US Removes Uranium From Iraq

[GabonX]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html

So aside from the mustard gas, the chemical missile systems, and the 2 tons of uranium Saddam had stock piled there were no WMDs or evidence that there was any intent to create them in Iraq. And gosh darn the United States for taking Uranium out of Iraq without UN approval, all they did was notify the IAEA of what they were doing!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nium_x.htm

Sure it may seem risky to leave uranium in one of the world's hottest spots for terrorists, but shipping it out is not without risk either. Think how many whales would have died if there was an accident in the shipping process! I doubt anyone bothered to think of the whales.

So even though the media failed to inform the public that there was and has been throughout the US presence in Iraq, uranium which could be converted into an automic weapon, atleast they are informing us now that the US has shipped it out of the country without UN approval. Thank goodness we have such an informative and non biased media...


*Edit: Actually it wasn't 2 tons but rather 550 metric tons. Just think how many whales could have been killed!

[jbrettlip]

I agree.....even with your sarcasm..but this will never be front page of the NY times, because that would hurt Obama's campaign...


I love that Obama comes up as an error in spellcheck!

[Neoteny]

I agree.....even with your sarcasm..but this will never be front page of the NY times, because that would hurt Obama's campaign...


I love that Obama comes up as an error in spellcheck!

Also, this administration continues it's wanton unilateralism! Huzzah!

[InkL0sed]

I agree.....even with your sarcasm..but this will never be front page of the NY times, because that would hurt Obama's campaign...


I love that Obama comes up as an error in spellcheck!

Also, this administration continues it's wanton unilateralism! Huzzah!

We must pay them back for what they did to Nixon!

[GabonX]

Well, we'll forget the fact that the last two posts are completely off topic as I'm just upset as you are about the United States and it's unilateralism.

I mean after all, only 39 countries (the United Kingdom, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, the Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Iceland) in addition to the United States sent troops to fight in Iraq. What kind of a coalition is that?! A 40 country coalition? Pffbbt!

Fox news would have you believe that a 40 country coalition is one of the biggest in history. Thats why I get my news from the Daily Show. Go Jon Stewart!

Sure there were even more countries that didn't oppose or supported the war without sending troops, but the point is that none of them count!

Only France, Russia, and China matter when considering such things as all of these countries are known for their military expertise and commitment to human rights!!

[Neoteny]

Well, we'll forget the fact that the last two posts are completely off topic as I'm just upset as you are about the United States and it's unilateralism.

I mean after all, only 39 countries (the United Kingdom, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, the Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Iceland) in addition to the United States sent troops to fight in Iraq. What kind of a coalition is that?! A 40 country coalition? Pffbbt!

Fox news would have you believe that a 40 country coalition is one of the biggest in history. Thats why I get my news from the Daily Show. Go Jon Stewart!

Sure there were even more countries that didn't oppose or supported the war without sending troops, but the point is that none of them count!

Only France, Russia, and China matter when considering such things as all of these countries are known for their military expertise and commitment to human rights!!

Gee! You'd think with all those troops in Iraq, they would have been able to defend/relocate/feed to the whales all that uranium! Or at the very least decide to do it together. I say we hand it all over to the army of Tonga and let them handle it! I'm sure the Moldovans think it's a great idea!

This could go on. The fact of the matter is that we cannot expect to continue on the path of doing whatever the hell we want to as far as international relations is concerned. We expect France, Russia, and China to bend to our whim, but refuse to give at all when it comes to our policy. A little diplomacy can go a long way. Or maybe we should just let the Nicaraguans handle it.

[silvanricky]

GabonX, you are one funny mother fucker!

[radiojake]

I mean after all, only 39 countries (the United Kingdom, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, the Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Iceland) in addition to the United States sent troops to fight in Iraq. What kind of a coalition is that?! A 40 country coalition? Pffbbt!

New Zealand don't enter wars that are not UN sanctioned - they were in Afghanistan, but you won't find a kiwi in Iraq, (unless one ends up in the Australian army) - how many of these other countries not in Iraq then?

[suggs]

Thank God for the Icelandic contingent.
He's currently guarding the back toilet in Basra, I believe.

[heavycola]

Thank God for the Icelandic contingent.
He's currently guarding the back toilet in Basra, I believe.

Which is cleaned regularly by the Albanian military contribution to the coalition. His name is Vaclav.



Neoteny just admit it; you hate america and you hate freedom.

[joecoolfrog]

There is no freedom without Halliburton , the defence of the free world depends on jacking up its share price year on year .

[GabonX]

I mean after all, only 39 countries (the United Kingdom, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, the Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Iceland) in addition to the United States sent troops to fight in Iraq. What kind of a coalition is that?! A 40 country coalition? Pffbbt!

New Zealand don't enter wars that are not UN sanctioned - they were in Afghanistan, but you won't find a kiwi in Iraq, (unless one ends up in the Australian army) - how many of these other countries not in Iraq then?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/21332.htm

[GabonX]

I made a mistake in my first post where I wrote "2 tons" of uranium. After re-reading the article I would like to correct my error. It was "550 metric tons" of uranium. I was worried when I thought it was 2 tons but just think how many whales 550 metric tons of uranium would have killed!

Gee! You'd think with all those troops in Iraq, they would have been able to defend/relocate/feed to the whales all that uranium! Or at the very least decide to do it together. I say we hand it all over to the army of Tonga and let them handle it! I'm sure the Moldovans think it's a great idea!

This could go on. The fact of the matter is that we cannot expect to continue on the path of doing whatever the hell we want to as far as international relations is concerned. We expect France, Russia, and China to bend to our whim, but refuse to give at all when it comes to our policy. A little diplomacy can go a long way. Or maybe we should just let the Nicaraguans handle it.

I agree, I'm sick of the United States acting alone. George W. Bush is worse than Hitler. So what if 39 other countries were so dedicated to the cause that they sent their own troops as a gesture of support. NONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES COUNT FOR ANYTHING!

I agree with your stance on diplomacy, and by that I mean that we should do whatever France, Russia, and China think is best for the world. Clearly these countries have the world's best interests at heart, just look at the historical record of Russia and China. I haven't personally but Keith Olbermann told me that it's pretty good.

I think the world would be a much safer place if Saddam Hussein was alive and had his 550 metric tons of uranium. It's better than George W. Bush having it. Everybody knows that George Bush is way worse than Saddam Hussein.

P.S. Good job on choosing countries like Moldova and Nicaragua as examples of countries which supported the war. The people there are subhuman at best. No really though, if you had mentioned a country like the U.K., The Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Italy, Australia etc. as your example you may have made the United States sound good and that's the last thing we would want to do!

[MeDeFe]

There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

From your link, case closed. So much for not going to war on extremely shaky grounds.

[joecoolfrog]

Even Bush has stopped pretending that the war was about WMDs

[suggs]

Even Bush has stopped pretending that the war was about WMDs

Thats ok then . Thanks for sharing Georgie- bets he'll bump his head on the exit sign?

[heavycola]

I made a mistake in my first post where I wrote "2 tons" of uranium. After re-reading the article I would like to correct my error. It was "550 metric tons" of uranium. I was worried when I thought it was 2 tons but just think how many whales 550 metric tons of uranium would have killed!

Gee! You'd think with all those troops in Iraq, they would have been able to defend/relocate/feed to the whales all that uranium! Or at the very least decide to do it together. I say we hand it all over to the army of Tonga and let them handle it! I'm sure the Moldovans think it's a great idea!

This could go on. The fact of the matter is that we cannot expect to continue on the path of doing whatever the hell we want to as far as international relations is concerned. We expect France, Russia, and China to bend to our whim, but refuse to give at all when it comes to our policy. A little diplomacy can go a long way. Or maybe we should just let the Nicaraguans handle it.

I agree, I'm sick of the United States acting alone. George W. Bush is worse than Hitler. So what if 39 other countries were so dedicated to the cause that they sent their own troops as a gesture of support. NONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES COUNT FOR ANYTHING!

I agree with your stance on diplomacy, and by that I mean that we should do whatever France, Russia, and China think is best for the world. Clearly these countries have the world's best interests at heart, just look at the historical record of Russia and China. I haven't personally but Keith Olbermann told me that it's pretty good.

I think the world would be a much safer place if Saddam Hussein was alive and had his 550 metric tons of uranium. It's better than George W. Bush having it. Everybody knows that George Bush is way worse than Saddam Hussein.

P.S. Good job on choosing countries like Moldova and Nicaragua as examples of countries which supported the war. The people there are subhuman at best. No really though, if you had mentioned a country like the U.K., The Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Italy, Australia etc. as your example you may have made the United States sound good and that's the last thing we would want to do!

UK and Spain - the war did not enjoy popular support, especially Spain, where wotsisface ignored a 90% popular rejection in order to share some podium time with ol' Dubya.
Australia - John Howard sent his troops halfway around the world in the face of huge domestic opposition.

Democracy... what? Oh.

Clearly these countries have the world's best interests at heart'

The fact that your sarcasm is not directed at your own country transforms it neatly into irony.

[GabonX]

There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

From your link, case closed. So much for not going to war on extremely shaky grounds.

I know what you mean. The fact that Saddam had uranium is completely irrelevant because he had already had it for a while. Pre 1991 = safe, post 1991 = dangerous. I would feel much better if he still had it.

Even Bush has stopped pretending that the war was about WMDs

Very true. Bush changed the reason that we went to war after we did it! Isn't that a bitch?! I hate it when the President transcends time and space to change the reason that the United States went to war...

Honestly though, you guys are missing the point. I think it's great that the media waited 8 years to tell us that there were 550 metric tons of uranium in Iraq. If they had told us sooner people may have thought that the war was the right decision and Americans might have some semblance of national pride. Thank goodness the media practices selective reporting.

[GabonX]

UK and Spain - the war did not enjoy popular support, especially Spain, where wotsisface ignored a 90% popular rejection in order to share some podium time with ol' Dubya.
Australia - John Howard sent his troops halfway around the world in the face of huge domestic opposition.

Democracy... what? Oh.

I see what you're saying. It isn't the course of action which a country takes that matters but rather the course of action that a country could have taken, makes perfect sense to me. Also it's really a shame that a champion of democratic causes like Saddam was removed from power. Truly a sad day for democracy..

The fact that your sarcasm is not directed at your own country transforms it neatly into irony.

Sarcasm? What do you mean?! I think it's clear that Russia and China are much more humanitarian nations than the United States. I'm pretty sure that China wanted to remove some tyrants from power in Sudan but the US wouldn't go with them because there isn't enough oil in Sudan. And if you look at Russia and their leaders, Stalin, Putin etc. they clearly have better intentions than George W. Bush. Seriously though, I'm being waaaaay serious right now.

[strike wolf]

Right or wrong. You are fighting a losing battle if you are trying to support Bush. At this point, he could go back in time and prevent WWII and the Holocaust from ever happening and his approval rating would still go down.

[GabonX]

Right or wrong. You are fighting a losing battle if you are trying to support Bush. At this point, he could go back in time and prevent WWII and the Holocaust from ever happening and his approval rating would still go down.

I agree with you 100%. Thank goodness for selective reporting!

For the record I never liked Bush. I wanted McCain/Gore to win in 2000 and Kerry to win in 2004. In retrospect Kerry may not have been any better, maybe even worse. The fact of the matter is Bush is the President and sometimes you have to work with what you have.

[heavycola]

UK and Spain - the war did not enjoy popular support, especially Spain, where wotsisface ignored a 90% popular rejection in order to share some podium time with ol' Dubya.
Australia - John Howard sent his troops halfway around the world in the face of huge domestic opposition.

Democracy... what? Oh.

I see what you're saying. It isn't the course of action which a country takes that matters but rather the course of action that a country could have taken, makes perfect sense to me. Also it's really a shame that a champion of democratic causes like Saddam was removed from power. Truly a sad day for democracy..

should have taken. Blair, Howard and Aznar's decisions did not enjoy popular support. So when you say these countriesw supported the war, you are wrong.


[/quote]

The fact that your sarcasm is not directed at your own country transforms it neatly into irony.

Sarcasm? What do you mean?! I think it's clear that Russia and China are much more humanitarian nations than the United States. I'm pretty sure that China wanted to remove some tyrants from power in Sudan but the US wouldn't go with them because there isn't enough oil in Sudan. And if you look at Russia and their leaders, Stalin, Putin etc. they clearly have better intentions than George W. Bush. Seriously though, I'm being waaaaay serious right now.[/quote][/quote]

I'm reeeeeeeeeeeeeally sorry

[Pedronicus]

Some presidents get carved into Mt Rushmore; others have airports, motorways, and even entire cities named in their honour. But when George Bush leaves office, his most visible memorial may be a mouldering patch of human effluent.

In November, alongside casting their ballot for the next president, the people of San Francisco will also vote on a measure to rename one of the city's largest sewage works the George W Bush Sewage Plant, to provide a "fitting monument" to the outgoing commander-in-chief's achievements.

The new amount of uranium you have discovered is now in 'Metric Tonnes'. Do you think the media chose this metric system to throw the average American off the trail? I'm sure there's some patriotic flag waving red neck thinking that 550 metric tonnes is just a couple of wheelbarrows.

[deronimo]

I'm really enjoying this Gabon!

Keep up the good work and before you know it the world will be safe for all whales

[protectedbygold]

just look at the historical record of Russia and China. I haven't personally but Keith Olbermann told me that it's pretty good.

LOL, yeah I personally like to watch the daily meltdowns that old Keith likes to exhibit in front of the country. I don't know what ESPN was thinking when they let him go!