• Wikileaks: There was indeed yellowcake uranium in Iraq in 2003.
    124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=breakyourfac;26691247]I've known this, my uncle is in the military and I somehow 'acquired' that information from him, so no bush was not wrong about weapons of mass destruction.[/QUOTE] Depends on the definition of WMD. Most people wouldn't consider raw yellowcake to be a weapon in and of itself. People were under the impression that they had finished, working weapons of mass destruction.
GG USA keep evidence that you were right in the dark are you a moron?
wikileaks: fair and balanced
[QUOTE=BmB;26692566]GG USA keep evidence that you were right in the dark are you a moron?[/QUOTE] GG not reading the thread past biased OP which shows this is complete bullshit.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;26692711]GG not reading the thread past biased OP which shows this is complete bullshit.[/QUOTE] It isn't biased, I've heard this from people working in the military.
Even if it was there its still not a WMD
But you make WMDs with it.
Well. There we go. I am officially recategorizing (in my own mind, at least) Bush Jr., from "Worst President since Buchanan" to "mildly incompetent".
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26688472]I love how people defend wikileaks blindly when it hurts their government, but as soon as they release something that helps the republicans everyone is like "this can't be true" "i don't believe this"[/QUOTE] You really expect anything less for a forum full of children?
[QUOTE=Zeus;26688833]"The leak didn't say something bad about the US so therefore this must be a fake leak by the republicans"[/QUOTE] :911:
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;26693294]But you make WMDs with it.[/QUOTE] You can also make chemical weapons with bleach.
[QUOTE=Nerts;26694028]You can also make chemical weapons with bleach.[/QUOTE] But bleach has significant non-military applications. Yellowcake, all you can do with that is nuclear bombs, dirty bombs, or fission reactors, and they weren't making any power plants.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26694181]But bleach has significant non-military applications. Yellowcake, all you can do with that is nuclear bombs, dirty bombs, or fission reactors, and they weren't making any power plants.[/QUOTE] They weren't making any power plants, but they also weren't doing anything with the yellowcake but storing it in barrels underground. If they were actively enriching it with the goal of developing nuclear weapons, that's a separate thing entirely, which is what Bush claimed. If we had known that all of Iraq's yellowcake was dormant in barrels, we never would have gone to war.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26694483]They weren't making any power plants, but they also weren't doing anything with the yellowcake but storing it in barrels underground. If they were actively enriching it with the goal of developing nuclear weapons, that's a separate thing entirely, which is what Bush claimed. If we had known that all of Iraq's yellowcake was dormant in barrels, we never would have gone to war.[/QUOTE] Metaphor time! OK, so you've got this neighbor. He's a real jackass - white power tattoos, Ted Kaczinsky beard, the works. Always yelling about the government sticking microchips in his brain and stuff. Has more guns than anyone could actually use. One day, he finally realizes that the people who moved in last month are Kuwaiti, and he starts shouting racist slurs, all that. Then, instead of just going home and maybe putting up another ugly "the end is nigh" sign in his yard, he grabs a shotgun, invades their home, and starts shooting out windows. Not cool. You call the cops. SWAT shows up a few minutes later. Dude gets arrested, they confiscate all his guns and stuff. However, due to a mistrial, he gets off clean. He goes back home. Now, the guy keeps yelling all that crazy shit, and it's really annoying. The guy's on a watchlist now, so he can't buy more guns. But then, you notice that the dude's been buying ammo. Lots of it. Enough to maybe make a bomb. You're pretty worried, because the dude is obviously unhinged. You call the cops again. What is the best outcome: A) They come in, taser his ass, manage to convict him for killing a Kurdish kid a few decades back, and execute the guy for murder. Unfortunately, the house was boobie-trapped, and it burns to the ground, killing a few cops in the process. B) The cops ban him from buying ammo. A few years later, he's built a bomb from fertilizer and diesel fuel, and he's blown up an IRS office.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26694860]Now, the guy keeps yelling all that crazy shit, and it's really annoying. The guy's on a watchlist now, so he can't buy more guns. [b]But then, you notice that the dude's been buying ammo. Lots of it. Enough to maybe make a bomb.[/b] You're pretty worried, because the dude is obviously unhinged. You call the cops again. [/QUOTE] Except the alleged yellowcake purchases by Saddam in Africa never happened. The yellowcake mentioned in this Wikileaked document is the same yellowcake that was sitting in his bunkers left over from the Gulf War and was moved out of the country in 2008, untouched since the Gulf War. No evidence has ever come to light of there being any veracity to the yellowcake from Africa claim.
Meh, I like Chocolate cake.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26695299]Except the alleged yellowcake purchases by Saddam in Africa never happened. The yellowcake mentioned in this Wikileaked document is the same yellowcake that was sitting in his bunkers left over from the Gulf War and was moved out of the country in 2008, untouched since the Gulf War. No evidence has ever come to light of there being any veracity to the yellowcake from Africa claim.[/QUOTE] One of the conditions of the cease-fire in Gulf War I, IIRC, was that Iraq give up all its weapons of mass destruction and components thereof. This would mean that Saddam did not fully comply, thereby abrogating the treaty, thus reopening a state of war.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26695503]One of the conditions of the cease-fire in Gulf War I, IIRC, was that Iraq give up all its weapons of mass destruction and components thereof. This would mean that Saddam did not fully comply, thereby abrogating the treaty, thus reopening a state of war.[/QUOTE] Are you saying the 100,000 deaths from the Second Iraq War were justified by Saddam's failure to completely get rid of his old WMDs?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26695552]Are you saying the 100,000 deaths from the Second Iraq War were justified by Saddam's failure to completely get rid of his old WMDs?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the invasion itself was justified. Occupying the country this long, no. Failing to set up a proper government, possibly by splitting the country, no. And, for the record, the majority of those deaths were caused by the Iraqi civil war, not by the invading forces.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26695671]I'm saying that the invasion itself was justified. Occupying the country this long, no. Failing to set up a proper government, possibly by splitting the country, no. And, for the record, the majority of those deaths were caused by the Iraqi civil war, not by the invading forces.[/QUOTE] Find me a source that said it was a condition of the cease-fire for Saddam to get rid of all his WMD stockpiles, would you?
Never mind, misread the title as IRAN. But yeah Yellow Cake isn't a WMD so they still lied.
[QUOTE=Saxon;26696000]I thought it was fairly obvious they wanted to develop a WMD. What would all the rocket development they've been having go towards otherwise? They've also been under pressure from other nations.[/QUOTE] Are you thinking of Iran when you talk about rocket development? Iraq probably wanted to develop WMDs, sure, but they were making absolutely no steps towards actually making WMDs. Here's an analogy: I would love to kill Kim Jong-il. I have an illegally owned sniper rifle locked in my basement and illegally owned ammunition, but again, they're sitting locked away in my basement, forgotten, and I'm not making any moves towards actually taking them out of the basement or going to Korea to shoot Kim. Am I a clear and present danger to Kim Jong-il?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26695829]Find me a source that said it was a condition of the cease-fire for Saddam to get rid of all his WMD stockpiles, would you?[/QUOTE] The list of conditions was enumerated in [url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687]United Nations Security Council Resolution 687[/url]. Since it's a rather long document, the relevant text is: [quote]Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; ... Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above[/quote]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26696223]The list of conditions was enumerated in [url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687]United Nations Security Council Resolution 687[/url]. Since it's a rather long document, the relevant text is:[/QUOTE] Alright, so we agree that Iraq was violating the UNSC resolution. However, shouldn't the UNSC have decided the proper course of action to take, possibly preventing a costly (for all sides) invasion?
And this is why I hate when people blindly talk about stuff they can never be sure of.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;26696704]And this is why I hate when people blindly talk about stuff they can never be sure of.[/QUOTE] Context for your post?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26696342]Alright, so we agree that Iraq was violating the UNSC resolution. However, shouldn't the UNSC have decided the proper course of action to take, possibly preventing a costly (for all sides) invasion?[/QUOTE] In a perfect world, yes, the UN should have decided. However, the UN was moving extremely slowly on the issue, issuing resolution 1441, which stated that Iraq was in violation of resolution 687. Iraq made some moves to comply, mainly by giving the UN a 12,000 page report that was essentially bullshit. After 5 months of the UN refusing to actually resume war (the cease-fire was broken, therefore a state of war technically existed), the US and UK essentially decided "fuck those guys, let's get some shit done".
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26697024]In a perfect world, yes, the UN should have decided. However, the UN was moving extremely slowly on the issue, issuing resolution 1441, which stated that Iraq was in violation of resolution 687. Iraq made some moves to comply, mainly by giving the UN a 12,000 page report that was essentially bullshit. After 5 months of the UN refusing to actually resume war (the cease-fire was broken, therefore a state of war technically existed), the US and UK essentially decided "fuck those guys, let's get some shit done".[/QUOTE] So what if the UN was moving slowly? Was Iraq a clear and present danger to any other country? If they hadn't used any of their chemical weapons stashes since 1991, why would they bust them out in 2003 when the whole world was looking at them? Saddam may have been dumb, but he wasn't stupid enough to risk another war.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26688472]I love how people defend wikileaks blindly when it hurts their government, but as soon as they release something that helps the republicans everyone is like "this can't be true" "i don't believe this"[/QUOTE] Just shows how stupid Liberals are.
Mmm cake.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.