• Wikileaks: There was indeed yellowcake uranium in Iraq in 2003.
    124 replies, posted
Do bear in mind Iraq had a nice history with chemical weapons, which are also WMDs, and had previously tried to create a nuclear weapons program.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;26688573]What if you're a retar-oh, wait.[/QUOTE] So you're saying a group of private persons with influence couldn't take over wikileaks and use it for their own advantage. Okay. :downs:
[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] I'd love to see that too, mind showing me a thread where it's happening so I can see it?
[QUOTE=Nerts;26694028]You can also make chemical weapons with bleach.[/QUOTE] Yes obviously the yellowcake was meant for cleaning purposes only.
[QUOTE=Explosions;26699387]Yes obviously the yellowcake was meant for cleaning purposes only.[/QUOTE] They weren't doing shit with it. You simply can't justify the massive loss of life and financial cost of the Iraq war with the tired WMD argument.
[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] Why are you arguing on the internet?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26699441]They weren't doing shit with it. You simply can't justify the massive loss of life and financial cost of the Iraq war with the tired WMD argument.[/QUOTE] I was just disproving his analogy, nothing more.
[quote=fuhrer;26699474]why are you arguing on the internet?[/quote] [b]BECAUSE I'M RIGHT[/b] Well, I am.
[QUOTE=Rick Ross;26688244]what if this isnt true and the 'leak' is the work of the republicans[/QUOTE] I bet the republicans did this! [/sarcasm]
Yellowcake is raw uranium and is completely useless as a weapon. This doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration falsified evidence to deceive the public into supporting an unjust war. :colbert:
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;26700338]Yellowcake is raw uranium and is completely useless as a weapon. This doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration falsified evidence to deceive the public into supporting an unjust war. :colbert:[/QUOTE] The idea is that it can at some point be used for WMD
So they lied about it being there, then it was, and they covered up finding it? Something about this doesn't seem right.
What I don't understand is why they would hide this, it's a least partial justification for the war. Didn't Bush say in an interview lately that he was shocked that they didn't have uranium? [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] Also, I believe the reverse of this. The invasion wasn't justified, but if you invade a country with the aim of taking down its dictator you own it to your citizens and theirs to fix the country.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26700355]The idea is that it can at some point be used for WMD[/QUOTE] At some point I could turn the tablets of chlorine for my pool into deadly chlorine gas, should the US Army take over my backyard? "It could be used that way at some point" is a completely bullshit justification. If it was valid, we'd be invading Iran and North Korea.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;26701117]So they lied about it being there, then it was, and they covered up finding it? Something about this doesn't seem right.[/QUOTE] The government in the leadup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq said that Saddam had been actively buying yellowcake in Africa with the intentions of enriching it into nuclear weapons-grade uranium. The yellowcake that was found and publicized in 2008 had been sitting in a bunker since the Gulf War - by no means the large-scale enrichment that Bush & Co. had claimed. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Denicide;26701276]What I don't understand is why they would hide this, it's a least partial justification for the war. Didn't Bush say in an interview lately that he was shocked that they didn't have uranium?[/QUOTE] I explained this in my reply to jeimizu, but I can sum it up another way: This isn't the uranium you're looking for. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] Also, from the rules sticky: [quote] Editorials, blogs, and other opinion pieces are not new[/quote] This is clearly an editorial.
[img]http://www.bush2004.com/images/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg[/img] [b][i]"I DEmand you RElease Asannge."[/i][/b]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;26701353]At some point I could turn the tablets of chlorine for my pool into deadly chlorine gas, should the US Army take over my backyard? "It could be used that way at some point" is a completely bullshit justification. If it was valid, we'd be invading Iran and North Korea.[/QUOTE] There's a big fucking difference between chlorine and uranium. Chlorine has plenty of legitimate, peaceful uses. Yellowcake uranium has exactly two uses - fuel for nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. And Iraq wasn't trying to build a reactor - if they were, they would be public about it. Iran, so far, has used the pretense that the uranium is for their nuclear reactor. Which, in all honesty, it seems to be - for now. There was much negotiation about what to do with the waste - which could be refined into a nuke - but that seems to have been settled. As for North Korea, we honestly should invade. There's plenty of justification. However, China sees NK as a buffer against potential American invasion, so it gets political and military protection.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26702329]As for North Korea, we honestly should invade. There's plenty of justification. However, China sees NK as a buffer against potential American invasion, so it gets political and military protection.[/QUOTE] You know what your problem is? You see everything in a purely "is it justified" viewpoint. Sure, war might be justified, but is it necessary? You're ignoring the huge human cost of any war.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26702407]You know what your problem is? You see everything in a purely "is it justified" viewpoint. Sure, war might be justified, but is it necessary? You're ignoring the huge human cost of any war.[/QUOTE] He is scared of North Korea and their hysterical claims and thinks honestly that invading their country would be a lot less loss of life than if they used their enriched uranium against another country in war. It's basically a lower but guaranteed loss of life VS. a possible but higher loss of life. And he's playing it safe. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] that or, "better them than me"
The cake is a lie. You knew it was coming.
[QUOTE=chewgo;26702538]He is scared of North Korea and their hysterical claims and thinks honestly that invading their country would be a lot less loss of life than if they used their enriched uranium against another country in war. It's basically a lower-guaranteed loss of life VS. a possible but higher loss of life. And he's playing it safe.[/QUOTE] Better yet, keep them from using their enriched uranium against another country by not provoking them. You're forgetting the millions of civilians in Seoul who would die if we invaded. Why not just wait for the North Korean regime to collapse fully?
God damnit Redcow, I was going to post that, so I checked the second page to see if anyone already did! :sweatdrop:
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26702407]You know what your problem is? You see everything in a purely "is it justified" viewpoint. Sure, war might be justified, but is it necessary? You're ignoring the huge human cost of any war.[/QUOTE] No, I view the human cost as part of the justification decision. "Is the war worth what will be lost?" is nearly as important as "is the casus belli sufficient?" However, in a war with North Korea, the US would have no need to pull its punches. It would be a [i]massacre[/i]. The body count on the US/SK side would be in the triple-digits, max. Get AEGIS cover to knock down incoming missiles, get artillery doing actual WW1-style barrages, Abrams tanks, air-superiority fighters, heavy bombers, the works. If there's a tree standing in the DMZ by the time the war is over, the military didn't shoot enough. Do all that, victory is assured with minimal casualties on the good guy's team. Sure, North Korea will be fucking gone, but honestly, that may just be the cost of not rising against an obviously-insane dictator. If you go along with a regime like that, you're guilty by complicity.
[QUOTE=breakyourfac;26692832]It isn't biased, I've heard this from people working in the military.[/QUOTE] Ahahaha. Ahah.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26702611]No, I view the human cost as part of the justification decision. "Is the war worth what will be lost?" is nearly as important as "is the casus belli sufficient?" However, in a war with North Korea, the US would have no need to pull its punches. It would be a [i]massacre[/i]. The body count on the US/SK side would be in the triple-digits, max. Get AEGIS cover to knock down incoming missiles, get artillery doing actual WW1-style barrages, Abrams tanks, air-superiority fighters, heavy bombers, the works. If there's a tree standing in the DMZ by the time the war is over, the military didn't shoot enough. Do all that, victory is assured with minimal casualties on the good guy's team. Sure, North Korea will be fucking gone, but honestly, that may just be the cost of not rising against an obviously-insane dictator. If you go along with a regime like that, you're guilty by complicity.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting that NK has thousands of artillery guns pointed directly at Seoul.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26699441]They weren't doing shit with it. You simply can't justify the massive loss of life and financial cost of the Iraq war with the tired WMD argument.[/QUOTE] Hey remember that time Iraq used chemical weapons on civilians? [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/URL] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Halabja1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Halabja-3.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.internationalist.org/halabja3www.jpg[/IMG] Yea bro you can keep your yellowcake because you've shown how responsible you are. Oh and as stated out by Gman, it was obviously stated that Iraq no longer can have any components used to make WMDs. And just because its un-enriched doesn't mean it can't be refined (pretty sure) Yellowcake I believe can be enriched to become fuel rods for reactors or for WMDs.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26702407]You know what your problem is? You see everything in a purely "is it justified" viewpoint. Sure, war might be justified, but is it necessary? You're ignoring the huge human cost of any war.[/QUOTE] Plus the fact that it'll be a pretty worthless victory, most people will probably still believe in their great leader. Unless for all those times we visit they're lying. But it seems for now their either really scared, desensitized, or brainwashed. Plus if we really should have we already would, their arsenal is made up of Kalashnikovs first assault rifles and old soviet tanks. They can easily be defeated. Until Kim-Jong il dies, lets only do what we have to.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;26702747]Hey remember that time Iraq used chemical weapons on civilians? [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/URL] Yea bro you can keep your yellowcake because you've shown how responsible you are. Oh and as stated out by Gman, it was obviously stated that Iraq no longer can have any components used to make WMDs. And just because its un-enriched doesn't mean it can't be refined (pretty sure) Yellowcake I believe can be enriched to become fuel rods for reactors or for WMDs.[/QUOTE] That was in 1989 (90?). I said that it had been lying dormant since the Gulf War (1991). By your logic, we should have invaded Israel to take their nuclear material since they've shown themselves to be irresponsible. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/USS_Liberty.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26702824]That was in 1989 (90?). I said that it had been lying dormant since the Gulf War (1991).[/QUOTE] It was under Saddam's rule. Along with the Dujail Massacre. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre[/URL] More innocent civilians killed under his rule. Totally a sane ruler. Totally responsible for having yellowcake, with no bad intentions.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;26702937]It was under Saddam's rule. Along with the Dujail Massacre. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre[/URL] More innocent civilians killed under his rule. Totally a sane ruler. Totally responsible for having yellowcake, with no bad intentions.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and during the 80s, we supported him because we hated the Iranians more. If he left it in a bunker for 12 years, doing nothing with it, then yes, he was responsible with it. If Iraq had started any kind of enrichment, the UN inspectors in the country would have been all over their ass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.