OT: How about them WMD's?

OT: How about them WMD's?

Gee, whiz.

It looks like that evildoer Bush was right all along. 550 metric TONS
of yellowcake uranium, capable of making up to '142 nuclear weapons'.
Now that it's been taken away from a madman it's going to Canada to
produce <gasp!> clean nuclear energy!

But don't take my word for it:

----------
http :// www .msnbc.msn,com /id/25546334/

http :// abcnews.go,com /International/wireStory?idS16183

"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."

http :// cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/07/06/6081896-cp.html

http :// www .metimes,com /Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi uranium transferred to canada/afp/

"The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US
invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of
Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic
Energy Agency."

http :// www .spacewar,com /reports/Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 999.html

""We are satisfied at having been able to remove uranium from one of
the most unstable regions of the world, and to have transfered it to a
stable region to produce our own electric power," he said on Sunday."

http :// news.yahoo,com /s/afp/20080707/wl mideast afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear 080707161202

http :// www .resourceinvestor,com /pebble.asp?relidD100
----------

Anyone here gonna apologize to W. for saying he 'lied'?


--EE--

Re: How about them WMD's?


"EVIL ELVIS" <hehatemetoo69@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:2a79ef30-d105-4ee1-b6d4-d29a7d808923@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> Gee, whiz.
>
> It looks like that evildoer Bush was right all along. 550 metric TONS
> of yellowcake uranium, capable of making up to '142 nuclear weapons'.
> Now that it's been taken away from a madman it's going to Canada to
> produce <gasp!> clean nuclear energy!
>
> But don't take my word for it:
>
> ----------
> http :// www .msnbc.msn,com /id/25546334/
>
> http :// abcnews.go,com /International/wireStory?id=5316183
>
> "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."
>
> http :// cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/07/06/6081896-cp.html
>
> http :// www .metimes,com /Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_canada/afp/
>
> "The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US
> invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of
> Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic
> Energy Agency."
>
> http :// www .spacewar,com /reports/Iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_Canada_999.html
>
> ""We are satisfied at having been able to remove uranium from one of
> the most unstable regions of the world, and to have transfered it to a
> stable region to produce our own electric power," he said on Sunday."
>
> http :// news.yahoo,com /s/afp/20080707/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707161202
>
> http :// www .resourceinvestor,com /pebble.asp?relid=44100
> ----------
>
> Anyone here gonna apologize to W. for saying he 'lied'?
>
>
> --EE--

Funny how this isn't BIG news? You'd think it would be reported in the same
manner that W lied?
Maybe BHO will apologize?

--"Fortunately none of what is being discussed here will ever come to pass."
OR in AVLV

Re: How about them WMD's?


"BR Eagle" <goc313@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:y6Jck.17401$3q7.6972@newsfe15.lga...
>
> "EVIL ELVIS" <hehatemetoo69@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:2a79ef30-d105-4ee1-b6d4-d29a7d808923@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>> Gee, whiz.
>>
>> It looks like that evildoer Bush was right all along. 550 metric TONS
>> of yellowcake uranium, capable of making up to '142 nuclear weapons'.
>> Now that it's been taken away from a madman it's going to Canada to
>> produce <gasp!> clean nuclear energy!
>>
>> But don't take my word for it:
>>
>> ----------
>> http :// www .msnbc.msn,com /id/25546334/
>>
>> http :// abcnews.go,com /International/wireStory?id=5316183
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> http :// cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/07/06/6081896-cp.html
>>
>> http :// www .metimes,com /Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_canada/afp/
>>
>> "The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US
>> invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of
>> Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic
>> Energy Agency."
>>
>> http :// www .spacewar,com /reports/Iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_Canada_999.html
>>
>> ""We are satisfied at having been able to remove uranium from one of
>> the most unstable regions of the world, and to have transfered it to a
>> stable region to produce our own electric power," he said on Sunday."
>>
>> http :// news.yahoo,com /s/afp/20080707/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707161202
>>
>> http :// www .resourceinvestor,com /pebble.asp?relid=44100
>> ----------
>>
>> Anyone here gonna apologize to W. for saying he 'lied'?
>>
>>
>> --EE--

> Funny how this isn't BIG news?

It was reported as big news when it was found, documented, and secured by
international inspectors before the US invaded Iraq. Moving it is news,
that's why there are articles about it. But BIG news? Only to those who
were unaware of its existence in the first place. So far that's you and EE.

> You'd think it would be reported in the same manner that W lied?

Both are true, and both have been reported.

> Maybe BHO will apologize?

For what?

> --"Fortunately none of what is being discussed here will ever come to
> pass." OR in AVLV

Try this one:

"Unfortunately none of what is being discussed here will ever be understood
by EE or BR".

OR

Re: How about them WMD's?

> Funny how this isn't BIG news?  

Why would it be - everyone has known about this uranium for decades.
It's been under control for over a decade.

> You'd think it would be reported in the same
> manner that W lied?

A president lying to the American people about the intelligence he
received on WDM is news. Moving a pile of uranium isn't.

Re: How about them WMD's?


"EVIL ELVIS" <hehatemetoo69@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:2a79ef30-d105-4ee1-b6d4-d29a7d808923@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> Gee, whiz.
>
> It looks like that evildoer Bush was right all along. 550 metric TONS
> of yellowcake uranium, capable of making up to '142 nuclear weapons'.
> Now that it's been taken away from a madman it's going to Canada to
> produce <gasp!> clean nuclear energy!
>
> But don't take my word for it:


I won't. Are you really this stupid?

Uranium is a naturally occurring mineral. This concentrated yellowcake
form is one step beyond that (the first of about 10,00 steps required to
make a nuke). It isn't a weapon. If further processed and refined it can
be made into an ingredient in a weapon. You believing this is a "WMD" is
like believing that iron is a bunker busting bomb because, once processed
and refined into steel, and once the steel is placed into a working weapons
design, and once the design is able to be manufactured, it can be made into
a bunker busting bomb, which, if you have a delivery system, can then
actually be used.

Not to mention that its significantly more difficult to turn uranium into a
nuke than it is to turn iron into a bunker busting bomb. Like about
8735343634 times more difficult.

Certainly if this was so dangerous, the Bush administration would never have
let this uranium sit there in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, for 7
years before doing anything to remove it. No one was concerned that the
"terrists" might get ahold of it? The Bush administration didn't even
scream "look what we found" when they ran across this stuff several years
ago? Of course not, because THEY DIDN'T find it; the international nuke
inspectors found it and they had already thoroughly documented its existence
and secured it before we ever invaded Iraq. If you had bothered to read the
articles you linked to, you would have understood that little tidbit and
that the stuff dated from before 1991. Now they're moving it to someplace
it can be put to use. Ooooo, scary!

Your girly-man fear rears its trembling head once again. You see the word
"yellowcake" and without any knowledge of what that actually is, you have an
instant "the sky is falling" reaction. And you didn't even read the
articles before linking to them, oh wait.... of course you read them, you
just didn't UNDERSTAND them.

Typical fraidy-cat reaction from our big, gun totin' tough guy. And
typically amusing to read for those of us with brains.

OR

Re: How about them WMD's?

Octopus Ride wrote:
> "EVIL ELVIS" <hehatemetoo69@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:2a79ef30-d105-4ee1-b6d4-d29a7d808923@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>> Gee, whiz.
>>
>> It looks like that evildoer Bush was right all along. 550 metric TONS
>> of yellowcake uranium, capable of making up to '142 nuclear weapons'.
>> Now that it's been taken away from a madman it's going to Canada to
>> produce <gasp!> clean nuclear energy!
>>
>> But don't take my word for it:
>
>
> I won't. Are you really this stupid?
>
> Uranium is a naturally occurring mineral. This concentrated yellowcake
> form is one step beyond that (the first of about 10,00 steps required to
> make a nuke). It isn't a weapon. If further processed and refined it can
> be made into an ingredient in a weapon. You believing this is a "WMD" is
> like believing that iron is a bunker busting bomb because, once processed
> and refined into steel, and once the steel is placed into a working weapons
> design, and once the design is able to be manufactured, it can be made into
> a bunker busting bomb, which, if you have a delivery system, can then
> actually be used.
>
> Not to mention that its significantly more difficult to turn uranium into a
> nuke than it is to turn iron into a bunker busting bomb. Like about
> 8735343634 times more difficult.
>
> Certainly if this was so dangerous, the Bush administration would never have
> let this uranium sit there in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, for 7
> years before doing anything to remove it. No one was concerned that the
> "terrists" might get ahold of it? The Bush administration didn't even
> scream "look what we found" when they ran across this stuff several years
> ago? Of course not, because THEY DIDN'T find it; the international nuke
> inspectors found it and they had already thoroughly documented its existence
> and secured it before we ever invaded Iraq. If you had bothered to read the
> articles you linked to, you would have understood that little tidbit and
> that the stuff dated from before 1991. Now they're moving it to someplace
> it can be put to use. Ooooo, scary!
>
> Your girly-man fear rears its trembling head once again. You see the word
> "yellowcake" and without any knowledge of what that actually is, you have an
> instant "the sky is falling" reaction. And you didn't even read the
> articles before linking to them, oh wait.... of course you read them, you
> just didn't UNDERSTAND them.
>
> Typical fraidy-cat reaction from our big, gun totin' tough guy. And
> typically amusing to read for those of us with brains.
>
> OR

OR,
I don't want to get in between the who has
the bigger dick contest you have going with EE,
but riddle me this.
If it is so difficult to build an atom bomb,
how did Pakistan and India build one? How did
North Korea, which can't manage to feed its
people build one?
What makes you think that Iraq, or Iran can't do
what North Korea and Pakistan did?
We now return you to the pissing contest already
in progress.

Gary

Re: How about them WMD's?


"GaryM1111" <GaryM1111@takethisoutgmail,com > wrote in message
news:predk.227778$tY4.111741@fe06.news.easynews,com ...
> Octopus Ride wrote:
>> "EVIL ELVIS" <hehatemetoo69@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>> news:2a79ef30-d105-4ee1-b6d4-d29a7d808923@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>>> Gee, whiz.
>>>
>>> It looks like that evildoer Bush was right all along. 550 metric TONS
>>> of yellowcake uranium, capable of making up to '142 nuclear weapons'.
>>> Now that it's been taken away from a madman it's going to Canada to
>>> produce <gasp!> clean nuclear energy!
>>>
>>> But don't take my word for it:
>>
>>
>> I won't. Are you really this stupid?
>>
>> Uranium is a naturally occurring mineral. This concentrated yellowcake
>> form is one step beyond that (the first of about 10,00 steps required to
>> make a nuke). It isn't a weapon. If further processed and refined it
>> can be made into an ingredient in a weapon. You believing this is a
>> "WMD" is like believing that iron is a bunker busting bomb because, once
>> processed and refined into steel, and once the steel is placed into a
>> working weapons design, and once the design is able to be manufactured,
>> it can be made into a bunker busting bomb, which, if you have a delivery
>> system, can then actually be used.
>>
>> Not to mention that its significantly more difficult to turn uranium into
>> a nuke than it is to turn iron into a bunker busting bomb. Like about
>> 8735343634 times more difficult.
>>
>> Certainly if this was so dangerous, the Bush administration would never
>> have let this uranium sit there in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war,
>> for 7 years before doing anything to remove it. No one was concerned
>> that the "terrists" might get ahold of it? The Bush administration
>> didn't even scream "look what we found" when they ran across this stuff
>> several years ago? Of course not, because THEY DIDN'T find it; the
>> international nuke inspectors found it and they had already thoroughly
>> documented its existence and secured it before we ever invaded Iraq. If
>> you had bothered to read the articles you linked to, you would have
>> understood that little tidbit and that the stuff dated from before 1991.
>> Now they're moving it to someplace it can be put to use. Ooooo, scary!
>>
>> Your girly-man fear rears its trembling head once again. You see the
>> word "yellowcake" and without any knowledge of what that actually is, you
>> have an instant "the sky is falling" reaction. And you didn't even read
>> the articles before linking to them, oh wait.... of course you read them,
>> you just didn't UNDERSTAND them.
>>
>> Typical fraidy-cat reaction from our big, gun totin' tough guy. And
>> typically amusing to read for those of us with brains.
>>


> OR,
> I don't want to get in between the who has
> the bigger dick contest you have going with EE,
> but riddle me this.
> If it is so difficult to build an atom bomb,
> how did Pakistan and India build one?

Chuck, thanks for not getting involved in the flame war.

The answer to your question is very simple. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan and India
had advanced nuclear weapons programs that made progress year after year for
many years. Much of their original technology and know-how came from
Russia.

> How did
> North Korea, which can't manage to feed its
> people build one?

Same answer as above.

> What makes you think that Iraq, or Iran can't do
> what North Korea and Pakistan did?

Iran can and probably will someday. Iraq is now occupied by the US, so they
won't be building one anytime soon. Iraq didn't build one during the Saddam
era because they were severely hurt by international sanctions and because
the international nuclear inspectors secured and locked up the uranium this
thread is all about long before we even invaded Iraq.

> We now return you to the pissing contest already
> in progress.

Are we ever going to find out the resolution to that crazy lawsuit?

OR

Re: How about them WMD's? OT

Octopus Ride wrote:
> Iran can and probably will someday. Iraq is now occupied by the US, so they
> won't be building one anytime soon. Iraq didn't build one during the Saddam
> era because they were severely hurt by international sanctions and because
> the international nuclear inspectors secured and locked up the uranium this
> thread is all about long before we even invaded Iraq.

OR,
Obviously, you have no knowledge of how IAEA inspections are performed
or how they can and were manipulated by Iraq post the 91 sanctions.

FYI, the "secured and locked up" you refer to above was nothing more
than Iraqi secure facilities (read vault) that contained the cake
which had an IAEA seal applied to the entry point. Remote surveillance
cameras monitored the outer door, to which the seal was applied, from
probably somewhere in Geneva.

Sometime in the late 90s or early 00s Saddam pulled the plug and refused
IAEA inspector entry into Iraq. The UN, in diplomatic fashion, begged
for reentry back into Iraq. After sanctions were threated up to and
including invasion, and several deadlines came and went, limited access
was allowed, but seals had been destroyed and material moved.
Subsequent UN requests and deadlines missed lead to the 03 invasion.

Don't try to make it sound like Saddam was in full compliance with all
UN and IAEA inspections and that our involvement in an international
enforcement was propagated for purely selfish reasons.

Now the main thing you seem to ignore in this discussion is just what
did Saddam intend to do with 550 metric TONS of stockpiled yellowcake
uranium ? Could it of been WMDs you think ?



--
Brian K

For Brian K's Las Vegas & Pictures Go To.......
http :// www .geocities,com /TheTropics/Shores/3591/

Americans For Fair Taxation
http :// www .fairtax.org/
Spread the word .......

Re: How about them WMD's? OT

On Jul 9, 10:40 pm, Brian K <gamb...@toomuchspam,com > wrote:

> OR,
> Obviously, you have no knowledge of how IAEA inspections are performed
> or how they can and were manipulated by Iraq post the 91 sanctions.

Are you kidding? David knows all about nuclear physics and every
other topic known to man, especially drunk driving laws.

> FYI, the "secured and locked up" you refer to above was nothing more
> than Iraqi secure facilities (read vault) that contained the cake
> which had an IAEA seal applied to the entry point. Remote surveillance
> cameras monitored the outer door, to which the seal was applied, from
> probably somewhere in Geneva.

Yep. Those facilities were about as secure as a 7/11 in the middle of
Compton being patrolled by Rusty the bailiff from 'People's Court'.

> Sometime in the late 90s or early 00s Saddam pulled the plug and refused
> IAEA inspector entry into Iraq.

What??? David didn't remember that little tidbit? Saddam would never
do a thing like that.

> The UN, in diplomatic fashion, begged
> for reentry back into Iraq. After sanctions were threated up to and
> including invasion, and several deadlines came and went, limited access
> was allowed, but seals had been destroyed and material moved.

Gosh, how could Saddam move all that material? I thought David said
it was 'secured'.

> Subsequent UN requests and deadlines missed lead to the 03 invasion.

Bingo.

> Don't try to make it sound like Saddam was in full compliance with all
> UN and IAEA inspections and that our involvement in an international
> enforcement was propagated for purely selfish reasons.

Well, in his mind that's exactly what happened. But this is coming
from a guy who, in his perverted mind plays the incestuous uncle in a
Lindsay Lohan fantasy.

> Now the main thing you seem to ignore in this discussion is just what
> did Saddam intend to do with 550 metric TONS of stockpiled yellowcake
> uranium ? Could it of been WMDs you think ?

Naaah. He was gonna bake a cake... a pretty YELLOW cake! Kumbayah!


--EE--

Re: How about them WMD's? OT

> Now the main thing you seem to ignore in this discussion is just what
> did Saddam intend to do with 550 metric TONS of stockpiled yellowcake
> uranium ?  Could it of been WMDs you think ?

What he might have *intended* to do, and what he *could* have done are
very different things. He couldn't have turned it into weapons. We had
tools in place to prevent that.

We didn't need to go to war to keep Saddam from turning that
yellowcake into weapons. We didn't need to see thousands of US
soliders lose their life to keep Saddam from turning that yellowcake
into weapons.

Re: How about them WMD's? OT

salmoneous@aol,com wrote:

> We didn't need to go to war to keep Saddam from turning that
> yellowcake into weapons.

of course not --- but we needed to go to war to help Halliburton, and
its subsidiaries, to a healthy bottom line.

--tr

Re: How about them WMD's? OT


<salmoneous@aol,com > wrote in message
news:f33fbbdc-bea5-4b9b-ac88-0ca3351e503e@k13g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
> Now the main thing you seem to ignore in this discussion is just what
> did Saddam intend to do with 550 metric TONS of stockpiled yellowcake
> uranium ? Could it of been WMDs you think ?

>
What he might have *intended* to do, and what he *could* have done are
very different things. He couldn't have turned it into weapons. We had
tools in place to prevent that.

We didn't need to go to war to keep Saddam from turning that
yellowcake into weapons. We didn't need to see thousands of US
soliders lose their life to keep Saddam from turning that yellowcake
into weapons.



Ya we know Iraq has no oil so they must be broke, Bahrain for example could
not afford to buy the best or take Kuwait, too poor to buy scientist, Saddam
had nothing but good intentions, he did say excuse me when he invaded his
neighboring countries.

Re: How about them WMD's? OT


"Jim" <akjim1@remove-gmail,com > wrote in message
news:54mdnWjX0cjQfuvVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@posted.gcicommunications...

> Ya we know Iraq has no oil so they must be broke, Bahrain for example
> could not afford to buy the best or take Kuwait, too poor to buy
> scientist, Saddam had nothing but good intentions, he did say excuse me
> when he invaded his neighboring countries.

Is there a translator in the house?

OR

Re: How about them WMD's? OT


"Brian K" <gambler@toomuchspam,com > wrote in message
news:Gcadnc5a3-ogD-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@posted.echolabs...
> Octopus Ride wrote:
>> Iran can and probably will someday. Iraq is now occupied by the US, so
>> they won't be building one anytime soon. Iraq didn't build one during
>> the Saddam era because they were severely hurt by international sanctions
>> and because the international nuclear inspectors secured and locked up
>> the uranium this thread is all about long before we even invaded Iraq.
>
> OR,
> Obviously, you have no knowledge of how IAEA inspections are performed
> or how they can and were manipulated by Iraq post the 91 sanctions.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Did Saddam build a
nuclear weapon? No. Did the uranium that had been secured for decades just
get moved? Yes. The sanction, the inspections, and Saddam's general
incompetence prevented the uranium from ever getting past stage one of
making a nuclear weapon. Everyone knew this years ago. He had no active
nuclear weapons program when we invaded, even Bush admits this.

> FYI, the "secured and locked up" you refer to above was nothing more
> than Iraqi secure facilities (read vault) that contained the cake
> which had an IAEA seal applied to the entry point. Remote surveillance
> cameras monitored the outer door, to which the seal was applied, from
> probably somewhere in Geneva.

And guess what? None of it was made into a nuclear weapon. They just moved
the uranium to Canada. Its not inside an Iraqi nuclear weapon.

> Sometime in the late 90s or early 00s Saddam pulled the plug and refused
> IAEA inspector entry into Iraq. The UN, in diplomatic fashion, begged for
> reentry back into Iraq. After sanctions were threated up to and
> including invasion, and several deadlines came and went, limited access
> was allowed, but seals had been destroyed and material moved.
> Subsequent UN requests and deadlines missed lead to the 03 invasion.
>
> Don't try to make it sound like Saddam was in full compliance with all
> UN and IAEA inspections and that our involvement in an international
> enforcement was propagated for purely selfish reasons.
>
> Now the main thing you seem to ignore in this discussion is just what
> did Saddam intend to do with 550 metric TONS of stockpiled yellowcake
> uranium ? Could it of been WMDs you think ?

I'm ignoring its original purpose? No, I understand its purpose completely:
way back when, Saddam wamted to create a nuclear weapon. You don't need to
convince informed people that Saddam tried to do this. Everyone knows
this, and that's why the international inspectors went to his country in the
first place. DUH!

What you seem to miss is this: he couldn't and didn't create a nuclear
weapon and everyone knew this before we invaded Iraq. His raw material was
secured by the inspectors and was still sitting there when we invaded. Are
all you people so out of it as to not understand that?

Why does moving this uranium that has been sitting dormant and untouched in
Iraq for decades excite you people so?

OR

Re: How about them WMD's? OT

Octopus Ride wrote:

> Why does moving this uranium that has been sitting dormant and untouched in
> Iraq for decades excite you people so?

cause it's the news the neocons want to justify the boondoggle that is
Iraq? Heck, even the Bush "admin" isn't jumping up and down over this
--- a sure sign that this ain't news.

--tr