500+ Metric Tons of Purified “Yellow Cake” Uranium Removed From Hussein’s Storehouses in Iraq

Is there another use for yellow cake uranium besides weapons?

Whether there is or not, seems that leaving it in Saddam's control is not the best idea.

reply to post by Rasputin13


I'll say it again.

This story is 100%, certifiably true. Saddam did have his possession around 500 tons of Yellowcake Uranium at one time. The UN Inspectors had known about this since 1992.

This story is NOT "fake" in the least.

However, this story is also not the least bit a valid justification for the Iraq War, because that Yellowcake was useless to him.

Read my previous post.
I can't understand how people keep misinterpreting this.

He had the Yellowcake, yes he did.

But Yellowcake is not a WMD. Nor it is it highly useful in making Nuclear Weapons because it would require a lot of refinement and Saddam didn't have the facilities to do that since Israel blew up his Osiraq Research Facility.

This is why the Inspectors sealed the Yellowcake back up in 1992 after they found it and just left it there.
Because they knew it was useless. Hence why it was never confiscated.

It was a White elephant. Yes it could be potent in the right hands, but not Saddam's, he couldn't have weaponised it in any way.

Keep saying it the "Oil Lovers" just keep sucking on it.




..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 1-8-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Desert Dawg


Yellow cake is the first step in the refining process of uranium. It is milled ore that has been separated from the dross. It is basically uranium oxide U3 O8.

It must undergo a great deal more processing to be used for anything including nuclear fuel or fissile material. It is converted to uranium hexofluoride and then undergoes further separation in this gaseous form to separate out the various isotopes.

Fuel use uranium may only contain a small percentage of fissile material. It must be further refined to create a high enough purity to be used for bombs. Bomb grade material is nearly pure fissile isotopes of uranium 235

So to sum up yellow cake is refined ore and nothing more. There is a very long technically difficult process to make even reactor fuel from it let alone the far more complex process of separating out the one particular isotope used for bomb making.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

This is why the Inspectors sealed the Yellowcake back up in 1992 after they found it and just left it there.
Because they knew it was useless. Hence why it was never confiscated.

Actually, the UN was supposed to confiscate it after GW1, but it fell off their books somehow.

And when we found it again, the UN said oh crap, this shouldn't be here.

Also, Blix has been very clear on his belief that while he found no WMD's, Saddam definitely had plans to resume WMD development and production after the inspections were over. And since yellowcke can be refined to weapons grade......

Also keep in mind that these were very long term goals for Saddam. Just look at NK. Raise hell for a while, get some sap like Clinton to give them money and oil to abandon the nuclear program, all for a worthless signature on some treaty... and go ahead and do it anyways in secret when it suits you.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Saddam definitely had plans to resume WMD development and production after the inspections were over.

Well forgive me for doubting Mr. Blix's ability to read Saddam's mind I didn't realise he was part of the UN Psychic Corps.

So should we invade Japan, Germany, Norway, South Africa or Italy because they too could possibly build Nuclear weapons if they truly wanted?

You think it's okay to base entire wars and the deaths of millions on the presumption that someone may at some point in the future do something bad or evil?

Should we kill murderers pre-emptively?

Face it, it's a stupid logic. There was no rock solid, concrete justification for the war.

Just limp-wristed maybes and circumstantial evidence which wouldn't hold up in a Juvenile's Court.

They had nothing and they knew it which is why Blix told Bush not to defy the UN.

we should invade america because they have more wmd's than anyone, and if you say saddam was a loony and shouldnt have them dont forget america put him there, anyway, i like cake, especially yellow, mmmmmmmmm, down with america

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira


Well forgive me for doubting Mr. Blix's ability to read Saddam's mind I didn't realise he was part of the UN Psychic Corps.

So should we invade Japan, Germany, Norway, South Africa or Italy because they too could possibly build Nuclear weapons if they truly wanted?

You think it's okay to base entire wars and the deaths of millions on the presumption that someone may at some point in the future do something bad or evil?Should we kill murderers pre-emptively?

Face it, it's a stupid logic. There was no rock solid, concrete justification for the war.Just limp-wristed maybes and circumstantial evidence which wouldn't hold up in a Juvenile's Court.

1- why must he be psychic in order to read the signs of someone maintaining their preparations to resume weapons production? Saddam had a history of this, and so it is reasonable to suspect the same if conditions change, especially when he had many other weapons violations.

2- all those other countries weren't under a surrender treaty.

3- Millions? LOL... When someone violates their parole (surrender treaty) they should be put into jail. Which is what we did. The Iraqis executed him for crimes within his country.

4-Plenty of reasons - a) he undeniably paid suicide bombers families $25k, support for terrorism. b) he had plans for long range missles, a violation of the surrender treaty. c) there's more too, but this thread is about yellowcake.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- Millions? LOL... When someone violates their parole (surrender treaty) they should be put into jail. Which is what we did. The Iraqis executed him for crimes within his country.

Well, it wasn't exactly "the Iraqis" who executed him.

And I hear the neocons didn't think it had the desired effect:

U.S. To Re-Hang Saddam Hussein
JULY 15, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC—Calling the December 2006 hanging of Saddam Hussein "anticlimactic," White House officials announced Monday their intention to hang the late Iraqi dictator again this year in an attempt to garner a more favorable response from the public.

"We're really looking for something that will refocus the American people's attention on all the positive aspects of this war," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "We were counting on the death of this brutal despot—who, by the way, gassed his own people and was just like Hitler—to be a major media event for us. Instead, we wasted three or four great news days at a time when we really could have used a few high points."

Most observers considered Hussein's execution, which was carried out by Iraq's interim government and broadcast in grainy, amateur footage, to be creepy, gruesome, and generally lacking the sense of triumphant catharsis authorities had hoped for.

To remedy the public relations failure, Hussein's body has been dug up from its burial place near Tikrit and wired together by U.S. Army forensic experts to ensure that it holds its shape during the ceremony. The re-hanging, which will be aired on all major networks and accompanied by a 30-minute retrospective highlighting the many reasons why Hussein was a terrible person deserving of this ignoble end, will be "brighter, cheerier, and more upbeat," than the first attempt.

"We're going to have superior production values, inspiring music, and live, prime-time coverage straight from Baghdad," said the State Department's media coordinator, Ellen Grainer. "[Hussein's body] has decomposed so much that his remains will have to be wrapped in canvas and covered up, but we plan to display a full-color oversized photo of him directly behind the gallows. That should have a real impact on viewers. We're pulling out all the stops to make sure we get the feel-good media moment everyone's looking for."

Grainer echoed the sentiments of several Defense Department officials who believe the U.S. should never have handed over a high-profile hanging to the Iraqi people in the first place. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the two biggest miscalculations were allowing such a low-quality presentation to be associated with the American military, and timing the execution to take place around Christmas.

"The thinking was that Americans who missed their loved ones overseas would appreciate an emotional boost around that time," Gates said. "But apparently, people didn't think the holiday season set an appropriate mood for a public execution."

"If we could have hanged Osama bin Laden, that would have been ideal," Gates added. "Obviously, though, you have to catch someone to be able to legally murder them, so we're just making the most of what we've got."

It remains to be seen whether public reaction will be more enthusiastic this time around.

"After watching the first hanging, I felt kind of sickened and empty inside," Iowa resident Ted Froman, 38, said. "But with all the violence that's going on over there at the moment, it would be nice to see something done right."

In the event that the execution fails to create the desired positive effect, authorities said they would not rule out hanging Hussein a third or even a fourth time, if necessary.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Saddam had a history of this, and so it is reasonable to suspect the same if conditions change, especially when he had many other weapons violations.

The only verifiable WMD's he had in history were given to him by the US.

That's it.
America's fault for supplying weapons to a madman.

all those other countries weren't under a surrender treaty.

Iraq wasn't under a "surrender treaty", they were under sanctions and prohibited from acquiring certain materials or developing certain weapons.

Millions? LOL...

Laugh it up.

Around 1,033,000 combined deaths as a result of this pointless conflict:
www.opinion.co.uk...

Plenty of reasons - a) he undeniably paid suicide bombers families $25k, support for terrorism. b) he had plans for long range missles, a violation of the surrender treaty. c) there's more too, but this thread is about yellowcake.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of the Palestinian Resistance Movement, they give millions in funding every year. Far greater than Iraq ever did. Not only that but they've been linked to funding Islamic fundamentalists all around the globe.

Everyone and their mother has plans for long range missiles these days. So what?
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc... You can't police the entire friggin' planet.

Is the US the only one in the world allowed MRBM's or ICBM's?
Double standards are made to be broken.

There is no more.
The only thing you have is maybes, could haves and would haves.

Basing wars on circumstantial evidence that doesn't exist is ridiculous.
Maybe that holds up in a Court Room but when your talking about major military conflicts and the loss of millions of lives you need to be a LITTLE MORE sure past: "Oh he would have done this I'm sure of it."

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

The only verifiable WMD's he had in history were given to him by the US.

they were under sanctions and prohibited from acquiring certain materials or developing certain weapons.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of the Palestinian Resistance Movement, they give millions in funding every year. Far greater than Iraq ever did. Not only that but they've been linked to funding Islamic fundamentalists all around the globe.

Everyone and their mother has plans for long range missiles these days. So what?
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc... You can't police the entire friggin' planet.

1- wrong. A binary Sarin shell was used as an IED not too long ago. It was Russian, and from an era WELL after our involvement.

2- and they broke that agreement repeatedly. And continued to lie when asked if they had plans, etc for longer range missles than they were allowed to have. They signed the agreement to NOT pursue these, but they repeatedly broke it.

3- so since CITIZENS of SA - not the guv - are more active with their money, are you saying that you would back an invasion of them? Note the difference there - the guv of Iraq - Saddam - backed terrorism openly. The CITIZENS of SA are doing it in secret/trying to hide their actions.

What you're missing is that he was, in effect, on parole. He broke that parole, and was given the oppurtunity to leave. He didn't believe that we would follow through - his words.

What action would you want, when a repeat child molestor, on parole, was found in front of your kids school with a video camera, kiddie stroke mags, duct tape, and chloroform? Would you expect a little pre-emptive action? Or just wait for him to abduct some kid, and put him into jail AFTER the kid was injured/kiled?

Personally, I believe that once someone establishes psychopathic behavior like Saddam - we won't even get into how many of his own citizens he killed in his "prisons" and mass graves - then that person has deserved to be put on notice that there will be pre-emptive action taken if he breaks the rules established that he must follow in order to maintain that freedom. Too bad for him if he can't follow them or if they're tough. He's on parole.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Iraq wasn't under a "surrender treaty", they were under sanctions and prohibited from acquiring certain materials or developing certain weapons.

Yes Iraq was under sanctions and still received banned equipment like that found on the hidden and burried MIGs and the GPS jammers.

Because we know he had them because WE...the United States gave them to him in the first place and accidentally created a monster

Amen. We saw this on the news every day for years in the 80's.

"I do not recall..."

member?

reply to post by Seymour Butz

1- wrong. A binary Sarin shell was used as an IED not too long ago. It was Russian, and from an era WELL after our involvement.

1 Shell? Are you kidding?

MASS Destruction. Repeat that a few times.
MASS... Destruction.

So someone got their hands on a Sarin shell... It could have been one of the dozens of Foreign Fighter brigades in Iraq that brought it in, it could been sold to Iraq years ago...

That is not proof that Iraq actually possessed huge quantities of Sarin.

How many ways can I put this. You actually need a "Smoking Gun" here to accuse Iraq of anything, not a box of empty matches...

2- and they broke that agreement repeatedly. And continued to lie when asked if they had plans, etc for longer range missles than they were allowed to have.

Nothing was said about delivery systems. Missiles were never banned. Hence why Iraq still had Scuds in it's possession.

Chemical, Biological and Radiological agents or the means to make them were prohibited.

so since CITIZENS of SA - not the guv - are more active with their money, are you saying that you would back an invasion of them? Note the difference there - the guv of Iraq - Saddam - backed terrorism openly. The CITIZENS of SA are doing it in secret/trying to hide their actions.

Not only citizens, fronts for government agencies and charities linked to government leaders and members of the royal family.

The higher-up's in Saudi Arabia actively endorse it:

'At the core of the Arab Bank case sits the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Al Quds Intifada, a known conduit for money destined for terrorist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza,' Shelby said.

www.forbes.com...
www.iags.org...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

It's simply kept quiet and dark because of their close ties to the US.

Another key US ally, Pakistan is also a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalists, and a base of support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
www.theage.com.au...

Iraq was actually kept isolated from the wave of Islamic Fundamentalism that swept through the Middle East in the 1990's thanks to Saddam in part.
He never put much faith in religion nor actively endorsed Islam, because it meant a lack of control over his people.

His iron-fisted rule meant he quelled any radicals, Kurdish, Sunni or Shia, etc..

His funding of the Palestinian resistance was simply another way of him pissing off America, because Israel is as you know key US ally.

Personally, I believe that once someone establishes psychopathic behavior like Saddam - we won't even get into how many of his own citizens he killed in his "prisons" and mass graves -

Look forget the Saddam was a bad guy/liberating Iraq/spreading Democracy angle for a second.

The world is loaded with reprehensible dictators and military despots.

If every tyrannical dictator in the world needs to be toppled and his people "liberated" why didn't I see the US overthrowing Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, Nazarbayev of Turkmenistan, or Robert Mugabe?

They're all bad guys. They all torture and kill people. They all threaten peace and stability.

Now think why does America only choose to play "Good Cop" when it suits them?

Because Saddam was sitting atop the world's second largest reserves of oil.

In other words, USA only plays "Good Cop" when the neck-deep-in-Oil-profit Republicans, can get something out of it. When there are spoils to be had.
Forget the sanctions, violating UN agreements or the mystery WMD's; all of that is a distraction and sideshow from the real objective of the war:
Securing key energy reserves to future proof America's influence on the Petroleum Industry.
Which is worth trillions of dollars and vital for every developing nation.

Liberating the innocent, finding WMD's (if they exist), peace in the Middle East; all of that is tertiary objective.
Greed is primary.

Oil was the primary reason, Bush could care less about WMD's or stability, hence why he called off the search in 2006.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

MASS Destruction. Repeat that a few times.
MASS... Destruction.

Nothing was said about delivery systems. Missiles were never banned. Hence why Iraq still had Scuds in it's possession.

Not only citizens, fronts for government agencies and charities linked to government leaders and members of the royal family.

1- so the US gave Saddam gas weapons and you use that as an example of him having WMD's. And when I use an example of them still having gas shells, suddenly they're NOT WMD's? Nice hypocrisy.

2-That's right, missles with a range of less than 150km were allowed. But to have missles of more than that were prohibited, as well as even having any plans, doing research, or investigating into them. He did this repeatedly. Blix has gone on record of having found documents of all of these during his inspections. Additionally, there was an incidence of him purchasing missles of 1000km range from NK, but it got foiled. So again, you're wrong about that.

3- again, the difference is that while individuals in SA are financing terrorists, it is not an open policy of the SA guv to back terrorists. ANd I'll agree with you that MORE pressure should be put on them though to curb it. But the situation with SA has no bearing on the decisions of Iraq - since again, SA had no sanctions against them. So I'll ask again - would you rather invade SA?

Also, you never answered my question about pre-emptive action. What would you do? Allow the child molestor to hurt some kid first? Or say "Hey buddy, you violated your parole by being within 1000 ft of a school. You've had several warnings already and you keep doing it. We can no longer trust you in society, since we believe that you will do it again. So back to jail you go."

Where do you stand? Is pre-emptive action NEVER justified?

Or does a logical conclusion that action should be taken BEFORE disaster strikes make more sense? The smoking guns are there - missle violations, hindering inspections to the point that they decided to quit for a while, shooting at US planes in their air space, etc. Simply reducing the reasons for war to yellow cake only is ridiculous.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Where do you stand? Is pre-emptive action NEVER justified?

We could argue all day long about what Iraq did and didn't possess and what their intentions may have been.

The bottom line is, in this case, the pre-emptive action was not justified.
The cost to benefit ratio was simply too high.

Iraq's WMD ambitions could have been neutralised with a simple 2 week aerial campaign.

NOT a full-scale invasion and utterly useless occupation that has now cost over 1 trillion dollars, 1 million lives and after 8 years is nowhere near being resolved.

Iraq was to SOME degree a threat yes. Saddam was. I will give you that.

But was America's invasion an appropriate, proportional response?

NO. Never.

You bring up the example of a known paedophile going near schools, but in this case America didn't simply put him in jail, it was more comparable to executing that paedophile without him having committed an actual crime.

So he went near schools... What law did he actually break? Jaywalking? Loitering? Maybe he was in all actuality just taking a stroll.

Okay so he's dangerous, you can keep him under house arrest or lock him back up. He's out of sight, out of mind and no longer a threat.
You don't need to kill him.

It's a completely disproportionate response to the threat at hand.

If America truly had concrete intelligence that Iraq was planning to develop WMD's (which they didn't), why not authorise an aerial campaign or a covert operation to neutralise their missiles, their ancient stockpiles, whatever...

This goes beyond what is necessary.
Look at the evidence:

- Rusty mustard gas shells, mouldy Sarin and leftovers from the stockpile the US gave him in the 1980's.

- Worthless, industrial-grade yellowcake that Saddam could not refine because Israel destroyed his Osiraq facility in 1981.

- Attempted purchases of long range missiles.

- Saddam's supposed "ambitions" to restart his WMD programme once inspectors left Iraq.

Now would you say that is enough of a case to justify invading another nation and occupying it and in the process killing hundreds of thousands of people and totally ruining all chances of stability in this country?

That is a pretty limp-wristed arguement.

Just remember what Blix said, he saw the threat with his own two eyes and still didn't agree it was worth the trouble:

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix,

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said.

edition.cnn.com...

I'll take his testimony over Bush's anyday.
Saddam deserved some form of punishment yes, but invasion was way out of hand given what he was being charged with and the evidence to support it.

As far as WMDs, We knew Iraq had them and had used them on their neighbors and their own people.

We have reports from defectors that WMD and material was taken to Syria to keep them from the inspectors.

We also have the hidden and buried MIG aircraft and other equipment that they were keeping things hidden from the inspectors.

Photos of hidden and buried MIG aircraft.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Photo of chemical trailer.

i114.photobucket.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No offence, but are you just a parrot or something?

Have you not been paying attention to anything that's been said?

Of course THEY DID at ONE STAGE have WMD's, because the US gave them to Iraq.
The means to create those chemical weapons came from America companies.

We have reports from defectors that WMD and material was taken to Syria to keep them from the inspectors.

Again, NO there are no reports.

There are rumours from inmates at Iraqi prisons that they may or may not have taken part in moving material via trucks to the Syrian border:
wnd.com...

Ramblings from a bunch of convicts who would say anything and probably everything to avoid torture and get out; do not constitute solid intelligence.

We also have the hidden and buried MIG aircraft and other equipment that they were keeping things hidden from the inspectors.

You have to stop bringing this up...

Aircraft WERE NOT banned under UN sanctions.

The MiGs and Sukhois were buried just before the invasion because Iraq didn't want them to be destroyed sitting like ducks on airfields.

They didn't bury them because they were prohibited from having them, they never were.

What relevance is this?

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Iraq's WMD ambitions could have been neutralised with a simple 2 week aerial campaign.

NOT a full-scale invasion and utterly useless occupation that has now cost over 1 trillion dollars, 1 million lives and after 8 years is nowhere near being resolved.

So he went near schools... What law did he actually break? Jaywalking? Loitering? Maybe he was in all actuality just taking a stroll.

- Worthless, industrial-grade yellowcake that Saddam could not refine because Israel destroyed his Osiraq facility in 1981.

- Attempted purchases of long range missiles.

Now would you say that is enough of a case to justify invading another nation and occupying it and in the process killing hundreds of thousands of people and totally ruining all chances of stability in this country?

That is a pretty limp-wristed arguement.

Well, FWIW, I'm in total agreement with you about the aerial campaign. I was never for putting boots on the ground, but for different reasons. Namely, I don't really care enough about them OR Israel to put our guys at risk.

1 million lives again? Well that makes sense now since you seem to think that we've been there for 8 years.....

The pedo broke his parole by being within 1000 ft of a school. These are conditions of his remaining free. Saddam broke his parole repeatedly. Saddam went into hiding and apparently wasn't directing any military ops, therefore he wasn't targeted yo be killed. His sons WERE directing military ops, and so they were rightly targeted. Iraqis hung him for his crimes, our backing that decision does not detract from the fact that it was their decision.

Who says that Saddam needed to refine it? He could have made a deal to GET it refined. Or just bide his time like NK did. You know that story, right? It ain't worthless. And you're totally denying the fact that he wasn't supposed to have it after GW1 in the first place. Why would that be unless those more informed on this issue have decided that he shouldn't have it?

He broke parole by trying to purchase those missles.

Hey some improvement!! Now it's only 100's of thousands. Get real, we TAKE casualties in an effort to avoid civilian deaths - I KNEW this would happen if we went in there, and is why I was always against putting boots on the ground. Most of the killing is between the religious sects.

I think your thoughts are actually pretty reasonable, but obviously I don't have a problem with GOING to war with them. I see the difficulties of having accurate intel about his intentions/capabilities as the problem. But I'm curious what you need as a smoking gun. It seems like you're aware of his "parole" violations on some of the smaller issues - missles,etc. Does it all boil down to whether or not he had the capability of producing nuclear/biological/chemical weapons? Keep in mind that the difficulty lies in knowing exactly WHERE he stood along that time line. Also keep in mind that he had the habit of trying to hide their efforts from Blix, etc.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Again, NO there are no reports.

Yes there are reports and even a report that Russian military may have helped move WMDs.

The MiGs and Sukhois were buried just before the invasion because Iraq didn't want them to be destroyed sitting like ducks on airfields.

The planes themselves were not banned but if you did any research you would see that they had equipment on them that was banned.



[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]