Halliburton's Missing Radioactive Cylinder Found

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Halliburton's Missing Radioactive Cylinder Found

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 9, 2012 @01:42AM from the in-the-junk-drawer-after-all dept.

First time accepted submitter Tator Tot writes "A small radioactive cylinder that went missing from a Halliburton Co. truck last month was found on a Texas road late Thursday, the company said, ending a weeks-long hunt that involved local, state and federal authorities."

126 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by crazyjj · 2012-10-09 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

What I won't forgive them for is a $2 trillion+ war and tens of thousands of lives lost, all fought so they could get a juicy $7 billion no-bid contract (and about $40 billion in subsequent no-bid logistics contracts through their subsidiary KBR) from their former CEO, who had managed to sleaze his way into the vice-presidency.
I just wish that losing a little radioactive cylinder were the worst thing they had ever done.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-10-09 01:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Maybe they can embed this cylinder in the hole in Dick Cheney's carapace, where he used to have a heart.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
2. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Hatta · 2012-10-09 01:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What I won't forgive them for is a $2 trillion+ war and tens of thousands of lives lost
  Not tens, hundreds. Dick Cheney is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:01 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  You guys really need to get a clue. Halliburton made money yes. If it hadn't been them it would have been someone else. Somebody needed to provide those services, it was bid as a contract, and they won the bid. Did it have anything to do with political ties to Dick Cheney? Maybe. But even so, that only matters if there would have been a better company suited to provide those services at a lower cost to the taxpayer. I'm sure if that would have been the case someone would have been all over it by now. As for who's fault it is we went to war in Iraq? I'd lay that blame squarely at the feet of Sadam Husein. For years he thumbed his nose at the UN, flaunted his disregard for negotiated agreements, was happy to take our aid and give us the finger all the while conspiring to destroy us. He had chemical weapons, he was certainly sympathetic towards al queda, and he committed genocide against his own people. If you remember all of the bluster leading up to that war he was fairly bold making statements about using wmds against anyone who attacked Iraq. It wasn't just our secret service that thought he had them, it was corroberated by intelligence agencies from six other countries including the UK, and Germany. No one doubted that he had them, but the UN wanted to continue to negotiate, and we'd tried and failed to negotiate for 12 years. I think Bush absolutely and without question did the right thing. If Halliburton made a little money in the process, well, good for them.
4. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-10-09 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  You have that a bit sideways. Cheney was a warhawk and big elephant politician that later became the CEO of Halliburton, and later still became VP. It is misleading to leave out the other bit.
  
  There might have been some dirty dealings with Halliburton, but the Iraq War was far from a corporate conspiracy.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
5. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Well said.
6. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by sycodon · 2012-10-09 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  You just broke the Tin Foil Hat meter.
  Have you been handling radioactive cylinders?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
7. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by slackware+3.6 · 2012-10-09 02:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did they find those WMD's yet?
8. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:11 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Fuck off, you don't know shit.
  You start by saying "you guys really need to get a clue", and then proceed to waffle on without a shred of a clue.
  Saddam? Plotting to destroy the US? What a joke. And by the way, he committed genocide against his own people when he used chemical weapons against them and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, while he was dictator backed and supported by the USA, who were the ones who encouraged him to start the war. No doubt they knew full well about his chemical weapons plans.
9. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by uradu · 2012-10-09 02:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Umm, where do you think it came from--surely not the back of a truck?! That's the power cell for his animatronics!
10. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-10-09 02:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Mr. Cheney's fuel cask is rated for 1 decade of operation under normal circumstances, and does not require replacement at the present time.
  Please consult an executive maintenance technician at your nearest undisclosed location for further information regarding cask replacement schedules, procedures, and disposal regulations.
11. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-10-09 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O
  Anything else?
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
12. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Gizzmonic · 2012-10-09 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  THIS IS WHAT NEOCONS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
  Yes, the US had to attack Iraq because a neutered dictator who couldn't even fly over his own country without getting blown out of the sky was an imminent threat to the most powerful nation in history. It was a matter of national security, dammit!
  Certainly not a wasteful imperialistic adventure that bankrupted the country, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and left us in worse standing than ever in the Middle East.
  
  --
  (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
13. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Hatta · 2012-10-09 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Somebody needed to provide those services
  No, nobody needed to provide those services. We had no need to invade iraq, and without Dick Cheney's advocacy we would not have. No war, no need for services.
  As for who's fault it is we went to war in Iraq? I'd lay that blame squarely at the feet of Sadam Husein. For years he thumbed his nose at the UN
  For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.
  If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
14. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Lumpy · 2012-10-09 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you grandson Cheney...
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
15. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by X0563511 · 2012-10-09 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  There might have been some dirty dealings with Halliburton, but the Iraq War was far from a corporate conspiracy.
  ... after all, it's not a conspiracy if it's done out in the open.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
16. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by jd2112 · 2012-10-09 02:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Did they find those WMD's yet?
  Yes, but they could never make the place where they filed down "Made in USA" look inconspicuous.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
17. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Because the rest of the world waits anxiously every day to hear your musings and judgements. Your stoner friends over at abovetopsecret need you to help them look for ruins in the Curiosity rover pics, hurry up, they're waiting...
18. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually no, neocons don't really believe that. What they believe is that it will make a good story that enough terrified and uneducated nincompoops will believe, that they will be able to get enough public support to send thousands of your sons over to the other side of the world to kill and die, to boost the stock value of military and oil companies.
  This poor fellow is just one of those.
19. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by dkleinsc · 2012-10-09 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
  Also, we don't need to factor in the war crime of aggression. The case that he's a war criminal is very easy to make:
  1. Waterboarding was defined as a crime against humanity by the Allied tribunal in 1945.
  2. Ordering a war crime is a war crime.
  3. Dick Cheney announced on national television that he led a committee that ordered waterboarding.
  Defending Dick Cheney is the moral equivalent of defending Slobodan Milosevic.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
20. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by M.+Baranczak · 2012-10-09 02:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  They were also involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If we find out that Halliburton is responsible for the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull, for the Smolensk plane crash and for cancelling Farscape, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
21. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by crazyjj · 2012-10-09 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because the rest of the world waits anxiously every day to hear your musings and judgements.
  And to respond to them.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
22. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Ironchew · 2012-10-09 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
  Faroe Islands...? Is there a conspiracy between them and Halliburton I'm not in on? I can't keep up with the mentally ill and their wacky conspiracy theories these days.
23. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Petron · 2012-10-09 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.
  If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
  Keep in mind the top 3 intel agencies in the world all said he had WMDs and was ready to use them. Ends up he was wrong. The US Intel agencies started to share info better to detect errors like this. The Intel agent from British Intelligence committed suicide over the debacle. Unsure what the Russian Intel agency did to change.
  Now I saw a story (years ago), that theorized that Saddam faked the intel himself. He was worried about Iran taking advantage of his limited military (due to UN policies) and was bluffing on having WMD's to keep Iran from invading. This is why he didn't want to cooperate with UN inspection teams, wanting them to wait before inspections... not because he had WMD's, but he could keep his bluff.
  Also as for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis... Saddam killed a million+ before we got involved. How many more would he kill if we didn't take him out?
  
  --
  if (it != oneThing) it = another;
24. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by tnk1 · 2012-10-09 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  Precisely, why was a war needed to boost the stock of oil companies? I've never understood why people think that other than "well the Middle East has oil, and we like oil, so we automatically must fight all wars over oil."
  The last thing an oil company wants is for you to start a war where the oil is. They have better ways of getting it. If they wanted Iraqi oil, all they needed to do was push for sanctions to be lifted and Saddam would have been pleased to sell them as much as they wanted.
  As for the WMDs, Iraq did have them at one point and Saddam did his best to make everyone believe he had them, until he realized that it was a really bad idea.
  The real reason the neocons wanted Saddam gone was that the no fly zone was expensive, and getting nowhere other than propping up a Kurdish state that Turkey wasn't all that happy about to begin with. Further, countries like France were trying to remove sanctions. We fought the Second Gulf War because we didn't finish the First Gulf War. It was certainly our prerogative to either topple Saddam, or occupy Iraq, or alternately, sign a peace treaty with him and leave him to his own devices. Instead, we did this half-assed thing where we constantly flew air missions violating Iraq's sovereignty for a mission we had no expectation of ever ending at that level of engagement. In short, we were heading towards either giving up, fighting a war, or dealing with an expensive, low intensity air conflict for decades. The WMD situation was important only because it made the choice of completely disengaging or maintaining the existing mission a much less palatable one. It meant that the US did not feel that it could leave Saddam in place when it came time to get out.
25. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by shugah · 2012-10-09 03:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  WMDs - let's set the record straight on intelligence.
  
  For months preceding the war, there was real intelligence from real human assets on the ground; UNMOVIC and IAEA agents who repeatedly visited every suspected site and at the US behest and based on US intelligence visited countless other sites and revisited previous sites and found NO EVIDENCE of current, active WMD programs or materials. But this "boots on the ground" evidence was dismissed and ignored because it came from European "Surrender Monkeys" and UN/NGO bureaucrats. The only evidence of WMD programs came from Dick Cheney's special intel unit that didn't have ANY new data. All they did was to re-analyse and re-interpret evidence that the Pentagon and CIA had already analysed. Cheney's group prioritized evidence from unreliable sources such as exiled Kurdish nationalists and downgraded the UNMOVIC and IAEA reports. As far as corroboration from 6 different countries, they didn't corroborate anything; they supported the US analysis based on the reputations of the US intelligence community with assurances of "trust me, there's more". Foreign intelligence agencies were not given access to the raw data, only staged, re-analysed marketing collateral from the Dick Cheney White House. This is the group that presented Winnebegos of Mass Destruction and aluminum tubes as hard evidence. Most of it was not more reliable or threatening than Colin Powell's little bag of corn starch he waved around at the UNSC meeting. This was just window dressing a war served up for Shepard Smith to cheer lead for Fox News.
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
26. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by patriciacurtis · 2012-10-09 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
  agreed, Can you add Tony Blair to the list of war criminals
  
  --
  http://luckyredfish.com
27. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Hatta · 2012-10-09 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The top three intel agencies told their leaders what they wanted to hear. They were clever enough to know that if they didn't they would be circumvented or ignored. If the Bush administration had honestly wanted to determine if there were WMDs, they would have given Hans Blix a few months to do his job. There was no urgency except in the fevered imaginations of neocons.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
28. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Viol8 · 2012-10-09 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Tony Blair was just a fawning puppy who'd do anything to get himself on the world stage. The man isn't nearly as smart as his publicity would like us to believe but nonetheless , he still dragged the UK into yet another idiotic american adventure in the middle east for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than his arrogance, hubris and an ego the size of Iraq that needs to constantly be fed.
29. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 03:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Maybe they can embed this cylinder in the hole in Dick Cheney's carapace, where he used to have a heart.
  Dude, no! That'd make Dick Cheney just one step closer to being Iron Man! What is WRONG with you?
30. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by dgatwood · 2012-10-09 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe they can embed this cylinder in the hole in Dick Cheney's carapace, where he used to have a heart.
  Wrong hole.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
31. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Gizzmonic · 2012-10-09 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  The real reason the neocons wanted Saddam gone was that the no fly zone was expensive
  Yup, so expensive compared to fighting a protracted 'police action' on the ground for decades! Those neocons, they're nothing if not thrifty. They also seem to have a real penchant for strengthening Iran. Heckuva job!
  
  --
  (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
32. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by deimtee · 2012-10-09 03:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They don't particulaly want to get the oil from the M.E. The war drives up the price of oil.
  Do you think that when oil jumps from $40/barrel to $120/barrel, the cost of production in unrelated oilfields magically triples? Or is it more likely that they just make a sweet extra $80/barrel?
  When you ask "cui bono?" sometimes you have to think a little deeper.
  
  --
  I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
33. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by crazyjj · 2012-10-09 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  The last thing an oil company wants is for you to start a war where the oil is. They have better ways of getting it. If they wanted Iraqi oil, all they needed to do was push for sanctions to be lifted and Saddam would have been pleased to sell them as much as they wanted.
  It wasn't the oil they were after, it was the oil *development* contracts. Iraq had an incredibly decrepit infrastructure in their oil industry going into the war, and there was billions to be made in being the company to upgrade that. But thanks to the sanctions against Husein, U.S. companies like Halliburton couldn't get in on that phat cash. Russian oil companies, meanwhile, didn't have to deal with those sanctions. Halliburton's assumption was that Hussein would be overthrown, the sanctions lifted, the money would fall like rain with oil development contracts, and everything would be hunky dory. Of course, it didn't work out that way, so they ended up making a fortune off the war logistics contracts instead. They're nothing if not quick to adapt.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
34. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Where would you shits be without stupid conspiracy theories?
35. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by jythie · 2012-10-09 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  That is the general problem with 'no bid contracts', no one else was given the chance to do it and fees were set by the 'winner'.
36. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  There's a better site selection, one that could provide radiotherapy targetting the anomalous congenitally defective nervous connection between Cheney's sigmoid colon and his visual cortex. If he's lucky, Dick could provide the proving grounds necessary to establish that such a defect accounts for the twisted and shitty outlook on life characteristic of neo-conservatives who believed that waging war in Iraq was an opportunity for the U.S. to re-engineer the geopolitical morass created there through the misguided pursuit of wealth without care, concern or conscience.
  Thanks for the memories, Dick!
37. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-09 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that Clinton and Obama both give Halliburton no-bid contracts right? In fact, Halliburton even lost a bid once, but Clinton gave them the contract anyways. I don't see any indication at all that they were treated any differently under Dubya than anybody else.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
38. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by riverat1 · 2012-10-09 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that Saddam Hussein's Sunni government was not friendly with Iran's Shia government Now there is a Shia government in Iraq which frees up Iran to pay more attention to other things like Israel.
39. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by argStyopa · 2012-10-09 05:52 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Only on DailyKOS or slashdot would this be seen as "Insightful" and not flamebait/troll.
  Apparently Dick Cheney has the Emperor-like ability to control the minds of his political opponents in different places in space AND TIME (since you'll notice many of these comments predate his arrival as the Liberal's favorite Shylock in 2000)?:
  "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 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 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 Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
  Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
  "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
  "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
  Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
  "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
  Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
  Dec, 5, 2001.
  "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
  Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
  "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
  "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
  "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
  Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
  "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
  "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if neces
  
  --
  -Styopa
40. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Keep in mind the top 3 intel agencies in the world all said he had WMDs
  The top intel agency said he had WMDs, the two runner ups said "well, if the top agency says so..."
41. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by dkleinsc · 2012-10-09 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  The only evidence of WMD programs came from Dick Cheney's special intel unit that didn't have ANY new data.
  That's not entirely true: There were somewhat new completely unsupported assertions from a guy named Ahmed Chalabi who probably thought that he was convincing the US to remove Saddam Hussein and put Chalabi in charge.
  Also worthy of mention: Colin Powell, when given the intelligence he was initially supposed to present at the UN, reportedly responded with something like "This is bullshit" (and Powell gives the impression of being someone who doesn't normally use that kind of language). The silly stuff about mobile chemical weapons labs and the like was the closest thing that the Bush administration had to hard evidence, and it was all laughably wrong. So wrong that all permanent UNSC members knew it was bogus. An entirely reasonable view of that is that the UNSC was basically a stage prop for a propaganda aimed at the US public.
  As far as the geopolitical implications go, the different reactions to Iraq and North Korea made things quite clear: If you don't have WMDs, but you annoy the current US administration, the US will claim you have them and take you out. If you do have WMDs, you can annoy the US all you like and they won't attack you. Among other effects, this means that Iran trying to get a nuke is hardly the act of a madman, but the act of a government trying to protect its territory and people.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
42. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Why conduct a review of Iran options now?
  Partly because of the American experience in Iraq. The U.S. military action there was not, as many suggest, either a war of choice or a war of preemption. It was, rather, a war of last resort. After 12 years of diplomacy, 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, increasingly targeted economic sanctions, multiple international inspection efforts, no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq, the selective use of U.S. military force in 1998, and Saddam Hussein's rejection of a final opportunity to leave Iraq and avoid war, the United States and the international community were out of options. The choice was either to capitulate to Saddam Hussein's defiance of the demands of the international community or to make good on the "serious consequences" promised by the United Nations for such defiance. The United States and its international partners on Iraq chose the latter course.
  (Source)
  Yeah, it was all just Cheney, and all about making some coin for Halliburton. The war there was in no way the final option resulting from years of failed sanctions, failed diplomacy, and ineffective UN inspections & oversight.
  You really do sound like a fucking idiot when you reduce very complex issues to a bumper sticker slogan. You should probably try not to do that, unless you are setting out to deliberately make yourself sound like a fucking idiot.
  But since this is Slashdot, and I know how much the mods hate factual observation that clashes with their naive pacifist world view, I'll be modded as a troll. As we all know, "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED" is totally insightful and informative, but an actual factual assessment of the reasons for the war in Iraq is clearly trolling.
  Jesus, the retards on this fucking site make me weep with pity.
43. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Let's not forget also the bullshit report of yellow cake uranium that tracks back to his office, as well as the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame. It still makes no sense to me that Cheney was somehow able to avoid any responsibility for these events.
44. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Much of the same tale can be said about North Korea and their nuclear bomb development program. According to experts and boots on the ground, they had absolutely no weapons program. Furthermore, if such a program existed, it was only in the conceptual planning stage. This was in spite of leaks indicating they not only had an active program, but that it was rather far along. Less than a year later, North Korea set off their first nuclear weapon. Oppps.
  People act as if intelligence is 100% reliable or perfect. The FACTs of the matter is, boots on the ground can be tricked. They can be wrong. They can be biased. The FACT of the matter is, Saddam was playing tricks with the inspectors which most definitely communicated he was hidding things. The FACTs are, his stupidity directly fed into the Bush Administration's desire to go to war with Iraq. So please stop with the revisionist of history implying its impossible to believe there were no WMDs.
  So what did we learn? Much of your rant is irrelevant and invalidated by reality.
45. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely, why was a war needed to boost the stock of oil companies?
  Their problem was the petrodollar. When Saddam and Khadaffi wanted to trade oil in Euro instead of declining, debt-ridden dollar (puke), they signed their death warrants. That was because the otherwise worthless currency reaquires backing in a scarce resource of high demand. Now Khamenei (yes, Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead with no real influence) wants to develop Iran's own oil market, so guess what has already been happening (Iran wants WMDs, yeah sure).
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
46. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  He was "just following orders." By the way, add every USAn, British, French, German, Polish, Spanish (and whoever I forgot to list that helped the USA-sponsored terrorist assault) troop to the list of war criminals.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
47. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Much of the same tale can be said about North Korea and their nuclear bomb development program. According to experts and boots on the ground, they had absolutely no weapons program.
  Fucking citation. NOW!
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
48. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  The war there was in no way the final option resulting from years of failed sanctions, failed diplomacy, and ineffective UN inspections & oversight.
  Yes, all the failures led to the war. But they failed - ON PURPOSE.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
49. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJPwM8nehkQ
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
50. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Oh! And one more thing. Do you know who has WMDs? The US of A. Also, it's the only country who used WMDs against another. Twice. On civilians. Good night.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
51. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, they failed, on purpose, because Saddam Hussein refused to comply with any of the conditions under which he negotiated the original ceasefire. He deliberately and repeatedly disregarded his end of the obligations, and so the "serious consequences" called for by the numerous UN resolutions were finally put into action.
  The renewal of hostilities in Iraq was inevitable, because the Iraqi government refused repeatedly and consistently to comply with its obligations under the ceasefire agreement. It was simply a matter of when, and I think it's pretty hard to argue that 12 years of diplomacy and 17 sanctions show an "unwillingness to negotiate" on the part of the UN, or any of the US administrations involved. (Remember, our involvement in Iraq started long before Dubya).
  I know you want to make this out to be Cheney waking up one day and deciding he wanted to kill some Iraqis, but any clear-eyed assessment of the ACTUAL sequence of ACTUAL events shows that it is MUCH more complex than that, and in fact, had very little to do with Cheney or Halliburton, and much more to do with Saddam Hussein's continual refusal to cooperate with the UN inspection agencies who, for 12 years, tried to oversee and verify the dismantling of his WMD capabilities.
52. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by naudiac · 2012-10-09 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  Would that then make him "Iron Dick"...?
53. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by sjames · 2012-10-09 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Those intel agencies were told to get evidence of WMDS and not come back until they did. Not surprisingly, they managed to find what they were ordered to find. Meanwhile, the actual U.N. inspectors said he had none, so they were pulled out and told to shut up. Meanwhile, he had no credible ability to actually deliver those WMDs to any U.S. target. Not even if he strapped 5 scuds together and fueled them with wishful thinking.
  If you want to find the others who actually believe a word of the excuses, you'll find them in the pumpkin patch this Halloween waiting for the Great Pumpkin (he's sure to come THIS year!).
54. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Just do a bit more reading about it, rather than make up some outlandish claim that obviously does not hold up to basic reasoning.
  Take a look at Exxon's revenue graph for example
  http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=my&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=
  Note how right around 2003, its revenue goes into a massive and unprecedented acceleration, ending up more than doubling revenue in about 5 years. Amazing coincidence.
55. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by ace37 · 2012-10-09 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  THAT'S who canceled Firefly!
56. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. The Iraqi chemical weapons factories were found. Surprisingly, it wasn't pixie dust that was used to kill thousands of Kurds.
57. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by dkleinsc · 2012-10-09 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  It still makes no sense to me that Cheney was somehow able to avoid any responsibility for these events.
  It makes perfect sense to me: Obama is trying to protect himself from being prosecuted for his crimes by not prosecuting Cheney (and Bush) for their crimes.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
58. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-10-09 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  And because of that the noble USAns made up the WMD charge, went on with "Operation Shock and Awe" or whachumacallit, destroyed the country's already declining (due to the sanctions, which only hurt the civilians) economy and pillaged its museums. Yes, all that you said really holds water.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
59. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by tnk1 · 2012-10-10 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't say the plan worked as well as they would like, and I am not defending the invasion, but I find the talk about "war for oil" discussions to ignore the fact that the war didn't help out the oil companies at all, nor would any sane businessman expect that a war would help. Saddam was not the reason we weren't getting oil from Iraq, the sanctions were. If the Republicans wanted to cave into their presumed oil company masters, they'd just shitcan the sanctions. I think the war for oil thesis is a serious problem because it's sound-byte friendly nature very effectively deflects attention away from what actually happened. I'd have been happier if we'd fought for oil, because then at least, that's a valid strategic reason for fighting a war. Instead, we fought a war based on idealism, which is much, much worse.
  And on the face of it, I can see how they might have thought it could work. The war against Saddam Hussein went very, very well. He was easily toppled, just as expected. The problem was, the neocons also thought that everyone would have been pleased to set up a nice democratic state, after thanking the US for their freedom, and we'd ship out next year. There was no plan for what happened when that perfect scenario didn't happen. The best case scenario might have actually happened in 1991 before we threw the resistance to the dogs and let Saddam shut them down, but in 2003, you could completely forget about it.
  As for Iran, you may look at this as strengthening Iran, but eventually the Saddam Hussein regime (or that of his son) was going to fall. The chaos that would ensue in Iraq would serve Iran more than what we gave them. Sure, there is chaos, but there were also tens of thousands of US troops on the ground. Iraq may well not be a great friend to the US after this occupation, but Iran was also not allowed to run free like they would have if they had sponsored the coming revolution. We assume that what happened was the worst possible outcome, but it was definitely not. The US invasion may not have achieved complete success, but it did assure an independent Iraq, which would not necessarily have happened if things had been allowed to follow their course.
60. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by mr100percent · 2012-10-10 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The Downing Street Memo proves he knew the illegality of his actions and did it anyway.
61. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by tnk1 · 2012-10-10 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Then think a little deeper on what you are suggesting. Oil companies don't authorize wars, politicians do. Yes, oil companies can exert influence, but most of that influence is in the way of money used to win campaigns.
  However, if you raise the price of oil, you raise the price of gas at the pump. That's pure suicide for a politician, and they know that. Politicians still have to get votes, although money is extremely useful, it avails you nothing if you trash the economy. Who profits? Certainly not the politicians. The Republicans lost in 2008 in great measure because the economy tanked and oil prices were rising.
  No politician in their right mind would go along with the plan you suggest because instead of ensuring their continued career, it would show a very good chance of ending it, even with all the money that they might get in contributions. If their only reason for going to war was to increase the earnings of oil companies, it would come at the cost of their own positions. That just doesn't make much sense.
62. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by tnk1 · 2012-10-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then why didn't they use their influence with the US government to drop the sanctions? You'd think that would be about ten times easier to achieve than getting politicians to fight a war. No one wanted the sanctions any more anyway. All sorts of governments like France and others were already applying pressure to have them dropped. The US could have easily cut a diplomatic deal to get Halliburton it's contracts without getting one US soldier killed.
  This is why I shake my head at the whole "war for oil" theme. Why do you fight wars for something that you don't need to fight a war to achieve? Our sanctions were self-inflicted, we didn't need a war to remove them. At worst, we just needed to cut a backroom face-saving deal. You know, like the one we cut with Libya to normalize relations with them, which we then just as quickly turned around and ignored when they threw Qaddafi out? Tell Saddam to give us the contracts and lay off the Kurds a little and he's back in business. Cynical, yes, but it would have easily flown under the radar by 2003.
  Now, I am not suggesting that Halliburton did not make a hefty profit on this deal. They sure did, but I think they were in it as opportunists, not motivators. And if you miss that, you miss the real threat... idealism that ignored common sense started this war. You can see it in every facet of this war, from the rhetoric down to the failure to have a plan for us not being welcomed as the new best friend of the Iraqi people.
63. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by tnk1 · 2012-10-10 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Correlation does not imply causation.
  You're pointing to a graph and saying, "since Exxon made a profit, they must have started the war". You might as well point to the economic success of the US in the later half of the 20th Century as being proof that the US maneuvered Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. However, both of those events would likely have happened for their own reasons even without a war.
  Anything happening in the Middle East would have driven the profit chart up, because their profits are due to their product being worth more. It also coincides with a growing demand in China for oil, which means that oil is harder to come by for the West, thus making the price of oil increase all by itself. You could also make more money by delivering more oil, instead of less, which is definitely something a company like Halliburton (which is where Cheney actually worked) would have been interested in as they are an oil services company, not an oil company.
  And again, having Exxon make more money doesn't explain why politicians would go along with a price increase that would trash the whole economy, drastically decreasing their job security. And don't tell me that even the dumbest of politicians didn't know that a war would drive up the price of oil. No politician would have allowed this war if they expected these results. Republican leaders tend to support oil companies for things that make more oil available, like drilling ANWR, because it also helps them by keeping the price of gas down. There is no profit for Republicans in increasing the price of oil.
64. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-10 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, listing a bunch of "bad things that happened as a result of the invasion" doesn't really support your argument that "Dick Cheney was the evil mastermind who bears the sole responsibility for it, and he did it just to make soem money for his buddies! RAHHH SCARY NOISES!"
  You're so precious... never change.
65. Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake by obscuro · 2012-10-10 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't bid! It was a No-Bid contract negotiated behind closed doors. The only other contractor involved was Bechtel and they weren't bidding. In fact, nobody to date has disclosed what their involvement in the process was. The Iraq war took our focus off Tora Bora where we had Al Queda and Bin Laden pinned down. Saddam was an asshole but that doesn't change the fact that we went into Iraq for all the wrong reasons and at exactly the wrong time.
  
  --
  Every rule has more than one consequence.
and nothing of value was found? by Jonah+Hex · 2012-10-09 01:46 · Score: 0

this moment of snark brought to you by - HEX

--
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
1. Re:and nothing of value was found? by Errol+backfiring · 2012-10-09 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  +++ Cannot load module humor +++ +++ Insert discworld in drive A: +++
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Weeks long hunt? by slackware+3.6 · 2012-10-09 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

And how much are they going to be billed for the cost of law enforcment to find their cylinder. Or to they just get a freebie?
1. Re:Weeks long hunt? by TheSpoom · 2012-10-09 01:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  C'mon, it's Halliburton. They're charging law enforcement for the privilege of helping them.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
2. Re:Weeks long hunt? by crazyjj · 2012-10-09 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Ha, Halliburton will probably get a fat government contract to clean it up.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
probably a fake by slashmydots · 2012-10-09 01:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

Considering how bad it makes them look, I think they made another one, planted it on the road, and pretended to find it. Usually things like radioactive cylinders are secured enough to not go flying off a truck.
1. Re:probably a fake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  [Insert image of Senator Vreenak here.]
2. Re:probably a fake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  wow
  I think that tin-foil hat is cutting off the circulation to your brain.
3. Re:probably a fake by slashmydots · 2012-10-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, because a huge company has NEVER done anything similar to that ever!
4. Re:probably a fake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  > "Oh yeah, because a huge company has NEVER done anything similar to that ever!"
  [citation needed]
5. Re:probably a fake by Waccoon · 2012-10-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Usually things like radioactive cylinders are secured enough to not go flying off a truck.
  Yeah, and nuclear reactors are maintained well enough so they don't have football-sized holes in their reactor vessels.
  Not that I have zero faith in modern management, but I won't rule out any level of human stupidity these days.
6. Re:probably a fake by slashmydots · 2012-10-09 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  The movie Changeling (based on a true story)
7. Re:probably a fake by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-11 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  > "Oh yeah, because a huge company has NEVER done anything similar to that ever!"
  [citation needed]
  [identity needed to honor request]
Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support by sometext · 2012-10-09 01:58 · Score: 0

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission report stated that the tube was a "category 3" radioactive device, a class that includes some pacemakers.
When I read "Haliburton" I knew Dick Cheney had something to do with this!
1. Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support by bickerdyke · 2012-10-09 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Including pacemakers makes that category sound less dangerous than it may actually be. These things contain plutonium....
  http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/miscellaneous/pacemaker.htm
  
  --
  bickerdyke
2. Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support by Fwipp · 2012-10-09 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  So do cigarettes. And while cigarettes aren't exactly healthy, I don't think anyone's worried about carrying them in their shirt pocket.
3. Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support by bickerdyke · 2012-10-09 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  First of all: another reason to stop smoking.
  And then I doubt that they contain enough radioactive isotopes for the decay heat is measureable at all, let alone useable to power a device.
  i didn't want to sound too alarmistic by stating that those pacemakers contain lots of plutonium, but if you compare it to cigarettes, it should be ok to say, that those pacemakers contain HUGE amounts of Pu.
  As an intresting fact. The radioactivity contained in one cigarette was used as a comparision value for the amount of radiation that is allowed to escape from an nuclear power plants air vents per year. OTOH, that was stated by that guy who led the tour through that plant, so I wouldn't rule out that his "cigarette"-unit refers to one of these: http://www.nsma.org.au/records.htm
  
  --
  bickerdyke
4. Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support by sjames · 2012-10-09 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the medical bills can be sent to the U.S. government. The only way tobacco could contain plutonium is from nuclear testing, it isn't otherwise found in nature.
  The pacemakers with plutonium have been phased out, though a few people still have them (I think).
Doh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 01:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Now every time I see the opening credits to the Simpsons when Homer's driving home and finds a misplaced glowing radioactive rod stuck to his back and throws it out the window I'll think of Halliburton.
1. Re:Doh by GameboyRMH · 2012-10-09 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if some punk kid on a skateboard found this cylinder...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:Doh by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-11 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Now every time I see the opening credits to the Simpsons when Homer's driving home and finds a misplaced glowing radioactive rod stuck to his back and throws it out the window I'll think of Halliburton.
  If you hadn't said that, I wouldn't have thought Halliburton every time from now on. Thanks. Thanks. A. Lot. :)
3. Re:Doh by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-11 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if some punk kid on a skateboard found this cylinder...
  One, did, yes. Later that afternoon, a 24-year-old infant used it as a pacifier.
3 weeks? by davidwr · 2012-10-09 02:00 · Score: 2

What's that in half-lives?
Related: What's the half-life of your job when you lose nuclear material like this?

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wow, my shit-hole home town actually mentioned. by pecosdave · 2012-10-09 02:02 · Score: 0

Nice place to not live anymore.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
1. Re:Wow, my shit-hole home town actually mentioned. by Gunnut1124 · 2012-10-09 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I lived in Monahans for a while, and I could say the same thing about that place...
  
  --
  America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
2. Re:Wow, my shit-hole home town actually mentioned. by pecosdave · 2012-10-09 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Still, at least slightly better than Pecos. Still have family in both.
  
  --
  The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Chief Suspect by puddingebola · 2012-10-09 02:03 · Score: 2

I suspect Jerry Jones. He probably heard he could use it to power the new big screen TV in Cowboys stadium. Radiation exposure explains the offense's play in last Monday night's game with the Bears.
Has anyone found Halliburton's/Cheney's Soul Yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:05 · Score: 0

Assumed to also be active. Reportedly traveling around in a black suitcase that glows when opened.
If you have any information pertaining to this, please contact the administration.
Good news, bad news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny

[Cave Johnson voice]
The good news is, we found the radioactive cylinder, and you're not being fired for losing it. The bad news is, you're moving to Reeves County, Texas, and your new job is exterminating giant, glowing insects.
[/Cave Johnson voice]
One thing to love about slashdot... by doug141 · 2012-10-09 02:33 · Score: 1

you get the followup story, too.
Texas, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:44 · Score: 1

I was expecting it to show up in satellite footage captured over Iran ... you know, in case the UN needs proof.
It was probably under the sofa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 02:51 · Score: 0

Because *someone* forgot to put it away after they were playing with it...
You've always had him by fox171171 · 2012-10-09 03:04 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6EH5YRONc
are they gonna pay for it? by AnAlchemist · 2012-10-09 03:18 · Score: 2

And I bet they're not gonna pay a penny of the extra costs to the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. We're gonna pay for it, via taxes.
Mod Parent Up! by Hatta · 2012-10-09 03:32 · Score: 1

Even at the time, a clear headed look at the intelligence told you everything you needed to know. The people who were actually in Iraq, e.g., Hans Blix found no evidence of any ongoing WMD project. The only so called evidence came from Cheney's personal, in house, Office of Special plans, which was always nothing more than a markting agency for the war.
It was clear as day in 2003, and it's clear as day now. The entire argument for the war in Iraq was fraudulent.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Mod Parent Up! by Hatta · 2012-10-09 09:49 · Score: 2
  
  Hans Blix found nothing because there was nothing to find. If Bush & Co wanted proof, they could have given Blix the few months he asked for. Besides, if you're going to use flaunting UN agreements as a justification for war, you should probably let the guy from the UN do his fucking job first.
  To answer your question though, how long should we put up with a country flaunting UN resolutions before we wage war with them? For as long as it takes for the UN to agree to take action. If you want to use the UN as an excuse, you have to take it through UN channels. Whether Iraq follows UN agreements is not our business, it's the Security Council's business. If you're going to proceed unilaterally, it's dishonest to use the UN as justification for your aggression.
  And there's no mythology that's been built up. All of this was perfectly clear to anyone who paid attention in 2003.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:Mod Parent Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  You should probably go read up on Resolution 1441. It very clearly puts the burden on Iraq to prove that it is cooperating with the disarmament program laid out.
  Then actually go read Blix's & el-Baradei's statements, which were far more hedged than you're implying here. Blix had this to say in February of 2003:
  
  What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:
  The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
  It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.
  In other words, he says that Iraq has not complied with the terms of 1441, but he "hopes" they will continue moving in the direction of compliance and give the information required. This is after 12 years of diplomatic effort and more than a dozen other resolutions had been passed, calling for Iraq to disarm, account for its stockpiles, and allow inspections, and in the light of UN Resolution 1441 calling for "serious consequences" if Iraq does not comply immediately and fully. 1441 was, essentially, Charlie Brown telling Lucy, "Okay, I'll try to kick that football one last time, since you promised not to pull it out of the way. Here goes!" And, predictably, hijinks ensued - suddenly Iraq couldn't find documents, or information, or allow inspections on schedule; suddenly some new weapons cropped up that were undeclared; suddenly they tried attaching conditions to the inspections; In other words, they tried to do the same damn thing they'd done for the prior 12 years.
  As for this:
  
  For as long as it takes for the UN to agree to take action. If you want to use the UN as an excuse, you have to take it through UN channels.
  Right, and with China, Russia, and France having lucrative oil contracts in Iraq under the OFF program, of course they weren't eager to disrupt the flow of those funds. Hussein played a game of chicken, and relied on UNSC gridlock to allow him to continue playing. He lost. This argument that we should have waited until there was a full consensus is specious, and you know it - there never would have BEEN a full consensus, because UNSC members publicly announced they did not support military intervention, and never would support military intervention (see Dominique de Villepin's comments), and would automatically veto anything that set a deadline for compliance.
  Again: your attempt to reduce the 2003 invasion to a bumper sticker slogan blaming Cheney makes you look like a retard. Unless that's your aim, you should probably stop it, and go read up on the actual facts surrounding the case, not the DKos/Truther/Slashdot echo chamber version of "facts" you seem so enamored of.
3. Re:Mod Parent Up! by sjames · 2012-10-09 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  In a just world, the bill would go directly to Bush and Cheney as an odious debt.
4. Re:Mod Parent Up! by Hatta · 2012-10-09 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  In other words, he says that Iraq has not complied with the terms of 1441
  Surely he didn't. But how does it follow that the appropriate response is a unilateral military occupation? There was still no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was there any legitimate reason to believe there was.
  Right, and with China, Russia, and France having lucrative oil contracts in Iraq under the OFF program, of course they weren't eager to disrupt the flow of those funds
  And? So? It's the UN's choice whether to enforce the UN's resolutions. You can't say on one hand "Iraq has to abide by UN resolutions" and on the other hand say "the UN doesn't matter". If the UN isn't a legitimate governing body, come up with some non UN based justifications for the war. If the UN is a legitimate governing body, then let them govern. You can't have it both ways.
  Unless that's your aim, you should probably stop it, and go read up on the actual facts surrounding the case
  What facts are in dispute? You've presented none. I got my news from the same place everyone else did in 2003, cable news.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
5. Re:Mod Parent Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  I see - so when France says, unilaterally, that they will not ever, under any circumstance, authorize a resolution that calls for military intervention - that's not unilaterally disregarding their UN allies. But when the US and the UK and Australia and Poland and Spain and a host of other countries say, "Fine, if you won't approve it, we'll enact the "serious consequences" called for in 1441," they're double plus evil ungood unilateralists. Have I got that right?
  Because you seem to be saying that any action that the US takes that doesn't have 100% support by the UNSC is evil, but when France publicly says "yeah, we've got some good business going with Iraq under OFF, so fuck off, we won't ever authorize military action," they're just selflessly benevolent, and really care about world peace and stuff. France made it clear that they would make it impossible for the UN to govern - the UN had already passed 16 resolutions, and was already well on its way towards turning itself into a joke with the OFF scandals and the fact that it had allowed Hussein to disregard its sanctions and rules for 12 years so far.
  Also, learn to speak bureaucrat. If you can't read Blix's statement, quoted above, and understand that he's saying, "Iraq is constantly coming up a day late and a dollar short on every obligation under this resolution, which calls for immediate and unconditional compliance (after 12 years of calling for 'immediate' and 'unconditional' compliance," then you're simply not even paying attention.
  
  What facts are in dispute? You've presented none. I got my news from the same place everyone else did in 2003, cable news.
  The justification for and cause of the war are very much in dispute, if you want to maintain that it was trumped up bullshit that Dick Cheney thought up while taking his morning grumpy one fine autumn Sunday. As I said, in seeking to reduce a complex issue to a "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED" bumper sticker slogan, you make yourself sound like a retard. I can only presume that's not your aim, but you seem intent on trying to defend that position.
Re:Has anyone found Halliburton's/Cheney's Soul Ye by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 03:36 · Score: 0

Say what again motherfucker! I dare you!
No doubt ... by PPH · 2012-10-09 04:06 · Score: 1

... along the road from the plant to Springfield.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Halliburton acicidentally did good for once? by Dusty101 · 2012-10-09 04:33 · Score: 1

Does this mean that we can at least look forward to a sudden cluster of blind superheroes in Texas in about 15 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(Marvel_Comics)
What took them so long? by webdog314 · 2012-10-09 05:29 · Score: 2

Maybe I'm not quite understanding the situation, but couldn't you just put a reasonably sensitive geiger counter on a truck and slowly drive it down the same road until you get a spike?
1. Re:What took them so long? by Gordonjcp · 2012-10-09 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's how I would have done it, too. You'd presumably have GPS tracks from the trucks, and various ANPR/CCTV sightings along the route. Some sort of camera and Geiger counter on a small van with the truck's route programmed into a GPS would take you to it. Well, assuming it hasn't been found and moved.
  In other news, there isn't a fallen-off exhaust pipe or silencer to be found in a big swathe across America's roads ;-)
2. Re:What took them so long? by downhole · 2012-10-09 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  For all of the hoopla over it, these types of sources are actually pretty weak. I don't know the activity level of this particular one, but most likely you'd have to put it in your pocket and walk around with it for a day or three for any measurable damage to happen. I haven't read that much about this actual situation, but they probably tried that before they even bothered calling in the National Guard. It most likely bounced far enough from the road that it wasn't detectable this way. No matter how sensitive your sensor is (I do remember reading that this was an AmBe source, which is primarily a Neutron source, requiring a Neutron detector), you still have to get close enough to it for the activity level from the source to be significantly above background levels. With a 130-mile path traveled, that's a lot of ground to cover very slowly.
  Yes, these sources are supposed to be locked up tight under lock and key while in transit, and this was a fuckup of tremendous level. I fully expect that the people directly responsible and managers several levels up from them will be looking for new jobs, if they aren't already, and their license to handle nuclear material in the US may be in doubt for a while.
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
Texass might have Teh Boob! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 07:26 · Score: 0

OMG, time to invade Texass. It's been reported they've developed Teh Boob, and are storing it in a gated community in Dallass!
You know by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 08:09 · Score: 0

Quoting people who were lied to does not give any evidence to you cut and paste. It only shows how desperate you are to make excuses for a war criminal. do you actually think you will profit by your whoring, or do you just automatically jump to the defense of people as morally bankrupt as you are?
1. Re:You know by argStyopa · 2012-10-11 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  "People who were lied to"
  By whom?
  You're asserting, then that Pres Clinton, VP Gore, etc were all "being lied to" *before* Bush2 and Cheney were elected, and were merely guiltless dupes, yet Cheney (who was also a VP) wasn't LIKEWISE duped, but was instead the evil mastermind of this whole plan in order to increase the value of his holdings in Haliburton?
  Seriously?
  BTW the Left (as I assume you are) loves to use the term "War Criminal" as a synonym for "people I really don't like"...but in the real world, you don't get to do that. I can't call Al Gore a Martian, or Barack Obama a Pez Dispenser unless I have some actual proof of that fact. Lacking such, your assertion that Cheney is a "war criminal" just makes you look febrile.
  
  --
  -Styopa
Nuclear Iran tie-in by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 09:28 · Score: 0

Among other effects, this means that Iran trying to get a nuke is hardly the act of a madman, but the act of a government trying to protect its territory and people.
Yeah, I'm always a little bit mind-boggled by the folks who insist that Iran must be planning to launch some sort of self-destruction-by-nuclear-flame scenario.
It's simple, we (the US, the biggest military around by far) proved that "playing by the rules" doesn't make you safe, and then we also invaded two countries on opposite sides... And then seeing how the US acts towards North Korea, of course they're going to go for the one thing that seems to guarantee they'll get left alone.
At last! How the Halliburton board can get back to by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2012-10-09 09:40 · Score: 1

their regular duties. You know, pouring defective cement casings on offshore oil wells, building US military bases on other people's lands, and chopping up the remains of the Iraqi oil industry.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
or did they? by Wingnut59 · 2012-10-09 11:16 · Score: 1

so, how do we know that they didn't just drop another one where it would be found so they could end the search?
1. Re:or did they? by rmdingler · 2012-10-09 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Local newspaper is reporting it was found on a road the Haliburton crew did not travel. Mywesttexas.com
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
I work for an oil-field competitor and... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-09 12:51 · Score: 0

we use the same tooling. (And helped the US Govt. draft safety legislation in the aftermath of Deepwater Horizon, because we're the safest out there.) Here's what happens with anything involving a radioactive source. You do a background check with a meter before you get it out of the lead-lined pit. You sign out the source, get a key to get a key to activate the hoist and get it out. You check to see that it's working, then put it in a transport container, visually and mechanically verified locked and without leakage of radiation. You verify the transport container is secured to the truck and the truck is placarded appropriately. You check the container when you get to the client's site, you take out the source and load it into the tool, you check that the tool isn't leaking. You lower it into the hole--and keep a meter on the mud if you're particular about it. When it comes up, you meter it again to make sure the tool isn't leaking, you unload the source into the transport container--again verifying it's not leaking and mechanically / visually make sure it's in the container. Secure the container to the truck, and when you get back, meter it again as you move it from the container back to the pit.
It's late so I may be misrepresenting this a bit but there's a total of 7 times you check on it from storage to storage in our company. This should NOT have happened and the only excuse is that some crew out there wasn't following safety protocols properly. (We've had source incidents as well and it tends to boil down to lousy crews, but they don't stay missing anywhere close to that long considering how quickly the NRC and FBI get involved.)
mod parent up by girlinatrainingbra · 2012-10-09 15:12 · Score: 1

Please mod parent comment up as informative. There's no excuse for a container with radioactive materials, even if it's class 3, to be so poorly secured that it is lost in transit by falling off of the vehicle.