stuckincincy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 ...by Ray Cooklis, Cincinnati Enquirer. 07/09/08: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...90312/1019/EDIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 NO NO NO NO. We planted it there. Saddam didnt have any Yellow cake!!! The terrorist wouldn't have used that stuff on us!! < A liberal wanker conspiracy theorist > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What will it take to create a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake? What about an actual bomb and the steps to put it on a long-range missle? How much further along was Iraq than North Korea and Iran? What other "bad" countries have yellowcake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yellowcake? Iraq was building a Twinkie® bomb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yellowcake? Iraq was building a Twinkie® bomb! WMD = Weapon of Mass Delicious-ness. Someone should develop a Twinkie Bomb. I don't even know what it would be, but it sounds awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Damn him link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Damn him link That picture was taken before he converted to Islam and changed his name to Osama Bin Twinkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 AP Story Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What will it take to create a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake? What about an actual bomb and the steps to put it on a long-range missle?How much further along was Iraq than North Korea and Iran? What other "bad" countries have yellowcake? From the above AP story: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 QUOTE (Max Fischer @ Jul 9 2008, 12:25 PM) * What will it take to create a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake? What about an actual bomb and the steps to put it on a long-range missle? How much further along was Iraq than North Korea and Iran? What other "bad" countries have yellowcake? From the above AP story: QUOTE 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. If this is true, was the Iraq War worth it? If so, why not attack Iran, North Korea and other countries that met or exceeded this "threshold?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 QUOTE (Max Fischer @ Jul 9 2008, 12:25 PM) * If so, why not attack Iran, North Korea India Pakistan France England and other countries that met or exceeded this "threshold?" CHANGE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 CHANGE!! You don't want to or can't answer the question? Seriously, why not attack Iran and North Korea if they far exceed the Iraq threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Seriously, why not attack Iran and North Korea if they far exceed the Iraq threat? Ever been in a fight? Do you fight every fight the same way? Iran is still not out of the radar yet as far as getting bombed. And NK has made some agreements with multiple countries that have been negotiating with them for quite some time. Try Google. And this subject you raise has been rehashed here adnausiam. Feel free to use the search tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What will it take to create a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake? What about an actual bomb and the steps to put it on a long-range missle? Some yellowcake and a conventional bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Ever been in a fight? Do you fight every fight the same way? Iran is still not out of the radar yet as far as getting bombed. And NK has made some agreements with multiple countries that have been negotiating with them for quite some time. Try Google. And this subject you raise has been rehashed here adnausiam. Feel free to use the search tool. So, what you're saying is that isn't just one way of settling things? That sometimes it may be wise to use diplomacy; to negotiate or at least listen to the other countries before attacking? Could those talks be conducted "unconditionally?" If diplomacy is sometimes the wise strategy how should Obama respond to accusations of "appeasement?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 AP Story But...but... "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998" ...and so on and so forth. In case for some reason..you have forgotten these strong, assured statements and others... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts We hates these Inconvenient Truths. Or I suppose you could blame Pres. Bush for trusting the the words and the intelligence gathering of the 8 years of the previous Administration. Oh - Don't forget the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998... http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Some yellowcake and a conventional bomb. But many credible sources have said you can't make a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake alone. Scary, yes, but not a "dirty bomb." I mean, do you see a difference between a huge fertilizer bomb and a conventional bomb that contains yellowcake? Isn't Iran and NK infinitely "scarier?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 But...but... "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998" ...and so on and so forth. In case for some reason..you have forgotten these strong, assured statements and others... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts We hates these Inconvenient Truths. But why not attack Iran and NK who far exceeded the Bush Administration's Iraqi threshold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 But why not attack Iran and NK who far exceeded the Bush Administration's Iraqi threshold? Ask Nancy and Harry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Ask Nancy and Harry. You're saying that they are single-handedly blocking Bush's plan to attack Iran and NK? Wow, I hadn't heard that, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts