EPTOn December 14 2010 13:50 Sanguinarius wrote:
Wow, so it was actually right..... this wikileaks thing is getting very interesting.
Wow, so it was actually right..... this wikileaks thing is getting very interesting.
no.
See the post above yours.
Wikileaks: Yellowcake Uranium in Iraq - Page 9
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
no. See the post above yours. | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
mods please close this thread, it is a disgrace to TL | ||
|
MGHova
Canada274 Posts
| ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
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. | ||
|
jiabung
United States720 Posts
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". | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
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" | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
and close the thread. I nearly believed the thing until I saw the Snopes link. Good thing I have a habit of reading before posting... | ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Just kidding read the posted OP and am like mlargh now. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On December 14 2010 14:01 pi_rate_pir_ate wrote: 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. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20288 Posts
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.asp and 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... | ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4822 Posts
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. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
| ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 14 2010 14:21 pi_rate_pir_ate wrote: 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 | ||
|
spree
United States86 Posts
| ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
The NYT article is two years old and (as you might expect) doesn't mention Wikileaks. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
Surprise in this thread is the equivalent of ignorance of the subject. | ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/wikileaks-wmd-program-existed-iraq-prior-to-us-invasion#comment-13339896 That the source is Wiki Leaks and in the comments the author directs people to their site. This artical was posted 5 days ago as apposed to 2 years ago. If anyone can find the info used on Wiki Leaks that would add to this thread. Everything else is speculation or alas trolling. The OP needs work, but people should stop flaming a guy for posting something he read for discussion. | ||
| ||
