Archive for Sunday, July 6, 2008
US removes ‘yellowcake’ uranium
July 6, 2008
Advertisement
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.
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.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
6 July 2008
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
Quod erat demonstrandum.
6 July 2008
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Mmmmmm, Yellow Cake….
6 July 2008
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:
“Do you really think the use of a dead language makes up for your lack of anything pertinent to say, cato.”
Whereas your comment was 'pertinent' to the story, boohoozo?
Hey, I'm sure Saddam was just planning on going into the watch-dial making business.
6 July 2008
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Details suggest this case is hardly as neat as a sound mathematical model. But I guess when you've been hungering for vindication of any sort for five years, you take what you can get.
6 July 2008
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1029 (Anonymous) says…
Well written, Mr. Murphy. Been writing any religious propaganda articles lately?
6 July 2008
at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Whereas your comment was 'pertinent' to the story, boohoozo?”
Why, yes, I was commenting on his comment, and, by golly, I believe you are commenting on my comment, which is yet another similarity between us, Nota.
So what was the method you've chosen? I don't believe you've shared that with us yet.
6 July 2008
at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
“Got any intelligent suppositions as to what Saddam was planning on doing with well over a million pounds of yellowcake? Or is saying anything on topic against your Party membership, too?”
Throw in the “extended range” Scud Missiles that Saddam had with the 550 metric tons of yellow cake and the Democratic mantra “Bush Lied”, is now proven to be a lie itself, and a very treasonous one at that.
Just because the Chem weapons and yellow cake are pre 1991, makes no difference, Saddam was supposed to have NONE, nada, zero. SO there apparently were WMD in Iraq and the majority of the Democratic Congress and the Democratic Party, DailyKos, and Moveon all Lied! Why? To win an election! They threw away credibility, and called the Bush Admin liars. What do you think your actions are? I would say treasonous!
6 July 2008
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
As the article points out, yellowcake uranium is not a WMD and is not capable of making a WMD in its current state. There were no other WMDs found.
George W. Bush himself admitted that there were no WMDs back in August 2006, and this does not disprove that fact. I ask you Asbestos, are you calling George W. Bush a liar? It sure sounds like that to me! Treason!!
Of course, Saddam could have enriched the yellowcake, and then, I guess, thrown it at us, since he still wouldn't have the rockets to get it here.
Manure can also be made into an explosive, as we saw in Oklahoma. There is a lot of camel manure in Egypt, and they don't care for us much, so does that mean we should attack the Egyptians now?
Thank God we are going to have a reasonable, thinking person in the White House next January — President Obama!
6 July 2008
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Oh yeah and the “Al Hussiens” which were extended range Scuds as well.
They shipped some to N. Korea. Did you forget about that? Convienent that you hav these lapses in memory of the Facts!
6 July 2008
at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
for literal years, I've been pointing out that in the first few days after Baghdad fell, 250-tons of yellowcake were found. despite the pathetic attempts to ignore this [boozo on the wrong bus] and not address the central issue, or [bea] to outright deny the danger this cache of yellowcakee really posed, this 550-tons in total very well could have been used to make bombs. “bom in my backyard” book by saddam's nuke scientist disclosed that in his backyard garden he had equipment that *could be used to enrich the yellowcake*! furthermore, to complete the thought at the end of the article, Joe Wilson was proven a complete liar and his actual report (not his verbal statements) did support the possibility that iraq really had been trying to get yellowcake under saddam; this was confirmed by a bipartisan vote of the senate intel committee!
hey nota, if not luninous watch dials, you know, maybe Saddam just wanted to manufacture glow-in-the-dark garden rocks for decoration!
when Saddam fell and the inspectors came in, they found saddam was violating the U.N. sanctions in over 30 areas! the leftie fringe yells about wmd's, but ignores that when attention to Saddam eased he was only weeks from making nukes! they overlook violations in”: missiles; labs; disposal docs of bio/chem weapons' precursors; etc. further, Saddam *acted like* he had something to hide. and his commanders are on tape in radio intercepts just before the fall of Baghdad calling for the deployment of wmd's.
so, according to the far left nuts, our intelligence should have told us about what he had or didn't have. and that we would know *better than his own field commanders*! yeah, right.
finally, evidence suggests that saddam shipped his wmd's to syria in fall of '02.
once again: 550-tons of yellowcake found and shipped out of iraq! just think of what that really means, what it really proves. we had good reason to topple Saddam, and it shows that the rantings of the far left should be ignored as they care about politics rather than national security.
and barry h. obama was saying definite pullout timetable! now, he's hedging, we have to be gentle and nice to our far left fellows, they're pretty upset that he's hedging now! they thought they could trust him as their Messiah! but now, they're finding that Rev. Wright is right: Obama is just saying what he needs to, being a politician!
6 July 2008
at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Got any intelligent suppositions as to what Saddam was planning on doing with well over a million pounds of yellowcake?”
Almost certainly to run the nuclear power plant at which is was stored— the one that Israel destroyed in 1981.
And while that's quite a lot of uranium, it's a very small percentage of the nearly 70,000 tons that are produced annually worldwide.
I know you are all frantic to find that smoking gun that will legitimize the war you so gullibly supported (and can't stop supporting because you can't admit that you got suckered by a bunch of neo-conmen,) but this isn't it, and there isn't one to be found.
6 July 2008
at 5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Ouch, asbestos, that hurt my feelings.
Not what you said about me, of course, but that you keep saying Saddam had WMDs, which means you are calling our glorious President, George W. Bush, a liar! Even he realizes that there were no WMDs.
Don't you remember his speech from August 2006? I posted this on another thread, so let me post it here, because I am just sick and tired of you people calling George W. Bush a liar.
And he is so well spoken.
“BUSH: Now, look, I - part of the reason we went into Iraq was - the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction:
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of - the “stir up the hornet's nest” theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were -
question: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
question: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of - and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a - Iraq - the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq..”
I ask you asbestos, what country doesn't have the capacity to make WMDs? Are we to attack all the countries that have that capacity?
Thank God we are going to have a reasonable, thinking person in the White House next January - President Obama!
6 July 2008
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
You guys are in denial.
The 550 Metric tons of Yellow cake, and enrichment facility, and an entended range missle.
You can't argue you way out of those facts, so you just spin and lie some more.
Kepp bringing up irrelevant issues. But the facts are
“550 Metric tons of Yellow cake”
“enrichment facility”
“entended range missles”
and Saddam that stated (just like Iran) that he had a right to produce Nuke weapons,. even when the U N told him to stop.
That is right, the UN, You guys calling the UN Liars? well I guess you are right the majority of the time with the UN.
Facts:
“550 Metric tons of Yellow cake”
“enrichment facility”
“entended range missles”
Facts:
“550 Metric tons of Yellow cake”
“enrichment facility”
“entended range missles”
6 July 2008
at 7:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:
Well, asby baby, whether even if it wasn't a power plant, it was blown up 27 years ago- in other words, no cause to go to war, no smoking gun.
*****************************
Nope, no smoking gun. Just a bunch of gunpowder.
6 July 2008
at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
nota: “Saddam had demonstrated again and again his peaceful intentions. Like when he peacefully invaded Iran.”
Vote for McCain, and we likely will get our own peaceful invasion of Iran. “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…” Oh that John McCain, what a card.
And nota, thanks for making another neocon referrence to “kool-aid.” I'll bet in person you say “ditto” a lot too, don't you.
6 July 2008
at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justfornow (Anonymous) says…
Maybe Saddam just wanted to bake a cake, Humans are essentially good and must be given the benefit of doubt.
6 July 2008
at 8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
And now John Kerry-Heinz is pronouncing John McCain as “unfit” to hold the Presidency, saying that John McCan is not the man that he once knew.
Kerry-Heinz has thrown his support behind Prince Obama.
6 July 2008
at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
What happened, no response for the “college bosy”? No fast comback on the real physics of the situation?
I thought you were more “intellectually advanced”, more “enlightened” in an academic way< no?
Reading Threau, in and of itself, does not make one worldly, nor does it give you great intellectual understanding with a world in which Al Queada and Anti American Hatred exists.
C'mon acadamia, follow your own science, and understand that bad guys will do bad things.
6 July 2008
at 9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
From what I've read it takes a very very very long time to develop nuclear weapons and is so damn expensive. Acquiring the proper tools is not so easy to hide. It also requires a tremendous amount of testing.
Does it ever make one wonder why the USA continues to push and pay for nuke power elsewhere in the world? A first step toward nuke weapons.
Then again Israel is the 6th largest nuclear power in the world and is currently led by the insane. Previous to this admin was another insane administration which kill kill kill plenty of innocent people and take property.
6 July 2008
at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) says:
“Vote for McCain, and we likely will get our own peaceful invasion of Iran. “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran:” Oh that John McCain, what a card.”
The difference being, bea, is that what McCain *might* do is the paranoid ramblings of a deluded LJW message board poster, and what Saddam *did* do is history.
“And nota, thanks for making another neocon referrence to “kool-aid.” I'll bet in person you say “ditto” a lot too, don't you.”
As I've said (senility is terrible, bea, maybe you could see someone about that?) earlier, I have been using “kool-aid” since 1978; but then, with your rather limited grasp of history, I suppose you would just A$$ume the more recent usage. But my, you *DO* seem to be an expert on OReilly, dittoheads, and Fox News. Why, bea, I do believe you're a closet neocon! (Come out of the closet, bea, set yourself free!)
6 July 2008
at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says:
“From what I've read it takes a very very very long time to develop nuclear weapons and is so damn expensive.”
Correction: It *took* a long time to develop nuclear weapons. Just as it *took* a long time to develop rocket technology. Little easier to copy something (or, for that matter, buy it) than it is to develop it from scratch. As for the expense, does it appear to you that Saddam was cheap when it came to military spending? Or that he was hurting for cash?
“Acquiring the proper tools is not so easy to hide.”
Hide? Are you for real (that was a rhetorical question)? You mean, unless they say they're acquiring it for 'peaceful' purposes? Hey, they already have boohoozo sold, and sadly, intellects as small as his are not rare.
“It also requires a tremendous amount of testing.”
Again, correction: Doing it *right* requires a lot of testing. Now, if you're say the United States or the former Soviet Union, and the quality needs to be such that you can guide the warhead to within a few feet of a hardened silo and get maximum yield from a weight small enough to deliver several thousand miles, then testing helps. If your target is somewhat less specific, such as anywhere in Israel or somewhere in Europe or (eventually) within a hundred miles or so of the Boston-D.C. megalopolis, and your target is an exposed population to sow radiation among, then quality control isn't so exacting.
6 July 2008
at 11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
If there was such an imminent danger of enriching that yellowcake into weapons grade uranium, why is it still yellowcake after all these decades?
7 July 2008
at 12:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” We should have waited until he had it enriched.”
And how was he going to do that— wave a magic wand?
7 July 2008
at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
See, the problem is that so many of the Looney Left have misinterpreted history, in that they think that it is tough to construct an atomic bomb; to which they refer as a “nuclear device”.
First time out, it was a right old beyatch, as was shown by the USA in WW II.
Putting a workable atomic bomb into a missle warhead is not even complicated any more.
Putting a bunch of radioacative material around a conventionial warhead or aerial bomb is even simpler and can ultimately be nearly as devastating in terms of radiation damage.
So called “dirty bombs” are no more difficult to construct than a Black Cat firecracker.
If you have two (2) standard Plutonium slugs and getting those on the Black Market is no problem, you can easily and I mean easily, construct a “gun-type” low yield atomic bomb which will be dirty as H*ll and which could wipe out a small city.
Once you have the slugs, no electronics more complicated than a flashlight are necessary, between the hardware store, a good building materials supply, a scrapyard and a sporting goods store, everything that you would need to complete you atomic bomb is available over-the-counter.
You might need a few willing martyrs-to-be but Hey!; there is no shortage of those!
It's really not that difficult at all and we must be on guard.
7 July 2008
at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Daytrader23 (Anonymous) says…
But what happened to the ice cream and punch?
7 July 2008
at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
beatrice said”Thank God we are going to have a reasonable, thinking person in the White House next January - President Obama!”
Obama will do nothing, take off you rose colored glasses beatrice. There are no political saviors. Don't believe me, just wait 4 years.
7 July 2008
at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
12 posts removed all this morning? I wonder what is going on here, since there wasn't anything more objectionable than the usual name calling going on.
7 July 2008
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
What gives? Who went on the 'removal' spree? I can't remember all of them but I know bozo's first and mine at 7 were benign. Considering the majority of deletes are 'right' posters I think a solid theory can be established.
7 July 2008
at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Wow, luckily I read all those comments this morning before they were removed. I wonder what the violation was, reporting facts rather than posting delusional liberal fantasies about Iraq? Most of these comments were much more benign than many comments on the LJWorld board in the past.
7 July 2008
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
My Father-in-Law is a nuclear physicist. He told me the potential yield of this much yellow cake uranium. Frightening!
7 July 2008
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
jumpin-c: “Obama will do nothing, take off you rose colored glasses beatrice. There are no political saviors. Don't believe me, just wait 4 years.”
Savior? No. Reasonable, intelligent, and not just interested in making sure the oil men are profitable? Yes. Capable of pulling the country out of the slump we have been taken into thanks in no small part to the current administration's war in Iraq … I can only hope so. We certainly won't pull out of the slump if we elect McCain, who has said he wants to continue many of Bush's policies.
If I supported McCain, I guess I would probably be pessimistic, too.
Obama for President!
7 July 2008
at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
beatrice…
Your attempts to equate McCain with Bush are failing.
Obama is the next Jimmy Carter, with less experience.
7 July 2008
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
None of my posts violated the TOS.
Most of these posts disagree with the MSM and the liberal press and their take on the yellow cake and the implication.
Supression of speech, from the ljworld rag.
This is outrageous!
7 July 2008
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
7 posts mainly dealing with the technical aspects of nuke weapons.
And you idiots deleted them? What are you afraid of?
7 July 2008
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
screedposter (Anonymous) says:
Were there links, or quotes from AP stories?
***************************************
No. One of Asbestos's posts that were deleted had almost an identical content and tone as this uncensored post from a different thread:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul…
7 July 2008
at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
Where did this yellowcake come from??
7 July 2008
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
let see 550 metric tons of “yellow cake” is 1,210,000 pounds which is 550,000 kg. Now there is .7% U235 in “yellow cake”, and that means that there is 3850 kg of uranium. Nearest estimates is that it takes some where between 15 kg to 62 kg to make “critical mass”. The difference depends on efficency of the weapon. Now, I would say Iraq would not produce an efficeint design, but could buy one, which means I will use 52 kg as a “nominal amount” of Uranium 235 for Iraq, which means that that 3850 kg could be used to produce 74 weapons with an output of 100KT.
7 July 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Asbestos;
Pretty sure one of mine was removed just for using the word 'idiot.'
Seems like that meets the definition of retaliation against whistleblowers, considering who I was referring to.
I had another on a different thread yanked for suggesting a poster might have alzheimer's. One that was yanked from this thread just said the person I was replying to didn't read very well as he had erroneously claimed my post was similar to his.
Apparently we're supposed to be a kinder, gentler message board. Especially when we disagree with the liberals.
I wonder if the award-winning LJW has figured out why so many people read here online instead of spending money to buy this bird-cage liner.
7 July 2008
at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
Can't we all agree yellowcake is not a WMD, i.e., wrong medical diagnosis!
Surely this is what the capitulators to radical Islam have been positing all along, no?
7 July 2008
at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
screedposter (Anonymous) says:
“Why, where's the flock of jayhawks on this one?”
You must have missed the last part of the article, screed. This article does not make you correct or exonerate you, as I'm sure you so desperately desire.
7 July 2008
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Satirical, if McCain doesn't support and plan to continue most of Bush's policies, then why would you consider voting for him?
Bush stands blameless for any of the nation's woes in your estimation, so why, oh why would you want to vote for someone who will go against a President you hold to be a shining beacon of perfection, patriotism, and the living example of how to support all things that make conservatives happy?
If McCain isn't going to support the things Bush supported, which one is correct? I can tell you, Obama won't support many of Bush's policies. Are you saying McCain won't either? If McCain isn't going to support Bush's policies, then does that mean Bush's policies have failed? Is it time for the Republicans to finally throw Bush under the bus in order to move forward?
It is pretty simple, if McCain doesn't intend to continue Bush's policies, then one or the other must be wrong. Both can't be right.
Personally, I think your out is that they are, indeed, quite similar. Many of my fellow Americans believe so, too. Lets look at the big policies, shall we.
Both Bush and McCain support the war in Iraq; both Bush and McCain support tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy during this time of war and record deficits (well, McCain didn't support them originally, but now that he needs Republicans to vote for him he does); and both Bush and McCain have suggested they are itching for a chance to attack Iran (“bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”).
That is how I see it. If you support McCain and claim he isn't going to be a continuation of Bush policies, would you then please describe those policies in which Bush has failed and shouldn't be continued. If none of it has failed, then would you please explain why a McCain administration shouldn't be a continuation of Bush's policies.
7 July 2008
at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
The yellowcake that is the subject of this article originally came from Portugal and Niger to Iraq between 1980 and 1982 and had IAEA seals on it until some of our troops broke them upon discovering them during the 1991 Gulf War.
7 July 2008
at 2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
If I have confused you with someone else, my sincere apologies, screed.
7 July 2008
at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Beatrice:
You must be confusing me with someone else, because I have not defended Bush. In my opinion he has made many mistakes, but some of his agenda I agree with (I will not go into detail at this time). Simply because McCain holds some views similar to Bush does not mean they are the same. Obama and McCain hold the same views on some issues but that does not mean they are the same person or have fundamental differences on a variety of topics.
On the issues you presented, rather than equating Bush with McCain perhaps you should just argue the issue, or argue McCain's stance against Obama, since Bush is not running again. Please stop living in the past. One could easily equate Obama's social policy preference to that of communist leaders like Mao Zedong, or Kim Jung Il. However, I am not going to make such assertion and would rather discuss the issues or the specific people running for election.
I support staying in Iraq, and tax cuts, and disagree with Obama's stance on these issues. I would be happy to discuss these issues, if you could momentarily put aside your hatred of Bush in order to have a civil discussion. Despite the left-wing propaganda, Bush and McCain do not desire to invade Iran, but any president including Obama would act if they felt our nation was under threat from a crazy Iran with nuclear weapons.
7 July 2008
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Sati: “Please stop living in the past.”
Bush is, I'm afraid to point out, still in the present, and McCain's plans to continue Bush's failed policies is a future I don't want to see happen. It is not the past, at all.
And to be clear, I don't hate President Bush or Senator McCain, but I do hate their policies and/or platform.
Further, one could not easily compare Obama and Mao Zedong and Kim Jong Il, as you suggest. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It would be like comparing John McCain with Benito Mussolini, which is something I would never do.
7 July 2008
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
beatrice….
So…you don't want to discuss WHY you oppose McCain's proposed policies (which is what I suggested) it is just to use fear tactics (which ironically is what you probably condemn Bush for) by equating McCain with Bush?
7 July 2008
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
It's funny watching so many that have little knowledge of what they are talking about and are too lazy to read any real news fight over this stuff. Please read the article from the Washington Post in 2004 regarding the first shipment of emriched uranium that was returned then and the status of the non-weapons grade yellow cake that was just now removed from Iraq. It has a good explanation of why they had it and how it was kept under IAEA seal and how the enriched uranium that Iraq once had was removed after the first Gulf War and was sent to Russia.
And why was this nuclear facitilty not secured until after the statue of Sadam had fallen in Baghdad? We let looters take over the nuclear facility until April of '03. Obviously, the USA wasn't too concerned over that yellow cake that many of you are claiming was a WMD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-…
“Tuwaitha was once the center of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons effort, but its equipment was dismantled at the direction of U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s as part of the agreement following Iraq's surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.N. inspectors removed highly enriched uranium that could be used for weapons and shipped it for storage in Russia. The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA.”
7 July 2008
at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
“Apparently we're supposed to be a kinder, gentler message board. Especially when we disagree with the liberals.”|
ANd the nasty responses/posts from the liberal side of the issue is permitted until they get their panties in a bunch because they are dumber than the day is long and the only positon they have is “I hate Bush”.
Pretty sad that the “fourth estate” in Kansas shows its political bias with BS moves like this.
Can you say **suppression of speech***.
Man I am livid! Jus who the heck tdo these “arbitors” on the LJworld staff think they are?
Little Eichmans. comes to mind, exactly what he did.
7 July 2008
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
“The yellowcake that is the subject of this article originally came from Portugal and Niger to Iraq between 1980 and 1982 and had IAEA seals on it until some of our troops broke them upon discovering them during the 1991 Gulf War.”
That is a big negative.
Those seals were violated **after 1992** as documented by none other than Hans Bliks of the IAEA. These were the sites that Saddam was holding off limits to the IAEA. You are totally wrong on that.
Just look at the IAEA report on weapons inspectors and the complaints from the IAEA **after 1992** and up and until the 2000 standoof with Iraq and Saddam.
“Can't we all agree yellowcake is not a WMD, i.e., wrong medical diagnosis!”
NOPE! Wrong again. The only reason one would have “yellow cake” is for weapons production. Why? Because you can already use U238 for a fuel rod in a nuke plant in a light water reactor, and it is pretty safe. That is not what Saddam was doing with the “yellow cake”.
So you are misinformed, and spreading mistruths. Please get your facts straight before posting them. Doing what you are doing is called “anti American Propaganda”.
7 July 2008
at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
br0318 (Anonymous) says…
Beyond the Yellow Cake, note that as of 2006 500 chemical weapons had been discovered in Iraq. The article is below*.
Regardless of this old debate, the fact is we went in with eyes wide open and thank God for the US military because in spite of Liberal defeatism, we look like we are going to win this thing. Even the Times of London is reporting this week that the last remnants of Al Queda are being purged.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news…
*washington - The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2…
7 July 2008
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
“And why was this nuclear facitilty not secured until after the statue of Sadam had fallen in Baghdad? We let looters take over the nuclear facility until April of '03. Obviously, the USA wasn't too concerned over that yellow cake that many of you are claiming was a WMD.”
Because our soldiers were still running around in MOPP gear at that time, still worried about Chemical attacks. Remember all the stuff they found? NO, you and the Washington Post seem to forget pretty quickly.
We were not securing Tuwaitha because we had not secured any of Iraq at that time. We just rolled in and took out their defensive capabilities.
You post is nothing but suppositions such as:
“We let looters take over the nuclear facility until April of '03. Obviously, the USA wasn't too concerned over that yellow cake that many of you are claiming was a WMD.”
Again in APril we were still wearing MOPP suits and waiting for a Chemical attack. Remember al the embedded reporters wearing the MOPP suits at the time? As for “yellow cake” being a WMD, it is what you use to ***make*** enriched Uranium.
If my post was still up, you would have been able to not read it and continue with your anti bush hating tirade and forget physics and evidence.
1. 550 metric tonns of Yellow Cake
2. Enrichment Plant (we have already discussed the lack of the need to enrich U238 for Fuel rods in a “powerplant”)
3. Guidance systems
4. Extended range “Al Hussein” Scuds
5. Gyroscopic stabilators
NONE of that stuff Saddam was supposed to have, none of it. ANd Remember we are talking Saddam Hussein, the guy that really tortures people? Remember the “Buther of Baghdad” and his maladaptive sons Uday and Kusay? The “Torture Brothers”? Remember.
How can one rationally respond to such denial and propaganda you lefties on here spew out.
Again if my unpopular posts (with liberals and the LJWorld editorial board) were still here that evidence of intellectual dishonesty and the clearly partisian posture from the “We hate Bush side”, illustrates a complete disability to analyze facts properly.
7 July 2008
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Ohm I am sorry to hurt'em little feelings,
Mr. Saddam and his boys were just baking cookies and it is all just a big misunderstanding, and that bad President Bush is all to blame.
7 July 2008
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
br0318, you can't quote FoxNews around here, these guys don't believe real news when they hear it. You have to post something from the AP or Rueters before they believe it. Remember the AP and Rueters, the ones that doctored thsoe photos?
That is the real journalism.
7 July 2008
at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
I still cannot express properly just how f-ing livid I M at the LJWorld for their suppression of my sppech. So much for these “fourth estate” arrogant people.
I guess the truth that some of these posters are intellectually challanged is not to be said in the open.
7 July 2008
at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Champions of “Free Speech” my rear end!
7 July 2008
at 5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Aflockof hawks wrote:
“The yellowcake that is the subject of this article originally came from Portugal and Niger to Iraq between 1980 and 1982 and had IAEA seals on it until some of our troops broke them upon discovering them during the 1991 Gulf War.”
And then kmat, another denier wrote:
“(after the first gulf war) The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA.”
You guys can't get your story straight, and the WP is also some bad facts in terms of the dates. Check out the IAEA report on the Iraq denial of verification of the intact seals on the nuke materials and the “powerplant materials” in that report.
It was also in all the newspapers.
Here is the IAEA stating they need to get back in Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003 from the site:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/…
and from another UN Site after the “activities” their concern for verifying the WMD and securing them. So even as late as APril 2003 the UN still believed that Saddam had WMD in Iraq. So much for the misrepresentations of so much here and on the left.
“”09, Wednesday: IAEA Director General on Inspections in Iraq. During a meeting this week with UN General Assembly President Jan Kavan, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei addressed the matter of inspections related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. “Subject to the guidance of the Security Council, the UN weapons inspectors should return to Iraq as soon as the conflict ends to resume their mandate,” he said. “Any WMD findings should be verified by the UN weapons inspectors to generate the required credibility.” The Iraq situation remains high on the agenda of the UN Security Council.”
7 July 2008
at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Bush and the military knew about this yellowcake since the beginning of the war.
Even they did/do not call yellowcake a WMD. And these guys will use any shred of pretense to lie and scare.
Bush knew of this when he admitted that Iraq had no WMD in his 2006 speech as bea has pointed out repeatedly.
You just want there to be WMD so bad.
I understand, because the alternative is that Bush started a war of choice that was lied and sneaked into.
This is a hard reality to accept, and sbestos and others are showing the disequilibrium of trying to come to grips with this fact.
7 July 2008
at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
1. 550 metric tonns of Yellow Cake
2. Enrichment Plant (we have already discussed the lack of the need to enrich U238 for Fuel rods in a “powerplant”)
3. Guidance systems
4. Extended range “Al Hussein” Scuds
5. Gyroscopic stabilators
7 July 2008
at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Yourworst nightmare, how are you on “freedom of speech”?
7 July 2008
at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Asbestos,
Do you remember a few years back when LJW had a thing called “Reader Reaction”? It mysteriously disappeared just prior to our city elections. You can draw your own conclusions as to why that happened, but don't take your deletions personally. Apparently there are some there are some puppet masters who carry some weight behind the scenes here in the land of the free. But for some, that is the only power they have in their little lives.
7 July 2008
at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Asbestos: “Champions of “Free Speech” my rear end!”
Well that seems fitting, since so much of your speech seems to be coming from there.
(hehe, I couldn't help myself.)
“I guess the truth that some of these posters are intellectually challanged is not to be said in the open.”
I susepect it isn't in the challenge, it is in the delivery. Refrain from direct name-calling and such, and they usually let things go. This is just meant as a helpful hint, as I'd hate to see yet another person banned. I mean, you can be a bit stubborn and incorrect on many issues, but you aren't that obnoxious. Just tread a little lightly and don't take the removals personally, since we've all been there.
7 July 2008
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Why is Bea's offensive post deleted. I want it deleted! If you are going to delete mine, let's all be treated the same here.
7 July 2008
at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
I don't need to be lectured about “blog ettiquite” by some of the posters here.
Bea, you have got to be increadibly arrogant to post something like that off handed bit of “advice”!
C'mon ljworld idiots, where are ya? Whjere are the censors?????
7 July 2008
at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Asbestos: “Champions of “Free Speech” my rear end!”
Well that seems fitting, since so much of your speech seems to be coming from there.
(sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
“I guess the truth that some of these posters are intellectually challanged is not to be said in the open.”
I susepect it isn't in the challenge, it is in the delivery. Refrain from direct name-calling and such, and they usually let things go. This is just meant as a helpful hint, as I'd hate to see yet another person banned. I mean, you can be a bit stubborn and incorrect on many issues, but you usually aren't that obnoxious or outwardly hostile. Just tread a little lightly and don't take the removals personally, since we've all been there. Or tell me to shut up, mind my own business, and to stuff it. Your call.
7 July 2008
at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
“Well that seems fitting, since so much of your speech seems to be coming from there.”
I didn't post anything like that, I do however call people “idiots” when the exhibit that type of behavior. Your post was “idiotic”.
7 July 2008
at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Oh good 6:08 and 6:13, we get **2 offensive posts stating I talk out of my rear end!
Oh goody!
7 July 2008
at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Where Ya or does “bea” work for the LJWorld? Friends maybe?
7 July 2008
at 6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
I guess Bea talks out of her butt as well, and so do the LJWorld “mods”. So I expect to see my post deleted, and beas to stay.
7 July 2008
at 6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
I believe that would be “Checkmate” for the LJWorld mods. You backed youself into a corner.
7 July 2008
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…
Your rants are highly entertaining, Asbestos - it's rare to see such a tantrum on a message board that can delete any of our accounts on a whim (they are allowing us the privilege to post here, remember). If you feel you're being treated unfairly, I'm sure you could contact the LJW folks or even write a letter to the editor. Or you could keep up the whining for our entertainment.
7 July 2008
at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink