Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 105

Thread: 550 TONS of Saddam's "yellowcake" removed from Iraq

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like

    550 TONS of Saddam's "yellowcake" removed from Iraq

    [url="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html"]More liberal BS up in smoke. [/url]

    [I]The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives - kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

    And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.[/I]

    Not only does the "worst president in history" have to keep it secret from terrorists, but from domestic snakes, too.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,442
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material [/QUOTE]

    Still just lying about lying in the first place

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2615504]Still just lying about lying in the first place[/QUOTE]

    [SIZE="4"]"If your going to tell a lie, tell a big lie. And tell it over and over again."[/SIZE]

    Here is my favorite part of this nonsense;

    [I]The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.

    A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.

    A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.[/I]

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote]
    While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material
    [/quote]


    i suppose then you would have been ok with a bomb full of this stuff exploding somewhere near your neighborhood....:rolleyes:

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=neckdemon;2615510]i suppose then you would have been ok with a bomb full of this stuff exploding somewhere near your neighborhood....:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
    550 tons of yellowcake in the hands of a guy who steadfastly refused to cooperate with UN atomic inspectors...nothing dangerous in that equation, right?

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2615509]
    Here is my favorite part of this nonsense;
    [/QUOTE]
    Nonsense? What expertise have you to dismiss this story? That's rather insulting to the armed forces over there, no?

    A liberal is never more transparent than when he reacts to a positive news story from Iraq.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iraq has made tens of millions off of this deal, the UAE has forgiven Iraq of $7 billion worth of debt today, and al-Qaeda in Iraq at last is finished (ISF and US forces retook the last neighborhoods in Mosul this morning).

    [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece[/url]

    Win. Win. Win. :yes:

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2615500][url="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html"]More liberal BS up in smoke. [/url]

    [I]The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives - kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

    And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.[/I]

    Not only does the "worst president in history" have to keep it secret from terrorists, but from domestic snakes, too.[/QUOTE]

    c'mon, you have to be smarter than this..

    this has nothing to do with the "WMD"s we were told they had, and this isn't even new material.....

    I mean, did you expect people not to read the whole article????




    [QUOTE]Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were [B]well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.[/B]

    Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, [B]U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War.[/B] There was [B]no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991[/B], the official said.[/QUOTE]


    weak attempt buddy.....weak

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;2615546]c'mon, you have to be smarter than this..

    this has nothing to do with the "WMD"s we were told they had, and this isn't even new material.....

    I mean, did you expect people not to read the whole article????







    weak attempt buddy.....weak[/QUOTE]

    You beat me to it.

    What exactly does removing 550 tons of uranium that we knew about 11 years before we invaded prove?

    This constitutes no evidence of WMDs.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2615560]You beat me to it.

    What exactly does removing 550 tons of uranium that we knew about 11 years before we invaded prove?

    This constitutes no evidence of WMDs.[/QUOTE]

    2nd time:
    [I]And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.[/I]

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2615580]2nd time:
    [I]And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.[/I][/QUOTE]

    In a SYMBOLIC way, not in a real, tangible way.

    Removing non-weapons grade uranium that we've known was there since 1991 does nothing to strengthen the case for WMDs whatsoever.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2615533]Nonsense? What expertise have you to dismiss this story? That's rather insulting to the armed forces over there, no?

    A liberal is never more transparent than when he reacts to a positive news story from Iraq.[/QUOTE]

    And a fascist is never more disapointed then when they are called out for their lies.....
    [I]"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[29][30][31]"[/I]
    -President FDR

    [B][SIZE="4"]Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say[/SIZE][/B]

    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/[/url]

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- [B]The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.[/B]

    "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

    Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

    "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

    ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

    Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

    "We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

    Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."

    No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.

    Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

    Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

    "Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

    The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

    "The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."

    Blix said that during a meeting before the war with the U.S. president, Bush told him that "the U.S. genuinely wanted peace," and that "he was no wild, gung-ho Texan, bent on dragging the U.S. into war."

    Blix said Bush gave the inspectors support and information at first, but he said the help didn't last long enough.

    "I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.

    "I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.

    Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

    Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

    "At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

    ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

    "We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

    ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.

    "We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 07-06-2008 at 01:15 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2615585]In a SYMBOLIC way, not in a real, tangible way.

    Removing non-weapons grade uranium that we've known was there since 1991 does nothing to strengthen the case for WMDs whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

    I would say the mission to secretly sneak out 550 tons of "yellowcake" out of Iraq is absolutely a tangible success, just the latest of many that people vested in defeat refuse to recognize.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2615619]I would say the mission to secretly sneak out 550 tons of "yellowcake" out of Iraq is absolutely a tangible success, just the latest of many that people vested in defeat refuse to recognize.[/QUOTE]

    It's a success in that we were able to get it out undetected by the enemy. It is not, however, a success in justifying WMDs as the reason for going to war in the first place.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    THe WMD argument is senseless. It is an irrefutable fact that, at some point, SH had plenty of WMD. It is a fact that virtually all intelligence, post the first Gulf War, believed there was more WMD. Anyone who denies either of these assertions is wrong.

    Now what you believe comes down to your personal political view.

    AntiBush antiwar people dismiss the WMD out of hand. They use WMD to support their beliefs.

    Those supporting the war in Iraq will either put their faith in the WMD having existed and are know not found (my friend's in the military feel confidant of this) or that, had SH actions and deceptions in dealing with UN inspectors, after having endured 9/11, justified our action.

    If tomorrow, there was irrefutable evidence that SH never had WMD after the Gulf War and all the intelligence agencies in the world were well aware of it, those in favor of the war would still justify the attack.

    If more evidence of this nature were to come out......... heck, if evidence that SH was 3 years from a nuclear device came out, those against war would (mostly) still be against. Why? Because they are just against war - the only way they would consider going to war is if we were attacked first.

    This was a preemptive war and they just can not support that. And though I am OK with a preemptive war (still not sure we had to in Iraq, though), I can completely respect the thought process of those who think the level of cause for an attack wasn't met.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2615628]It's a success in that we were able to get it out undetected by the enemy. It is not, however, a success in justifying WMDs as the reason for going to war in the first place.[/QUOTE]
    A few rhetoricals: Was the idea that 'Saddam Hussein has WMDs' invented by the Bush Administration? (No)
    Was his the first to discuss military action against Saddam? (No)
    Was there an international consensus in the West that Saddam had WMDs? (Yes)

    Saddam is probably guilty of everything he's been accused of (and very dead), yet the one you wish to impeach is Bush.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2615504]Still just lying about lying in the first place[/QUOTE]

    Weren't you condeming Israel for taking out Sadam's nuclear facility back in the 81?

  18. #18
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [quote=JCnflies;2615715]
    This was a preemptive war and they just can not support that. And though I am OK with a preemptive war (still not sure we had to in Iraq, though), I can completely respect the thought process of those who think the level of cause for an attack wasn't met.[/quote]

    Thousands of idiotic self-haters/traitors rallied in NY to protest the upcoming war vs Afghanistan mere days after 9/11...for some there's never any valid cause for any resultant effect they don't believe in...
    there's always been and always will be apologists for dictators and tyrannies the world over..these folks would have said WW2's over after Italy surrendered
    Last edited by flushingjet; 07-06-2008 at 05:07 PM.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,442
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2615815]Weren't you condeming Israel for taking out Sadam's nuclear facility back in the 81?[/QUOTE]

    DIMONA!!!!! What a hipocrazy

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet;2615827][B]Thousands of idiotic self-haters/traitors rallied in NY to protest [/B]the upcoming war vs Afghanistan mere days after 9/11...for some there's never any valid cause for any resultant effect they don't believe in...
    there's always been and always will be apologists for dictators and tyrannies the world over..these folks would have said WW2's over after Italy surrendered[/QUOTE]

    You are a good sheeple. What is truly remarkable is that your statement would actually make many dictators very happy.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us