Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Halliburton's Missing Radioactive Cylinder Found

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the in-the-junk-drawer-after-all dept.

Technology 126

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41595751)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41595807)

Maybe they can embed this cylinder in the hole in Dick Cheney's carapace, where he used to have a heart.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (3, Funny)

uradu (10768) | about 2 years ago | (#41596057)

Umm, where do you think it came from--surely not the back of a truck?! That's the power cell for his animatronics!

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41596065)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (-1, Troll)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 2 years ago | (#41596091)

Found it on a road? Halliburton involved? Ya, happens all the time.

I was thinking that the cylinder fell out of little bushes bum, on his way to open another grocery store, (and this is an electon year).

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596993)

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?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2)

naudiac (1312141) | about 2 years ago | (#41601671)

Would that then make him "Iron Dick"...?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (5, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#41597177)

Maybe they can embed this cylinder in the hole in Dick Cheney's carapace, where he used to have a heart.

Wrong hole.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597909)

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!

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (-1, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#41595825)

Do the letters FO mean anything to you?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#41596069)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O
Anything else?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 2 years ago | (#41596479)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41595829)

What I won't forgive them for is a $2 trillion+ war and tens of thousands of lives lost

Not tens, hundreds [wikipedia.org] . Dick Cheney is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41595925)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Insightful)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | about 2 years ago | (#41595991)

Did they find those WMD's yet?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#41596249)

Did they find those WMD's yet?

Yes, but they could never make the place where they filed down "Made in USA" look inconspicuous.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596033)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 2 years ago | (#41596111)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596333)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41596737)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 2 years ago | (#41597185)

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!

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Interesting)

deimtee (762122) | about 2 years ago | (#41597233)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41597315)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41600665)

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 [wikipedia.org] , so guess what has already been happening (Iran wants WMDs, yeah sure).

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41596159)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41596427)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41600111)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2)

Petron (1771156) | about 2 years ago | (#41596709)

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?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41596863)

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 [wikipedia.org] or ignored [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598881)

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..."

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41601789)

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!).

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

patriciacurtis (920142) | about 2 years ago | (#41596821)

Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

agreed, Can you add Tony Blair to the list of war criminals

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 2 years ago | (#41596973)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41600769)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 years ago | (#41598431)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41596167)

Thank you grandson Cheney...

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (5, Informative)

shugah (881805) | about 2 years ago | (#41596793)

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.

Mod Parent Up! (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41596983)

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.

Re:Mod Parent Up! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601017)

No, even at the time, a clear headed look at the intelligence told you that we didn't know too much, the Iraqi government was circumventing and breaking the sanctions whenever it could, was failing to abide by the IAEA inspection regime, and was generally pissing all over the 12 years of diplomacy and "peaceful compromise" that were requisites for the cessation of hostilities after the initial gulf war, per the UN resolutions at the time, and that the Iraqi government was doing everything in its power to appear as if it *did* have something to hide.

Hans Blix found fuck-all because the Iraqis weren't cooperating with him - cooperation that was mandated as part of the UN cease fire. And incidentally, that lack of cooperation was one of the conditions under which hostilities could be (and were, surprise surprise) renewed.

But there's this strange mythology that you retards have built up over the last 15-20 years which suggests that Hussein was just peacefully minding his own business when all the sudden Dick Cheney woke up one morning and decided he wanted Iraqi babies for breakfast, and so we kicked in the door and pillaged Iraq on a whim. You continue to disregard the simple fact that, from the end of the first gulf war, Iraq continually ignored and pissed on its obligations under the UN agreements that resulted from the cease fire. How long do you let somebody do that, before the UN is viewed as nothing but an ineffective, toothless joke that can be disregarded with impunity? Draw a line in the sand for me: how many years of refusing to abide by the terms of the cease fire are required before you're ready to say, "you know what? fuck you, if you won't abide by the terms you agreed to, we're sending around the police to deal with this."

12 years obviously isn't enough... so how many years is enough? What conditions should be attached to it? Or are you content to let every wannabe tin pot dictator continue disrupting and destabilizing an entire region, murdering his own people, and generally flipping the bird to the rest of the international community indefinitely, as long as it's only brown people killing brown people, so you can safely ignore the effects of your refusal to act to enforce the terms you laid out at the end of the first war?

Re:Mod Parent Up! (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41601455)

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.

Re:Mod Parent Up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601711)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41599239)

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.

Nuclear Iran tie-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601217)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41600169)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41600843)

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!

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41597737)

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'.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41600055)

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 [foreignpolicy.com] )

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41600891)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601393)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#41595927)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41596169)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41595957)

Well said.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#41595987)

You just broke the Tin Foil Hat meter.

Have you been handling radioactive cylinders?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596329)

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...

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41596477)

Because the rest of the world waits anxiously every day to hear your musings and judgements.

And to respond to them.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (3, Funny)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about 2 years ago | (#41596475)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597613)

Where would you shits be without stupid conspiracy theories?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#41598283)

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.

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1, Informative)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 years ago | (#41598615)

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 necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.

He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass

destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

You know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41600273)

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?

Re:You know, I'll forgive them for this mistake (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41600981)

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.

and nothing of value was found? (0)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 2 years ago | (#41595803)

this moment of snark brought to you by - HEX

Re:and nothing of value was found? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 2 years ago | (#41596149)

+++ Cannot load module humor +++
+++ Insert discworld in drive A: +++

Weeks long hunt? (3, Insightful)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | about 2 years ago | (#41595809)

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?

Re:Weeks long hunt? (5, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#41595835)

C'mon, it's Halliburton. They're charging law enforcement for the privilege of helping them.

Re:Weeks long hunt? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41597383)

Ha, Halliburton will probably get a fat government contract to clean it up.

probably a fake (5, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41595833)

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.

Re:probably a fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596093)

[Insert image of Senator Vreenak here.]

Re:probably a fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597769)

wow

I think that tin-foil hat is cutting off the circulation to your brain.

Re:probably a fake (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41598187)

Oh yeah, because a huge company has NEVER done anything similar to that ever!

Re:probably a fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41598581)

> "Oh yeah, because a huge company has NEVER done anything similar to that ever!"

[citation needed]

Re:probably a fake (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | about 2 years ago | (#41600271)

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.

Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support (0)

sometext (2537330) | about 2 years ago | (#41595899)

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!

Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41596063)

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 [orau.org]

Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 2 years ago | (#41596731)

So do cigarettes. And while cigarettes aren't exactly healthy, I don't think anyone's worried about carrying them in their shirt pocket.

Re:Relax, it's just Darth Cheney's life support (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41596855)

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 [nsma.org.au]

Doh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41595905)

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.

Re:Doh (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41596995)

I wonder if some punk kid on a skateboard found this cylinder...

Halliburton acicidentally did good for once? (1)

Dusty101 (765661) | about 2 years ago | (#41597701)

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) [wikipedia.org]

3 weeks? (2)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#41595919)

What's that in half-lives?

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

Wow, my shit-hole home town actually mentioned. (0)

pecosdave (536896) | about 2 years ago | (#41595949)

Nice place to not live anymore.

Re:Wow, my shit-hole home town actually mentioned. (1)

Gunnut1124 (961311) | about 2 years ago | (#41596209)

I lived in Monahans for a while, and I could say the same thing about that place...

Re:Wow, my shit-hole home town actually mentioned. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about 2 years ago | (#41601251)

Still, at least slightly better than Pecos. Still have family in both.

Chief Suspect (2)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 2 years ago | (#41595955)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41595979)

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.

Re:Has anyone found Halliburton's/Cheney's Soul Ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41597017)

Say what again motherfucker! I dare you!

Good news, bad news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596005)

[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... (1)

doug141 (863552) | about 2 years ago | (#41596349)

you get the followup story, too.

Texas, eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596451)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596515)

Because *someone* forgot to put it away after they were playing with it...

Cheney and Bush are war criminals. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596609)

And all you who drive gas guzzling SUVs are accomplices.

Bozo leftist web site (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41596669)

Signs that this is a bozo leftist web site: stories about Halliburton and truther comments.....

are they gonna pay for it? (2)

AnAlchemist (1703640) | about 2 years ago | (#41596827)

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.

No doubt ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41597377)

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

What took them so long? (2)

webdog314 (960286) | about 2 years ago | (#41598315)

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?

Re:What took them so long? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41598595)

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 ;-)

Texass might have Teh Boob! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41599707)

OMG, time to invade Texass. It's been reported they've developed Teh Boob, and are storing it in a gated community in Dallass!

At last! How the Halliburton board can get back to (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 2 years ago | (#41601361)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?