Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yellowcake journalism
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | July 19, 2008 | Editorial

Posted on 07/19/2008 10:55:05 AM PDT by Graybeard58

Remember Joe Wilson? He's the diplomat who went to Niger to investigate Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium, a raw material used in building nuclear bombs, from Africa. He wrote in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed that he had spent the previous February in Niger, "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people ... associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

A story that has to be the most underplayed news item of the decade exposes Mr. Wilson's utter cluelessness, dishonesty or both. According to The Associated Press and other news services, the U.S. military transferred 550 tons of yellowcake, enough to produce 142 nuclear bombs, from Iraq to Canada at the Iraqi government's request. The yellowcake is believed to have been purchased by the Hussein regime before 1991; some may have been intended for the Osirak nuclear installation destroyed in an Israeli raid 10 years earlier.

Hussein got the yellowcake from somewhere. He almost certainly got it from Niger, Gabon, South Africa or Namibia, the four African countries with yellowcake mines. And Mr. Wilson, who served with the State Department in Baghdad and Gabon, didn't know (or didn't report in his Times op-ed) that Hussein possessed 550 tons of yellowcake at the time of Mr. Wilson's African junket.

The question this new development poses for the anti-war left: What do you suppose Hussein would be doing with his nuclear materials and WMD expertise today, more than five years after the Coalition of the Willing took him down, had he been allowed to remain in power?


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cialeak; enricheduranium; gabon; iraqinukes; joewilson; lovedclintonswars; namibia; niger; saddam; shadowgovernment; southafrica; wilson; yellowcake; yellowjournalism; zogbyism

1 posted on 07/19/2008 10:55:07 AM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111; BlessedBeGod; KosmicKitty; ballplayer; warsaw44; Grizzled Bear; Tunehead54; ...

Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.

If you want on or off this list, let me know.


2 posted on 07/19/2008 10:55:40 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Osama Obama is a lying sack of s***, communist, mooselimb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Bad people tell lies. Foolish people believe them. Weak people join the crowd. Consequences ensue.

3 posted on 07/19/2008 10:58:34 AM PDT by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

There is 100% chance that Hussein will NOT do anything with the yellow cake - now. If Hussein had stayed in power, as Candidate Barry would have preferred, there is far more than 0% chance that the yellow cake would have become “problematic”.


4 posted on 07/19/2008 11:02:23 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I have talked to liberals who seem to truly believe that “IF” Saddam had nuclear material, he was just trying to develop nuclear energy for his people. Just trying to save the environment, you know. Saddam was a big environmentalist. Really.


5 posted on 07/19/2008 11:04:41 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

Do you ask them why a country sitting on huge oil reserves needs nuclear power?

Liberals have an intricately constructed view of the World, and they can’t allow in any facts that would shatter their construction.


6 posted on 07/19/2008 11:11:49 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Boycott Washington D.C. until they allow gun ownership)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
I have talked to liberals who seem to truly believe that “IF” Saddam had nuclear material, he was just trying to develop nuclear energy for his people. Just trying to save the environment, you know. Saddam was a big environmentalist. Really.

So a follow-up question for these people is, "So you think nuclear power generators are the way to go to save the environment?"

7 posted on 07/19/2008 11:13:54 AM PDT by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, he-he, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I wish this paper would increase it’s circulatin and put the hartford coissant out of business


8 posted on 07/19/2008 11:14:22 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty; The Pendleton 8: We are not going down without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
Lately I think liberals are starting to accept the idea of nuclear power. All anyone had to do was tell them, "France does it!"

But you know how they are. They'd wear panties on their heads if the French did it first.

9 posted on 07/19/2008 11:17:14 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
I have had the following link on my homepage since May of 2004 and I have told countless "anit-war" liberals about it. Note near the bottom of the article it states,

"Of the uranium, 500 tons is naturally occurring ore or yellowcake, a slightly processed concentrate that cannot be directly used in a bomb. Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium, a more potent form but still not sufficient for a weapon.

"A country like Iran," Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

Here is the link...


500 Tons of Uranium in Iraq!
10 posted on 07/19/2008 11:20:53 AM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Of course the retrograde White House communications team didn’t even mention it, let alone calling a press conference. This is the worst communications effort be an Administration, in the history of the modern presidency.


11 posted on 07/19/2008 11:21:02 AM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
The question this new development poses for the anti-war left: What do you suppose Hussein would be doing with his nuclear materials and WMD expertise today, more than five years after the Coalition of the Willing took him down, had he been allowed to remain in power?

Well DUH! What else would he do with yellow cake? Baking of course!


12 posted on 07/19/2008 11:29:07 AM PDT by Bommer (A Third Party can win when Republicans and Democraps stand for the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
I have talked to liberals who seem to truly believe that “IF” Saddam had nuclear material, he was just trying to develop nuclear energy for his people. Just trying to save the environment, you know. Saddam was a big environmentalist. Really.

Riiight. That's why he drained those marsh areas, which ruined vast areas that had previously been fertile.

13 posted on 07/19/2008 11:30:40 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
Actually, the timing is a bit off, and some have questioned the contention that the yellowcake that was moved was the same material that Joe Wilson was talking about. If Hussein bought all the yellowcake that was moved, BEFORE 1991, that's not the same stuff that's being discussed in the Niger situation.

If I'm not mistaken, that large amount of yellowcake was moved while the UN was still being allowed into the country, before 2003, and they required him to move it. When he stopped allowing the UN observers into the country, of course, all bets were off. If that's the case, those who are trying to diminish the importance of the yellowcake that was moved are NOT thinking things through.

If Hussein was forced to send all that yellowcake out of the country, by the UN, he WOULD have been looking to replace it, so there is every likelihood that he would have been sending representatives to Africa to buy more. Joe Wilson doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that those who told him that Hussein wasn't trying to buy yellowcake were LYING to him. By his own admission, he wasn't out doing any detective work himself; he was just sitting around in comfort, drinking sweet tea, and having meetings with folks who were willing to talk to him.

14 posted on 07/19/2008 11:40:22 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

(I was told this by a co-worker)

“You have to understand that this was pre-9/11 yellowcake, bought in the early 90’s and already known about. Bush was making the case against Iraq on new purchases of yellowcake.”

As if a mushroom cloud gives a hoot when the yellowcake was bought.


15 posted on 07/19/2008 11:48:22 AM PDT by wbarmy (Hard core, extremist, right-wing is a little too mild for my tastes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

Canada has huge oil reserves (a lot bigger than Iraq’s) & we have nuclear power plants. We don’t need them — we just like having them around.


16 posted on 07/19/2008 11:50:21 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

>>>There is 100% chance that Hussein will NOT do anything with the yellow cake - now. If Hussein had stayed in power, as Candidate Barry would have preferred, there is far more than 0% chance that the yellow cake would have become “problematic”.

Oh, come on now, gang!

Barry Harry Obama is going to be VERRRRRY convincing when he meets with the terrorists and rogue nations and commies and lefties and despots......

And they’ll have cake and ice cream and lolipops, and happiy dance arm-in-arm in the streets, with Barry Harry, and all will willingly agree with that ObamaSmile that they’ll all get rid of their nukes.....

And so Barry and Maddyline NotsoBright will conclude agreements will everyone of them to get rid of their nukes....

And Barry Harry Obama will get rid of ours.....

And when BHO returns home from his personal, unpreconditional meetings with these quaint, but so agreeable despots .....

He’ll find (ooopppsss) Washington, and New York, and Los Angeles, and So On, .... will have been WHERE they got rid of their nukes.....

Thank you Barry Harry Obama.....

for being the only smart one of us.


17 posted on 07/19/2008 11:54:11 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58; jveritas
Let us all make sure that we are consistent with our facts regarding the yellowcake. This was the yellowcake that was under IAEA seal, that we knew he had. Of course that seal meant nothing as saddam would have disregarded it once the already gutted sanctions were lifted.

There was 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (not to weapons grade but getting there)that was removed in June of 2004 that sent the un into coniptions. Apparently this wasn't under seal and no one knew Iraq had it.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/13/70852.shtml

There is also the little matter of "The Bomb in my Garden" by Dr. Obeidi.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/13/70852.shtml

Plus the nuclear weapons designs that Iraq had that gave the nyt the vapors.

http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/2006/11/jveritas-responds-to-113-nyt-article.html

18 posted on 07/19/2008 11:57:18 AM PDT by Eagles6 ( Typical White Guy: Christian, Constitutionalist, Heterosexual, Redneck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

We don’t build nuclear powerplants here because the environmentalists won’t allow it. Our entire energy policy is determined by environmentalists, who have no use for energy development.


19 posted on 07/19/2008 12:07:01 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Boycott Washington D.C. until they allow gun ownership)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

I agree. If it wasn’t for FR, I wouldn’t know of lot of things that have happened. The WH has no communication skills whatsoever.


20 posted on 07/19/2008 12:09:18 PM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

We have the same problem here.

My previous response was a bit flippant. My point was that any country should be entitled to have nuclear power plants, for “peaceful” purposes.

The real issue is nuclear proliferation. If the spread of weapons-grade nuclear material can be controlled; then we don’t need to worry about nuclear power plants.


21 posted on 07/19/2008 12:16:15 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

The left looks at this latest expose of their lies and says “so what”? Revealing info like this does not stop them in the least. They just go on to their next lie. “But we found no piles of wmds” they screech. As if Hussein bought this stuff (yellowcake) for fun.


22 posted on 07/19/2008 12:28:06 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Well...wouldn’t you expect Saddam Hussein to acquire/possess nukes if the mortal enemy Iran did so?


23 posted on 07/19/2008 12:38:18 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Nothing to see here, move along.

-the MSM


24 posted on 07/19/2008 12:51:26 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Obama for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

>>>My point was that any country should be entitled to have nuclear power plants, for “peaceful” purposes

Why? Who says so?


25 posted on 07/19/2008 1:01:29 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
Saddam was a big environmentalist. Really.

Yeah we saw that when he set fire to all of Kuwait's oil wells, didn't we?

26 posted on 07/19/2008 1:05:00 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Beating a dead horse but.
The Democrats and the MSM have never admitted that Saddam had tons of Yellow Cake before Wilson went on his visit to Africa. All that Saddam needed was for us to get off of his back to give him time to process it. Guess where it came from?
27 posted on 07/19/2008 1:09:30 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulf BeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I wish this paper would increase it’s circulatin and put the hartford coissant out of business

And the New Haven Register with it.

Though the Register seems to be doing pretty good at running itself into the ground with no outside help! (I get it for one reason - the obits)

28 posted on 07/19/2008 1:25:37 PM PDT by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

“The real issue is nuclear proliferation. If the spread of weapons-grade nuclear material can be controlled; then we don’t need to worry about nuclear power plants.”

IMHO, you are terribly deluded on that point. IMO, a dirty bomb (which could use exactly the same material that is used in powerplants) would be just as economically devastating, because all the hand-wringers and bed-wetters in this country would completely cordon off a several mile radius around a dirty bomb explosion.

So although the actually bomb would only leave a tiny litte car size crater, the effect would be the complet abandonment of all of Manhattan or all of Long Beach Harbor.


29 posted on 07/19/2008 2:26:19 PM PDT by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

“Liberals have an intricately constructed view of the World, and they can’t allow in any facts that would shatter their construction.”

That alone is a fact.


30 posted on 07/19/2008 2:59:01 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins

It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.


31 posted on 07/19/2008 3:13:20 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
OK, that's a good point about dirty bombs. Perhaps it is nieve to think that the nuclear material can be controlled. If there's no way to do that; then there is a rationale for preventing other nations from having nuclear power stations.

Regardless — nuclear power, and nuclear weapons are two separate things. It's easy to make a strong case for preventing weapons proliferation — the onus (IMHO) is on opponents to make the case against nuclear power plants.

32 posted on 07/19/2008 3:17:45 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter

yellow cake ping


33 posted on 07/19/2008 3:50:09 PM PDT by IncPen (We are but a moment's sunlight, fading in the grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

People on the left say that 550 tons of yellowcake was already tagged and declared by UN Inspectors when Saddam was in power years ago.

This information is correct on the left. We were not going after declared items but things Saddam couldn’t account for.

Did they have another 550 tons of yellowcake not declared? Because we had to move 1.8 tons to the US in 2004?

Nuclear Watchdogs Verify Uranium in Iraq

Sat Aug 7, 2004
By GEORGE JAHN,
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Experts from the U.N. atomic watchdog agency have verified that none of the tons of natural uranium listed as still being in warehouses south of Baghdad is missing, the agency said Saturday.

Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the IAEA experts returned to Vienna Saturday after taking inventory of “several tons” of natural uranium in storage near Iraq’s Tuwaitha nuclear complex.

The check confirmed that none of the natural uranium at the site had been taken after the United States removed from Tuwaitha 1.8 tons of uranium, enriched to a level of 2.6 percent, another 6.6 pounds of low-enriched uranium, and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive sources.

Natural uranium has extremely low radioactivity and cannot be used for weapons programs without enrichment.

The U.S. airlift of the materials out of Tuwaitha took place six weeks ago, and Washington said at that time that the material was taken out of Iraq due to “security concerns” it did not elaborate on.

Diplomats familiar with the transfer said Saturday the substances airlifted out were deemed either to pose a proliferation risk or to be open to possible theft.

The IAEA experts - whose mandate does not include looking for any signs of a secret nuclear weapons program - were last in Iraq over a year ago, following accounts of widespread looting of the storage rooms at Tuwaitha. The agency subsequently reported that most of the missing material had been recovered and none of it could be used to make weapons.

U.N chemical, biological and nuclear inspectors left Iraq just ahead of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. After Saddam Hussein’s fall, the United States barred all U.N. inspectors from returning and instead deployed its own inspection teams to look for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - a search that also failed to find evidence of such arms.

The U.N. Security Council has put off a decision on the return of U.N. weapons inspectors under pressure from the United States.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei described the mission completed Saturday as “a good first step,” adding in a statement that he hoped his weapons inspectors could also soon return to Iraq and complete their mission.

The U.N. Security Council authorized U.N. inspectors to dismantle Iraq’s weapons programs after the first Gulf War in 1991. Under its resolution, the council must state that Iraq has no banned weapons before U.N. sanctions can be lifted.

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0408nn/040807nn.htm#030


34 posted on 07/19/2008 5:33:51 PM PDT by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

>>>It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

Now, that’s a real lefty point of view. My gosh!

Would you give your three-year-old an AK-47? It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”

Would you give Osama bin Laden a few kilos of boMB-grade Plutonium? It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”

The “Why not” is - in case you can’t figure it out - because we are better off if they don’t; we are safer if they don’t; and if we can prevent it we should. There is no such thing as an international “right” to anything. The U.S. makes - or should make (that’s why Dems should not be in national power) decisions based on ITS own self-interest, national interest. My country should do what is best for the nation and its people, NOT out of some non-existant “right” for other nations to do something that is contrary to our interests. Period.

So, “Why Not”?

Because we say so.

(Have a happy, and a pro-American day...)


35 posted on 07/20/2008 6:40:09 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

>>>the onus (IMHO) is on opponents to make the case against nuclear power plants

See my response in post #31.


36 posted on 07/20/2008 6:41:15 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins

...that’s post #35


37 posted on 07/20/2008 6:42:42 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins
Show me where I said OBL should have weapons grade nuclear material.

Just as you (rightly) assert the sovereign right of the U.S. to act in it's own best interest -- other countries also have the sovereign right to act in their own best interests.

It doesn't harm the interests of the U.S. for another country to possess nuclear power plants -- that's a separate issue from possessing weapons-grade material (or the ability to make such material).

There's no denying that the international "watchdogs", which are supposed to control weapons proliferation, are toothless. That problem should be fixed.

Going after every country that wants nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes would not be acting in the interests of the U.S. That is, unless you think alienating Canada, and over 20 other countries that have nuclear reactors (but no nuclear weapons) somehow serves your interests.

BTW,even your own government disagrees with you -- the Bush administration wants to sell lots of nuclear reactors. http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13459-disposable-nuclear-reactors-raise-security-fears.html
38 posted on 07/20/2008 2:30:35 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

The point of disagreement is your contention that nations of the world have some “right” to possess nuclear anything.

They do not.

And the fact that the Bush administr.ation chooses to sell nuclear power equipment or technology to certain nations only proves my point. That it is up to the U.S. to decide which nations can receive what of our technology (if any), based upon OUR interests, and not some non-existent “right” of any other nation to possess or access or use any particular technology.

Also, I never said you said OBL should have anything. I was mocking your assertion that:

It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

That assertion lacks any logic to it, and my (admittedly absurd) examples were to point out the absurdity of your assertion:

It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

sr


39 posted on 07/20/2008 9:16:00 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins
Who said anything about U.S. technology?

Canada has its own nuclear reactor tech -- as do several other nations. China is miles ahead of anyone in the field of pebble-bed nuclear reactors. The U.S. does not have a lock on nuclear technology -- you don't get to say who has a nuclear power plant, and who does not.

You are sounding like the embodiment of the worst stereotypes of American arrogance. I've spent a great deal of time and effort taking the side of the U.S. on recent geo-political issues. If I thought you were the slightest bit representative; I never would have bothered. There's no way on earth I could even consider trying to defend your viewpoints.

If the U.S. builds a "coalition of the willing" to take out Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities; then I'm solidly in your corner. If the U.S. tries to bully Canada, or any other country that wants to have nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes -- then we part company.
40 posted on 07/20/2008 10:24:39 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

>>>If I thought you were the slightest bit representative; I never would have bothered. There’s no way on earth I could even consider trying to defend your viewpoints.

Blah, blah, blah... Sorry, we don’t need your defense...

I mean, aren’t you talking about Canada? Your society of going down the drain with immigration infestation policies even worse then ours.

And you still don’t get the point. Do other nations have nuclear technology? Of course, they do. Should all nations be prohibited from having nuclear technology? Of course not. Should some be prohibited from having any nuclear technology. Absolutely.

You seem to take the lefty position: Well, who is anyone to tell anyone else anything? good grief!

But someone has to, at some point, put their foot down. That is often the role of the United States. And it should be the role of any nation not to engage in or support policies that are antithetical to their own interests. A nation that acts contrary to its own interests, will not survive. (Lately, that’s a lot of nations - including Canada, AND, unfortunately, in a number of area, including the U.S. That’s why conservatives are not entirely happy with John McLame)

As to your final paragraph: It shows that you are not paying attention. If or when the U.S. believed that Canada’s possession of nuclear technology was a threat to our security, we would act. So far, it does not. But, again that is our perogative as a sovereign nation to defend its interests. No one suggests that non-dangerous nations should not have nuclear power technology, if they are capable of managing it properly. But that is not the case with the scads of tin-pot dictatorships around the world.

That’s not N. Korea. That’s not Iran. That’s not most of the Middle East, and most Islamic nations. (Pakistan: Already got it - and that’s a problem)

Where you go wrong (other than not listening) is that you - like most libs - believe that all things are equal. Each nation is equal in the “fellowship of nations”, none are better or worse than others. Well, they are not. (American “arrogance” warning!!!) None better than the U.S. Few approach the U.S.

The U.S., like it or not, does have much to say about who gets nuclear technology, and how. And we will continue to act in our own best interests in this regard.

Canada? Well, Canada can continue to take in criminals and illegal aliens on the run, and give them lots of nice welfare. Shame.


41 posted on 07/21/2008 9:06:44 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins
What are you — some kind of troll from DUmmy-land? Seriously — do you expect me to believe that you actually believe this crap?
42 posted on 07/21/2008 9:21:50 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty; RaceBannon
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I live in the paper's circulation area.
However, there is a downside...I do live in Waterbury for that to happen.
Intersection of slime and evil, and all that ;-)
43 posted on 07/21/2008 9:31:25 AM PDT by CT-Freeper (Said the frequently disappointed but ever optimistic Mets fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

>>>What are you — some kind of troll from DUmmy-land?

Up until now, I have questioned your judgment, but that is fair game in this type of discussion.

Your last is not. Now you are simply calling names.

Unlike you (since it appears that you consider this to be the normal course of events), I do not post things I do not believe in.

Get real, my friend. (My last post: Ditto...)

And stop the name-calling, or end the thread here.


44 posted on 07/21/2008 10:43:19 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins
You talk about invading my country & you get upset about a little name calling. Get real yourself — we'd be well beyond name calling in short order.

The views expressed in your posts have been so extreme that it was only natural that I wondered whether you are a troll. Some smart*$$ trying to be “ironic” by posting the most extreme stereotypical views that the leftist moonbats imagine conservatives to hold.

45 posted on 07/21/2008 1:53:02 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

>>>You talk about invading my country

WHAT????? Where? You must be kidding.

Either that, or you are really paranoid.

Never said anything of the kind. Re-read the posts.

In the meantime: Let’s drop the thread. You can’t carry on a normal discussion.


46 posted on 07/21/2008 4:16:48 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins
Do your country a favour — never go into the diplomatic service. Here's part of what you wrote:

“If or when the U.S. believed that Canada’s possession of nuclear technology was a threat to our security, we would act. So far, it does not.”

47 posted on 07/21/2008 7:04:12 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Gosh, you’re dumb. (So much for diplomacy...a load of crap, anyway)

Do you have trouble reading, or interpreting, or just thinking?

>>>“If or when the U.S. believed that Canada’s possession of nuclear technology was a threat to our security, we would act. So far, it does not.”

Where does this say anything about attacking Canada. (BTW: How much efforts would that take, anyway?) The point of the above is not that Canada would be likely to threaten U.S. security (again, what could Canada do? It’s too wimpy to even TRY to safeguard its own national integrity, all it can do is fight against their own people’s free speech)

Anyway, the point is that WHAT EVER nation posed a threat to the U.S., we would be obligated and right in acting to curb that threat.

PLEASE BE ADVISED: War has NOT been declared against Canada.

That is all...


48 posted on 07/21/2008 8:32:21 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins

If you ever wonder why there’s so much animosity toward the U.S., throughout the world — you need do nothing more than study a mirror.


49 posted on 07/21/2008 11:02:31 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Blah, blah, blah...

I see you’ve stopped trying to address the issues...


50 posted on 07/22/2008 3:47:23 AM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson