EPTWikileaks: Yellowcake Uranium in Iraq - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
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... | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4310 Posts
So greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant again? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17174 Posts
| ||
|
ChaseR
Norway1004 Posts
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. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
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. | ||
|
n.DieJokes
United States3443 Posts
On December 14 2010 11:36 Romantic wrote: 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: 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... | ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
 totally kidding but im very interested in how this plays out.. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20288 Posts
put this in op please... read this article before assuming anything | ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
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. | ||
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
| ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On December 14 2010 11:39 n.DieJokes wrote: 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... That's fair and balanced, good one 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. | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
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. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4822 Posts
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... | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
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. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
| ||
|
braammbolius
179 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.stevenvolp.nl/media/2/Circus_with_red_&_white_awning_5814720.JPG) Circus is in town, all are welcome, aall aaree weelcomee. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
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  | ||
|
Kezzer
United States1268 Posts
| ||
| ||
