550 Metric Tons of Uranium Removed From Iraq

Orion Blastar tips us to an AP report that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" uranium has successfully been removed from Iraq. The operation lasted three months, and it required 37 separate flights and an 8,500-mile trip by boat to reach a port in Montreal. Quoting: "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."

Comments

Thanks, media,

[Adreno]

... for at least keeping this ONE story under wraps until a prudent moment!

Re:Thanks, media,

[TheLink]

How does it even point in the right direction for exonerating Bush?

Try reading the article. I know it's a lot of words and all that, but persevere till the bitter middle and you will find:

"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."

In case your memory needs refreshing, the first US vs Iraq war was in 1991 and there was great worldwide support for it. The next US vs Iraq war was in 2003 and there was not much support for it worldwide (I'm sure you still wonder why).

I bet the most US people seeing the headlines will think a similar way - "Hey Bush was right".

So it's going to be yet another wonderful "mission accomplished" by the "news people". Like shooting fish in the barrel.

Thanks media alright.

Re:Thanks, media,

[h4rm0ny]

Reminds me of the sketch on Bremner, Bird and Fortune (British satirical show) where the Defence Minister was being interviewed.
Interviewer: How did you know that Saddam had these weapons? Minister: Well, ah... receipts, mostly.

Yes indeed. The UK sold both chemical weapons and obvious CWpn precursors to Iraq.

But before that's used as support for Iraq having WMD (as the USA and UK of course both do), experts agreed that such weapons were volatile and would long since have expired at the time of the invasion of Iraq by the US led coalition in March 2003. Had concern about WMD been the real motivation, then Hans Blix of the UN would have been allowed to finish his inspection. The Iraqis were co-operating after all. However, this couldn't be allowed as he would have returned a verdict of "no WMD" and the US and UK's pitiful excuse would have exploded completely.

The question of why the US has the right to possess the world's largest arsenal yet tell other people they must remain unarmed, is a separate issue, of course. But as there were no WMD (stupid term), it doesn't arise except as a means of highlighting hypocracy.

Re:Thanks, media,

[Max Littlemore]

Bush invaded because he claimed the threat was bad enough to warrant action.

Bullshit, Bullshit and Bullshit. Blix did say that the Iraqis didn't have a working nuclear program, but that they would start up again if inspections ceased. Yellow cake on scuds would do fuck all, probably a short term increase in repository problems in people who inhaled the dust and some very, very mild heavy metal poisoning. Bush invaded because of Iraqi oil and the behaviour of the US under Bush has done more harm to international peace than Saddam could ever have hoped for in his wildest dreams. Yep, we need a mechanism to deal with people like Saddam, but more importantly, we need a mechanism to deal with people like Bush.

Sure, he came up with an excuse and a lot of people bought it, but it's pretty clear that the whole invasion was armed robbery. The previous Australian defence minister, now leader of the opposition, even said so publicly before he was gagged by one of Bush's partners in crime, then Prime Minister Howard.

So many people all around the world knew at the time what it was about and yet people still maintain this line that he did it for the reasons that he stated publicly. He is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of civilians, women and children, all to supply oil for American SUVs and profits for companies he and his friends own stakes in. He is a common criminal in an uncommon position. What would a Texan get in Texas for shooting one child in an armed robbery?

On a related note, why is it okay for a country to have nuclear weapons, pursue new nuclear weapons and resist international calls for disarmament when that country is the only one in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons aggressively and has a commander in chief with no regard for international law, let alone the constitutional law of his own country? Why is that okay, but Iraq or now Iran wanting nukes is not?

Yeah, I know the knee jerk emotive response that these countries are "evil", but any honest assessment of international affairs for the last 100 years will show that there is one country that consistently invades other countries or topples governments when they don't tow the line. There is one country that consistently points the finger at anyone else for criminal or terrorist activity when it is funding or committing terrorist acts itself. I am not at all surprised that Iran wants nukes given the threats it faces from Isreal and the US.

The thing that concerns me about this nuclear fuel is that now it has moved to Canada, it could find it's way into a new generation of US weapons and now that GWB looks like getting off without being gassed, electrocuted or otherwise put down, a precedent has been set making the White House even more attractive to psychopathic criminals. I kind of wish the yellow cake had been left in Iraq.

Like comparing rust to steel

[MarkusQ]

Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons...

Why do people always feel the need to stress that yellowcake could be made into weapons, no matter how far from being a weapon it presently is? It's like saying:

Rust also can be smelted for use in cast iron lawn ornaments and, at higher levels, steel tools...

...though making a high quality steel tool from rust is significantly easier than making a weapon from yellowcake. The ubiquitous anti-nuke meme (it's radioactive, be afraid!)? Or just boilerplate like measuring energy use in average households equivalents or heavy things in adult male elephants?

-- MarkusQ

It's about time...

[stebalo]

It is gratifying to hear we've disassembled the last remnants of Iraq's non-existent WMD program.

The point was the lie itself

[MarkusQ]

why make this big deal out of the fact that it turned out to be a lie that he was trying to acquire more?

Maybe because the lie was used to trick the American people into starting a war that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, wrecked our economy, undermined our position in the world and put us in a far less secure position, killed hundreds of thousands of people, destabilized the middle east, and lined the pockets of the friends and supporters of the people who told the lie with money stolen from the US treasury on the basis of that lie?

The problem was it was a lie, crafted and used to achieve a specific dishonorable result. The fact that other claims that could have been made about superficially similar subjects were true (and were known to be true at the time) has absolutely no bearing on the situation.

--MarkusQ

Re:Troll prophylactic...

[modmans2ndcoming]

What is your point?

Bush did not make an argument about Yellowcake that Saddam had. He said he was buying more... which ... was...a... LIE.

Re:And yet...

[WindBourne]

I am not convinced of that, and that is the problem. We really do not know what obama will do. OTH, We DO KNOW that McCain has for the last decade fallen in line with the neo-cons. As such, I CAN NOT vote for him. They are the ones that have ran up monster deficits, invaded countries for no reason literally, and are so incompetent that when given the best military of the world AND the best advice from said military STILL botches it by believing that they are more intelligent.

Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles

[Etcetera]

Yeah that's right, the sanctions that where working and containing Saddam.

With all due respect, what planet are you on? Gore Vidalpia?

The sanctions were definitely *not* working, in that most of the Oil-for-Food funds were being siphoned off for Saddam's personal use while his people starved. Containing? If you mean, "wasn't invading any other countries", perhaps.... but he was about as contained as a mob boss in a medium security jail cell, already directing and planning his activities/revenge by phone for when he gets out.

The evidence for this was apparent, but became even more convincing once the invasion had occurred and we saw how much corruption there actually was in the Oil-for-Food program. Thanks France.

In addition, the "containment" was being performed at the hest of the US Military, who'd every so often have to blow up an Anti-aircraft gun that locked onto them in the No-Fly zones (where Saddam was "contained" from gassing his domestic enemies). Each and every one of those incidents was adequate reason to throw out the armistice and resume hostilities against Iraq, since they were all violations of the negotiated agreements.

The WMD program was a red herring. Despite the pre-existing resolutions that allowed the use of force against Saddam, the US (or UK) felt the need to get political cover for finding a reason to go after Saddam *now*, since the general public and random kleptocracies out there didn't understand that our defensive posture had changed after 9/11. They bet that Iraq had WMD, and so used that as the focal point. Bad call... but if they'd used the war crimes against the Kurds, no-fly incidents, or Oil-for-Food corruption as the focal points instead no one would be complaining today (for that).

...its all fruit when it comes to causing suffering.

If you're a bona-fide pacifist, fine. Otherwise, there's a moral difference between good and evil in human actions, and if you can't tell the difference then I pity you. And your students.

Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the UN continued to approve new sanctions in reaction to his blocking of inspectors, ongoing manufacturing of long-range missiles (which he had agreed to not only cease importing/making, but to destroy), etc ... that all added to the list of violations in advance his regime's demise.

None of which added up to a need to invade in 2003. (As you may recall, the US invaded over the objections of the inspectors.) Nope, we needed to gin up a bunch of lies about WMD and make up all sorts of BS to pretend that containment wasn't working.

Disengenuous? That's you. Your decision to ignore the actual facts doesn't change them. And to the extent that you spin your disregard for those facts as part of your absurd call for "war crimes" trials just shows you as the politically motivated liar that you are.

Back atcha, chief. Colin Powell did not present facts to the UN General Assembly. The US did not rely on facts to justify the war. In addition to pursuing the Iraq war with criminal incompentence at best, the US has most definitely and determinedly committed war crimes at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. And your ex post facto attempt to spin the causus belli into something legitimate, as with all the others since then, just shows you to be the politically motivated liar that you are.