otherwise your definition is useless for this discussion. Also please do show what cleaner practical options we actually have to generate power.
maybe u should read my first post where i state "it's the cleanest one we know"
|
Your title is VERY misleading. There is no confirmation in this at all that Iraq had WMDs (unless you count the chem weapons that everyone is bound to have known about before because they were used in the Iraq-Iran war almost 30 years ago). The only thing it is really saying is that some part of the military claims to have found uranium that could potentially be used to build nuclear weapons (But only after a looong process requiring technology that Iraq never posessed). People like to think "Oh no he has yellowcake (which is really not much more than milled uranium) now they can build nukes!". Well as a physicist i can tell you that is not true at all. They would still have to enrich this in order to be able to build a uranium based nuclear weapon (which is the weakest kind of nuclear explosive and horribly ineffective) or use it in a fully working nuclear facility in order to get plutonium which then could be used for the kind of weapon that everyone likes to think about when they hear "nuke". One thing to be kept in mind here is that the Iraq war-logs only contain information that was already available within the military. Only because it was released this way now does not mean at all that it is objektively true, all it does mean is that it is stated by the military even if it has not been made public before.
That it could just as well be used for nuclear power is beeing dismissed in the articel with the argument "they have lots of oil they dont need that" which is not exactly a good point because there are a lot of countrys with decent oil reserves who still pursue nuclear power (Iran beeing just the most recent but other countries like canada have large amounts of fossile fuels at their disposal and pursue nuclear power nontheless)
So for the future please try to keep your titles a little more objektive.
Edit: Damn looks like iam a little late with my answer. Well this only proves the awesomeness of TL once more, solving the issue even before i have finished writing about it.
|
On December 14 2010 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: yeah renamed - the OP's article is right wing garbage Thread title still implies that new or unknown uranium was stored/found in Iraq, when the uranium that was removed (2 years ago...) has been known about for decades and stored under supervision of the U.N.
As far as I can tell there is literally no news whatsoever contained in the OPs linked article.
|
On December 14 2010 21:47 searcher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:44 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:29 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote: So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways. Think for 1 sec. Burying it or not it's still nuclear waste. Even if you put it lead. What if somehow one day it gets released. You can't guarantee the thing will stay there unaltered for 1M years. Drilling holes in the earth and stuffing highly toxic and dangerous materials is destroying our planet aka our environment. Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1 million years SNF = Spent Nuclear Fuel. 1 million years it stays there.... You haven't mentioned a single way how this remotely affects the environment. You can guarantee the thing sill stay there untouched for 1m years ? You have no idea what could happen in 1m y.
I agree that its the smartest thing to do atm but it could bite us in the ass one day. However saying it's a clean energy source is crazy. What about Chernobyl?
|
Belgium8305 Posts
On December 14 2010 22:01 Elwar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: yeah renamed - the OP's article is right wing garbage Thread title still implies that new or unknown uranium was stored/found in Iraq, when the uranium that was removed (2 years ago...) has been known about for decades and stored under supervision of the U.N. As far as I can tell there is literally no news whatsoever contained in the OPs linked article.
upon further review, you're right - i'm just going to close this thread because it's ridiculously misleading
- this 'revelation' seems to be a part of WikiLeaks' publications on the Iraq War, so it's old - no WMDs, the OP's article is terrible - was in the mainstream media 2 years ago
|
|
|
|