PDA

View Full Version : I guess Blix missed these (Idiot Alert)



Gresham CA
03-31-2003, 11:02 AM
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=379882003

I'm glad the British are on our side!

British troops discover Al Samud missiles in a university

BRITISH troops in Basra say they have found prohibited Al Samud missiles housed in a university building writes Gethin Chamberlain in southern Iraq.

The missiles, which UN weapons inspector Hans Blix ordered to be destroyed, were discovered on Saturday in what British forces described as a university building in the south-west of the city. Troops who entered the building found 13 missiles.

The discovery is the latest in a series of weapons finds in the area. Last week troops found a massive armoury housed in a heliport and a child health clinic converted into a militia base, complete with weapons armouries next door to storerooms packed with unused medicines.

The find was made in one of a growing number of raids into Basra designed to weaken the Iraqi regime’s grip on the civilian population. It is hoped that Iraqis will eventually feel confident enough to rise up and overthrow the authorities .

[ 03-31-2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

km gresham
03-31-2003, 11:09 AM
Blix was just on his way to check out hospitals and universities and the like, when we told him "time's up!"

R.I.Singer30
03-31-2003, 11:10 AM
Wow :eek: , good bad news.I guess we all new that there was more to it.I hope He (madas I mean sadam)doesn't have the big one and is waitng till we have more of the boys and gals there.God Bless Tiny Tim,and every one else besides these suicide madmen.

km gresham
03-31-2003, 11:13 AM
Sadam is dead, along with his sons. I Read that his personal body guard is no longer guarding his personal body. Not much point if it's not "moving around much" (Donald Rumsfeld)

Jim H
03-31-2003, 11:21 AM
Karen, the problem with that is the bodyguard would have been with sadam when he was killed. Seeing the bodyguard alive tells me that sadam is alive.

High C
03-31-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
Sadam is dead, along with his sons. I Read that his personal body guard is no longer guarding his personal body. Not much point if it's not "moving around much" (Donald Rumsfeld)I'm inclined to agree with you Karen. We haven't seen a sign of him since the attack on the command bunker, his bodyguard has now been reassigned, the lame tapes that make no mention of then current events to prove when they were made, and we're seeing a lot of the Iraqi vice-president on TV now.

I read an article that said Saddam had given his commanders detailed orders in advance of the war, that were to be followed in the event communications were cut off. It appears that may be what's taking place, a number of independent Iraqi units moving around, doing various things, with little sense of direction. They're getting slaughtered. Maybe someone is calling the shots, but I sure haven't seen anything that would indicate Hussein or his sons are alive.

km gresham
03-31-2003, 11:34 AM
Jim, the bodyguard has to go to the bathroom sometime ;)

WWheeler
03-31-2003, 11:52 AM
So where are all the chemical weapons that were supposed to be in Iraq??? Nothing found yet. Except that now we're subjected to a massive spin attack every time there's a gas mask or suit found.

km gresham
03-31-2003, 11:58 AM
WWheeler, careful what you ask for :(

LeeG
03-31-2003, 12:33 PM
that Blix, he's such an idiot.

imported_Conrad
03-31-2003, 01:03 PM
Blix is such an amazing contridiction- I'd love to crawl into his head and see if he really believes what he says. With no apparrent motivation to deceive, it's hard to know if he really is as stupid as he seems, or motivated by some political agenda. If he was French I could understand...... but I'm glad he's history. The whole experience is like a fantasy, a free radical flying through our sense of reality.

WWheeler
03-31-2003, 01:06 PM
to sink to your level,

I guess you girls are just pissed he didn't allow spying by the CIA, as did the previous Chief Weapons Inspector.

[ 03-31-2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: WWheeler ]

thechemist
03-31-2003, 01:38 PM
The Inspectors, many of them, and the U. N. , many of them, and the public, many of them, treated, and still do, many of them, this entire inspection process as a game of cat-and-mouse....catch-me-if-you-can.....with the Iraqi Government as the mouse and the cat is trying to catch the mouse out in the open, and if we cannot find where the mouse hid its cheese then we have to pretend the mouse has no cheese.

That is not reality.

Reality is that The Iraqi Government is supposed to roll over, take off all its clothes and show us everything, and give us everything it has hidden. THAT is what is legally required.

Whether the legal reality was the expected reality is a matter for other discussion.

The Iraqi Government lied through its teeth every step of the way. Naturally they lied. It's a cultural thing. It's how they conduct diplomacy. It's nothing personal. It's just business.

We caught them in lies, and are uncovering more and more of their lies with every passing day. We are thereby legally justified [by our moral codes, not theirs, but we only need to be right by our moral codes] in going in and uncovering the rest of their lies. It's nothing personal. It's just business.

By both their and our actions, we got the moral high ground and then some.

The circus of Blix going through his motions was a useful interlude of entertainment, and is actually excellent proof of further Iraqi duplicity, for when we go into various places and find what the Iraqis did not show Blix, this further prooves intent to deceive on the part of the Iraqi Government. Without Blix having been taken advantage of so smoothly for all those months, we would not have such a better view of things from our higher moral ground.

This makes our present regieme-change all the more appropriate.

LeeG
03-31-2003, 01:45 PM
I bet Blix can only speak two or three languages and doesn't even know how to kick down a door. And he's old too.

km gresham
03-31-2003, 01:50 PM
One advantage for us in allowing Blix's awsome adventures was that it provided us time to build up our forces. Once adequately built up, his time was up ;)

I don't think we ever expected the "inspections" to do anything except buy the time we needed.

LeeG
03-31-2003, 02:13 PM
Good point, it's kind of like when your wife says, "why should I bother changing the oil, you'll just complain I didn't do it right" and the husband says,,"I won't let her change the oil, she doesn't know which way to turn the filter"
They're obviously right.

WWheeler
03-31-2003, 02:15 PM
So if you interfere with a man's work, fail to provide with the information that you say you have, cut short the time for its completion, you have no right to complain about the quality of the workmanship.

Gresham CA
03-31-2003, 02:38 PM
WWheeler,
He was incompetent WAY before the latest inspections.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/

I suspect you wouldn't respect his "workmanship".

[ 03-31-2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

LeeG
03-31-2003, 02:39 PM
Well if he didn't find what he's supposed to find then it was obviously a waste of time and he shouldn't have gone in to begin with! I bet all those foreigners out there didn't even figure out how clever we were about this tactic. I hope they aren't too pissed.
My only worry is those folks with less to lose than us in those countries with moustaches decide that simply being alive isn't enough to live for. And bringing that desperation home to us,,again,,

Barry
03-31-2003, 02:40 PM
Because its range is less than 150 kilometers, or under 95 miles, the missile does not violate United Nations restrictions imposed on Iraq after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. The US was a signatory to this agreement. Can't see how Blix failed to do his job. SPIN IT! SPIN IT Good!

These aren't Scuds!

Meerkat
03-31-2003, 02:48 PM
This thread is almost as funny as the MSNBC report on the artillery, land mine and small arms ammunition depot the troopies found, which they, MSNBC, reported as though they had found some sort of illicit weapons cache. What the hell did they expect to find at a weapons depot, Toys-R-Us?

The world knew that Iraq has the Al Samud missle and they where in the process, however reluctantly, of destroying them when the US called "time". It's a foregone conclusion that not all of them where found/destroyed, so what's the big deal (aside from Iraq's not supposed to be having them in the first place according to US claims about it's range - but that's old news? Why condemn a man for preventing him from finishing a job he started and then blame him for it being unfinished?

Meanwhile, the US has not found any chemical or biological WOMD.

[ 03-31-2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Gresham CA
03-31-2003, 02:51 PM
Barry,
If I remember correctly, it was Blix himself in one of his reports that said the Al Samoud missles were a violation. That is why he ordered them destroyed.

These weren't found at a depot, but a university. That doesn't make you just the least little bit suspicous?

[ 03-31-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Gresham CA ]

LeeG
03-31-2003, 02:59 PM
but they're missles, and missles fell on Kuwaitt,,and Kuwaitt is next to Baharain,,and two brothers from Baharain bought a couple kayak companies in the US so if you go kayaking you're supporting people who wear moustaches and run around with RPG so don't go kayaking. I mean it. The little people are on the ceiling now. I must go.

Meerkat
03-31-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Gresham CA:
These weren't found at a depot, but a university. That doesn't make you just the least little bit suspicous?Is there a reason why their location at a university should arouse undue suspicion? Should we infer something nefarious from the presence of nuclear reactors on various US university campuses? Weapons of frat desctruction? ;)

Public facilities in other countries often seem to get used for multiple, wacky, unrelated purposes.

km gresham
03-31-2003, 03:16 PM
We(and the Brits) are finding weapons in hospitals, universities etc. - all the usual places governments keep their arsenals. I don't suppose Blix would have looked there if he'd been allowed to continue for another decade.

The point is he was never going to find anything (except maybe 10 or so items for show) that the Iraqi government didn't want found. He wasn't supposed to "find" anything. Iraq was to produce it and destroy it, instead they played hide and seek. Those were the rules Iraq ignored.

Time's up.

edited for grammatical error

[ 03-31-2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

imported_Conrad
03-31-2003, 03:18 PM
"Is there a reason why their location at a university should arouse undue suspicion?"

Of course not, silly, they were there for the science classes to study, not to hide them.....

Hey Meerkat, how about a great real estate investment in the lost city of Atlantis? tongue.gif

Meerkat
03-31-2003, 03:23 PM
Conrad, with Jerry Falwell and/or Pat Roberts as spokesmen for the venture, it would be a sure-fire money maker! LOL.

thechemist
03-31-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by WWheeler:
So if you interfere with a man's work, fail to provide with the information that you say you have, cut short the time for its completion, you have no right to complain about the quality of the workmanship.Based on how the Iraqi Government was nickel-and-dimeing poor Mr. Blix to death with one little piece after another, they could have dragged the process out for fifty years. Blix was not supposed to have to rely on what the American CIA could find out from people who the regieme would kill if Blix was able to go instantly to sites where only [for example] only the Commandant In Charge of That Site knew what was there, or even that that particular site even existed.

The ony one who interfered with Blix was the Iraqi Government.

The Iraqi Government was supposed to tell Blix everything they had and where it was. Blix was supposed to then go to the warehouses where the hundreds of tons of precursor chemicals for nerve gas was stored, the 50 tons of culture agent for anthrax was stored, etcetera and etcetera, and see the stuff and catalog it and then authorize the Iraqi Government to destroy it in his presence.

Actually, if your comments were rephrased as

"So if The Iraqi Government interfere(s) with a man's work, fail(s) to provide (him)with the information that The Iraqi Government (has), cut(s) short the time for its completion, The Iraqi Government has no right to complain about the quality of the workmanship."

Then I agree with you entirely.

LeeG
03-31-2003, 03:44 PM
Chemist,,in the area where the process was cooperative ,,like South Africa it took years. There was no way anything productive could have come of the process except time to get the allies on board. So many assumptions rendered that moot.
Have you seen the article in the New Yorker about the false documents proving Iraqs attempt to acquire nuclear material?

Jim H
03-31-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Chemist,,in the area where the process was cooperative ,,like South Africa it took years. There was no way anything productive could have come of the process except time to get the allies on board. So many assumptions rendered that moot.
Have you seen the article in the New Yorker about the false documents proving Iraqs attempt to acquire nuclear material?South Africa held as model for Iraq (http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-200313004222.htm)

JOHANNESBURG -- When President F.W. de Klerk stood in front of Parliament in 1993 and confirmed that South Africa had built, and then dismantled, nuclear weapons, he immediately invited inspectors to verify his claims. Within months, International Atomic Energy Agency officials had finished their inspections and praised the "transparency and openness of the South African authorities."

WWheeler
03-31-2003, 04:23 PM
Based on how the Iraqi Government was nickel-and-dimeing poor Mr. Blix The great difficult that most of the Un-Cowed is having is that the US did not follow the process that it had agreed to. The UN had found minor violations, but hadn't come to a determination that the inspection process was at an end.

The timing of the current war was nothing to do with the failure of inspections, everything to do with the timing of the next presidential elections.

Here's a sample day planner

Spring 2003 - must start soon, too hot in the Gulf.
Summer 2003 - Hot in the Gulf. too hot to fight.
Fall 2003 -- Mop up, Declare Victory
Winter/Spring 2004 -- Fix economy
Summer 2004 -- Election camaign.

The inspections process risked buggering up that schedule.

High C
03-31-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by WWheeler:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Based on how the Iraqi Government was nickel-and-dimeing poor Mr. Blix The great difficult that most of the Un-Cowed is having is that the US did not follow the process that it had agreed to. The UN had found minor violations, but hadn't come to a determination that the inspection process was at an end.

The timing of the current war was nothing to do with the failure of inspections, everything to do with the timing of the next presidential elections.

Here's a sample day planner

Spring 2003 - must start soon, too hot in the Gulf.
Summer 2003 - Hot in the Gulf. too hot to fight.
Fall 2003 -- Mop up, Declare Victory
Winter/Spring 2004 -- Fix economy
Summer 2004 -- Election camaign.

The inspections process risked buggering up that schedule.</font>[/QUOTE]The inspections process wasn't interrupted. It never began. The Iraqis were supposed to, to paraphrase the chemist, strip naked and spread 'em, to show what weapons they had. This never happened. Instead the inspectors were greeted with passive resistance, and left to search the entire nation in a hopeless attempt to find the needle in the haystack.

Jim H
03-31-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by WWheeler:
The great difficult that most of the Un-Cowed is having is that the US did not follow the process that it had agreed to.Yes the U.S. & the Security Council did in fact follow what it had agreed to for 7 years. It was Iraq who failed to follow the agreement. Had they cooperated in the way that South Africa cooperated with the IAEA we would not be having this discussion. The Iraqi leadership failed to fully comply knowing that the penalty could be a resumption of hostilities. The Iraqi leadership gambled and lost.

IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/FormerDG/dgsp1994n05.html)

DIRECTOR GENERAL'S STATEMENT ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENTATION BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF SOUTH AFRICA
ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENTATION BY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF SOUTH AFRICA
Vienna, Austria
7 April 1994

When a State joining the safeguards system has many nuclear installations and much nuclear material, it is always a challenge to verify that everything that should be declared to the IAEA has been declared. Such was the case in South Africa where safeguards implementation under South Africa's NPT-related Safeguards Agreement with the Agency began in November 1991.
2. The extensive nature of South Africa's nuclear fuel cycle required not only considerable inspection resources but also extensive co-operation on the part of the State authorities e.g. in providing access to defunct facilities and to historical accounting and operating records.
However, the Agency's activities in South Africa show how such challenges can be tackled successfully through sustained efforts by the IAEA and through a high degree of co-operation and transparency on the part of the inspected country. Since September 1991, many discrepancies which had been identified have now been resolved. In September 1993, the IAEA found it reasonable to conclude that the amounts of highly enriched uranium (HEU) which could have been produced by South Africa's pilot enrichment plant are consistent with the amounts declared in South Africa's Initial Report. Work is continuing, aimed at reaching a similarly satisfactory conclusion in relation to the production of low enriched uranium.
A new dimension was added in March 1993, when President de Klerk declared that South Africa had previously developed a limited nuclear capability which had been dismantled and destroyed before South Africa acceded to the NPT. The Agency was invited to examine that South Africa's nuclear weapons programme had been terminated and that all the nuclear material used in it had been placed under safeguards. For this purpose the IAEA sent experts to visit the facilities involved in the abandoned programme and to review historical data. It found no indication casting doubt on South Africa's statement that all the highly enriched uranium for weapons had been reported in its initial declaration. Also it has found no indication to suggest "that there remain any sensitive components of the nuclear weapons programme which have not been either rendered useless or converted to commercial non-nuclear applications or peaceful nuclear usage."

LeeG
03-31-2003, 06:12 PM
Thank you for the link Jim

There were actually two inspections of South Africa. The first began in 1991, when the country signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency sent "safeguard officials" to account for all its nuclear material, not to look for evidence of a defunct weapons program.
The government cooperated fully with those inspections, but did not reveal its weapons program.

km gresham
03-31-2003, 06:14 PM
Lee did you forget - Iraq has had 12 YEARS to get rid of their arsenal? It was to have been done just after Gulf War I.

I think facts just don't matter - some people want to see that Iraq is a victim of the US. Enough facts have been presented ad nauseum by some very knowledgeable forumites to no avail.

Maybe it needs to be more simply stated. Iraq lost Gulf War I, was banished from Kuwait and AGREED to disarm. Over a 12 year period they did not disarm - to the contrary they have continued to amass more and deadlier weapons. The UN passed resolution after resolution but never enforced those resolutions.

A large coalition has been formed and is in the process of disarming Iraq. 12 YEARS LATER.

Meerkat
03-31-2003, 06:38 PM
small coallition - big peanut gallery :D

High C
03-31-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
small coallition - big peanut gallery :D Bigger coalition than the first Gulf War! tongue.gif

Jim H
03-31-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Thank you for the link Jim

There were actually two inspections of South Africa. The first began in 1991, when the country signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency sent "safeguard officials" to account for all its nuclear material, not to look for evidence of a defunct weapons program.
The government cooperated fully with those inspections, but did not reveal its weapons program.South Africa, began compliance in 1991 and was in full compliance by the end of 1993. Iraq agreed to inspections in 1991 and has failed to live up to it's agreements to date. Two countries, two weapons programs. One country complied, and one country did not comply.


However, the Agency's activities in South Africa show how such challenges can be tackled successfully through sustained efforts by the IAEA and through a high degree of co-operation and transparency on the part of the inspected country.(Emphasis mine)

We have not seen a high degree of cooperation or transparency from Iraq.


A new dimension was added in March 1993, when President de Klerk declared that South Africa had previously developed a limited nuclear capability which had been dismantled and destroyed before South Africa acceded to the NPT.(Emphasis mine)

sadam had declared nothing, had it not been for a couple of defectors IAEA might not have known about his program.


For this purpose the IAEA sent experts to visit the facilities involved in the abandoned programme and to review historical data. It found no indication casting doubt on South Africa's statement that all the highly enriched uranium for weapons had been reported in its initial declaration. Also it has found no indication to suggest "that there remain any sensitive components of the nuclear weapons programme which have not been either rendered useless or converted to commercial non-nuclear applications or peaceful nuclear usage."(Emphasis mine)

"reported in it's initial declaration" is the key phrase, South Africa wanted to disarm and comply.

Meerkat
03-31-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
small coallition - big peanut gallery :D Bigger coalition than the first Gulf War! tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Counting active combatants, that would be that which is not so. tongue.gif

LeeG
03-31-2003, 08:49 PM
Jim, do you have any comment about the forged documents proving Iraqs attempt to purchase uranium from Niger?

High C
03-31-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
small coallition - big peanut gallery :D Bigger coalition than the first Gulf War! tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Counting active combatants, that would be that which is not so. tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Counting the number of coalition nations, however, that would be that which is indeed so. ;)

[ 03-31-2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Oyvind Snibsoer
04-01-2003, 06:28 AM
COW forces found gas masks at a weapons depot, news traveled around the world. WOW! Please, name one national army, anywhere, that does not issue gas masks to its soldiers. It's a standard piece of equipment, fer chrissake!

The COW is desperate to find some traces of WOMD somewhere in Iraq. But the rest of the world, and especially the UN, is not likely to accept any "proof" conveniently dug up by COW forces. It may perhaps convince the American public, after all your president is a devout Christian, so he couldn't possibly be lying, could he :confused: However, I doubt the rest of us are willing to bite.

Art Read
04-01-2003, 06:46 AM
"...the rest of the world, and especially the UN, is not likely to accept any "proof" conveniently dug up by COW forces..."

What frightens me is that you're probably right. No matter WHAT is found, those who's self interest will best be served by portraying this as simple, naked aggression will never be "convinced".

You know... We have fringe groups here who make outrageous, obscene, ridiculous but yet dangerously convincing "arguments" that the holocaust never happened either... Different motives perhaps, but awfully similar tactics. :(

stan v
04-01-2003, 06:54 AM
Art, these aunties are cowards. If they believed what they say, they'd openly support the Iraqi government (Damsad) and say what they really think. They are anti-America. Period.

Jim H
04-01-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Jim, do you have any comment about the forged documents proving Iraqs attempt to purchase uranium from Niger?Lee, no I haven't, post a link would you? BTW what about the above, a stark difference in compliance, HMM?

Oyvind Snibsoer
04-01-2003, 12:17 PM
Art,
it goes both ways, doesn't it. Unfortunately, I believe the US gov's international confidence rating is pretty low at the moment.

I've read a few interviews of inspectors. They pretty much agree on a few things.

a) The Iraqi chem weapons previously used were of a poor, unstable quality. Their shelf life was not more than 3-4 years.

b) There is no indication that Iraq has produced any new chemical weapons after '91. Weapons produced before that would no longer be effective.

c) The bio weapons program wasn't terribly advanced, either. They did produce Anthrax in a liquid form, but in order to be an effective weapon it has to be made into a powder. The Iraqis have never been able to achieve this.

d) Bio weapons don't keep terribly well, either.

The weapons inspectors only demanded that the Al Samud missiles must be destroyed a few weeks before the war started. If Iraq has any missiles with some real potential, they'd send them against Israel. Saddam knows that if he's able to tease Israel into going to war on him, all hell will break loose in the region.

km gresham
04-01-2003, 12:34 PM
Once more - everything was to be destroyed 12 years ago, not "a few weeks before the war started".

I guess we'll see shortly what he has in the way of chemical and/or biological weapons. Those folks he gassed to death would tell you his weapons were pretty effective.

High C
04-01-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Oyvind Snibsoer:
Art,
it goes both ways, doesn't it. Unfortunately, I believe the US gov's international confidence rating is pretty low at the moment.

I've read a few interviews of inspectors. They pretty much agree on a few things.

a) The Iraqi chem weapons previously used were of a poor, unstable quality. Their shelf life was not more than 3-4 years.

b) There is no indication that Iraq has produced any new chemical weapons after '91. Weapons produced before that would no longer be effective.

c) The bio weapons program wasn't terribly advanced, either. They did produce Anthrax in a liquid form, but in order to be an effective weapon it has to be made into a powder. The Iraqis have never been able to achieve this.

d) Bio weapons don't keep terribly well, either.

The weapons inspectors only demanded that the Al Samud missiles must be destroyed a few weeks before the war started. If Iraq has any missiles with some real potential, they'd send them against Israel. Saddam knows that if he's able to tease Israel into going to war on him, all hell will break loose in the region.So why didn't the Iraqis cooperate with the recent inspections attempt? They risked the war and loss of power that they now face. They behaved like they were hiding something.

Oyvind Snibsoer
04-01-2003, 01:53 PM
I believe the inspectors generally found the Iraqis fairly cooperative, considering that it is after all an Arabic country. They're not exactly the most efficient people on the face of the planet, at least not by our standards. There could be plenty of reasons why they didn't come up with everything at once. Among these are Arab inefficiency, records destroyed in the previous war and a natural resentment against rolling over; nobody likes to be dictated. And then they could be playing their hide-and-seek game.

"Inshallah" - meaning "If Allah wills", is a common Arabic expression. A typical phrase is "We'll have a meeting at 2:30 - inshallah." If one of the parties don't show up at the meeting, then Allah didn't want them to and nobody can say anything against the will of Allah smile.gif

The destruction of at least some of the missiles, when on the brink of war, did indicate a fairly strong will to do what they could to avoid war. After all, they could be dearly needed against an agressor.

As Blix says in an interview, the Iraqi let the inspectors go anywhere they liked, and have access to any facility they wanted to see. He says that he can't guarantee that there aren't any VX or Anthrax agents in Iraq, however the fact that documentation is missing is not necessarily an indication that there are any such agents.

250 000 soldiers have been sent off to war on the pretext that Saddam has WOMD. Of course something will be found somewhere by US forces. They can't afford not to.

A profile on Blix from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2268819.stm)

Interview with Blix (Real Audio) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/38982000/rm/_38982087_reax07_blix.ram)

This is from the BBC yesterday:


Hunting for illegal weapons


By Barnaby Mason
BBC diplomatic correspondent


The United States is claimed to be recruiting UN weapons inspectors
It is crucial for the Bush administration to find the weapons it argued were the key justification for going to war in Iraq.
There were administration officials who were contemptuous of the United Nations' efforts to track them down.

But the head of the UN team responsible for chemical and biological weapons and missiles, Hans Blix, says the United States has approached several of his inspectors and asked them to end their contracts and join its own operation.

Well-informed sources have told me the same recruitment effort is being made with nuclear experts employed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

'Infuriated'
People in both UN bodies are said to be infuriated.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei say only the UN is authorised to inspect

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has now emphasised that it remains the sole body with legal authority to verify Iraq's nuclear disarmament.

Mr ElBaradei said the agency expected to go back after the end of hostilities to resume its inspections. But that must be in doubt.

United States forces are already looking for weapons of mass destruction in the areas of Iraq they control.

Administration officials quoted by the Washington Post say an international entity may be allowed to verify discoveries after the fact.

But Dr Blix told the paper that his organisation would not accept being led, "as a dog", to sites chosen by the United States.

Any discoveries of forbidden Iraqi weapons announced by Washington are likely to be greeted with scepticism by a large chunk of international opinion, especially in the Arab world.

As Mr ElBaradei put it, credibility will come only through impartial, international inspections.
This is the link for the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2904647.stm)

[ 04-01-2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Oyvind Snibsoer ]

km gresham
04-01-2003, 02:00 PM
And here we have Marion Barry defense against anything the coalition finds in the way of banned weapons in Iraq. If it's found, then we must have planted it because we can't afford not to find it.

High C
04-01-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Oyvind Snibsoer:
I believe the inspectors generally found the Iraqis fairly cooperative, considering that it is after all an Arabic country. They're not exactly the most efficient people on the face of the planet, at least not by our standards. There could be plenty of reasons why they didn't come up with everything at once. Among these are Arab inefficiency, records destroyed in the previous war and a natural resentment against rolling over; nobody likes to be dictated. And then they could be playing their hide-and-seek game.

This is the link for the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2904647.stm)[/QUOTE]

Your reasoning sounds logical to me, but Blix did contradict himself on whether or not Iraq was being cooperative. At times he was mad and frustrated, at other times he spoke positively of the co-op level. His own inconsistency is one of the things that has led to his poor reputation.

In an earlier post you mentioned the shelf lives of various chemical agents. I only recently learned that nukes have a shelf life. 20 to 30 years. I would like to know more about the shelf life issue. It is very good news that these weapons will become useless with the passage of time, unless maintained and regenerated. Could you point me in the right direction to learn more about this?

Thanks :cool:

LeeG
04-01-2003, 02:10 PM
Karen,,if you get the chance there's this neat book called "Germs" it's about modern chemical and biological weopons in the US and former USSR. Honest it'll put the risk of what's "out there" in perspective. The US is still working on incinerating our old stockpiles,,,the USSR and US have an incinerator to be built for destroying these old stocks. It's a fascinating story,,,that makes SH intentions horrifying. And what Russia was working on more horrifying. Believe it or not Clinton pushed the US gov't to address this problem faster than it would otherwise. the blame game can hide one from info and answers.

Oyvind Snibsoer
04-01-2003, 02:16 PM
This Google search gives plenty of hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nuclear+weapons+shelf+life)

Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com) can probably offer more info.

High C
04-01-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Oyvind Snibsoer:
This Google search gives plenty of hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nuclear+weapons+shelf+life)

Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com) can probably offer more info.Thanks, Oyvind

LeeG
04-02-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by JimHillman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
Jim, do you have any comment about the forged documents proving Iraqs attempt to purchase uranium from Niger?Lee, no I haven't, post a link would you? BTW what about the above, a stark difference in compliance, HMM?</font>[/QUOTE]Yep,,big difference. About as big as the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
Ok,,so onto those links,,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2607081.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2278019.stm

http://www.afrol.com/News2003/index_afr007.htm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/18749.htm

http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,356204,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9011-2003Mar22?language=printer

The first public charge that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa came from Britain, in a document published last Sept. 24. In December, a State Department "fact sheet" said that the African country in question was Niger, and that Iraq's failure to declare the attempted purchase was one of the many lies it told about its weapons of mass destruction.

In his State of the Union address in January, Bush said "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In separate statements in January, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made the same charge, without mentioning the British.

British officials said they "stand behind" the original allegation. They note they never mentioned "Niger," the subject of the forged documents, and imply, but do not say, that there was other information, about another African country. But an informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, "ever indicated that they had any information on any other country."

U.S. intelligence officials said they had not even seen the actual evidence, consisting of supposed government documents from Niger, until last month. The source of their information, and their doubts, officials said, was a written summary provided more than six months ago by the Italian intelligence service, which first obtained the documents.

Shortly after receiving the documents, the United States turned them over to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within weeks, U.N. inspectors, along with an independent team of international experts, determined that the documents were fake.

One of the documents was a letter, dated July 2000 and apparently signed by the Niger president, discussing Iraq's agreement to purchase 500 tons of uranium oxide, and certifying that it was authorized under the Niger constitution of 1965. But U.N. officials quickly noted that Niger had promulgated a new constitution in 1999, and that the letter's signature bore little resemblance to the actual signature of President Tandja Mamadou.

Another letter, dated in 1999, was signed by the Niger foreign minister. But the letterhead belonged to the military government that had been replaced earlier in 1999, and the signatory had left the job of foreign minister in 1989.

The apparent genesis of the letters, or at least the U.S. and British willingness to believe in them, was a 1999 tour of African countries, including Niger, by Iraq's ambassador to Italy, noted at the time by a number of Western intelligence agencies. At some later point, a U.N. official recently told reporters, a Niger diplomat turned the letters over to Italian intelligence, which provided summaries of the information to Washington and London.

Two weeks after the Sept. 24 British publication, the Niger story appeared in a classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, a summary of U.S. intelligence agencies' conclusions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, although the report noted that the information had not been verified and the CIA had not confirmed that the uranium sale had gone through.

The State Department's December fact sheet, issued to point out glaring omissions in a declaration Iraq said accounted for all of its prohibited weapons, said the declaration "ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." Asked this week to comment on the fact sheet, a CIA spokesman referred questions on the matter to the State Department, where a spokesman said "everything we wrote in the fact sheet was cleared with the agency."

LeeG
04-02-2003, 12:20 AM
most recent
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGABYNOF3DD.html

Jim, the thing that's disturbing is that when the US populace , Congress and allies are asking for proof,,and the proof the President provides is based on forged documents,,well it kind of confirms that we're really just along for the ride as the war was at least a couple years in the making with 9/11 a trigger to an existing plan.

Surely it's not as egregious as "we're not bombing in Cambodia",,,but it's a hell of a lot more significant than Peter Arnetts profesional and ethical screwup.

stan v
04-02-2003, 06:20 AM
I must have had a longer day than I thought, yesterday was so long that I'm just now getting what LeeG(reenwood, not) is trying to say. That because there have been some forged documents found, and W made a mistake in mentioning same to the public, that Damsad is not a terrorist, nor is there any terrorism. That the mistake in thinking these documents true, is more harmful to the populace than terrorism, or this illegal war, which apparently is being fought solely on the evidence of forged documents, not on any other evidence which has been found since the illegal war started. Is that sentence rambling enough for you aunties? I'm starting to like the thought of Muslims cutting the tongues out of people.

LeeG
04-02-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
I must have had a longer day than I thought, yesterday was so long that I'm just now getting what LeeG(reenwood, not) is trying to say. That because there have been some forged documents found, and W made a mistake in mentioning same to the public, that Damsad is not a terrorist, nor is there any terrorism. That the mistake in thinking these documents true, is more harmful to the populace than terrorism, or this illegal war, which apparently is being fought solely on the evidence of forged documents, not on any other evidence which has been found since the illegal war started. Is that sentence rambling enough for you aunties? I'm starting to like the thought of Muslims cutting the tongues out of people.Golly Stan this IS getting hard isn't it? Why are you saying SH is not a terrorist or there isn't any terrorism? He's a cucumber who rules mercilessly,,with a carrot and stick,,he's like Stalin. You are getting silly interpreting the data that way.
So for something as important as going to war,,,the US doesn't find out the documents are gross forgeries until they are turned over to the NGO that monitors nuclear activities. Come on now Stan,,this is F____G war,,this are our children,,,not baseball players to be traded or stock options. This isn't about a blow job. When "we" citizens say "show me the proof" it's because "we" are the ones that will bleed. Not Congresses children,,not the Bush daughters.
Sure this could be one of those areas like the battle plan where Tommy Franks wants 300,000 troops right off for a war that looks more involved than GulfWar I,,,and Rumsfield with his military background thinks otherwise,,,but the plan goes through just the same. The REASONS for going to war could be as vague as "because we think it's in the interest of the national security",,,,,and the interpreters of that interest could vary depending on who's in power.
If that's the case then that's the case,,,BUT TO USE FALSE INFORMATION?? undermines the integrity of the position.
What was that problem with Vietnam? oh trust in our political leaders. This aint the time to screw with that trust. cuz it aint his kids.

LeeG
04-02-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
Is that sentence rambling enough for you aunties? I'm starting to like the thought of Muslims cutting the tongues out of people.ok Stan buddy, it's hot dog time again. You don't like the message,,so the humorous response is to validate the actions of Saddam Hussein. His paramilitary doesn't like what some citizens say or do. And they're dead. this is cute, this is fun.

High C
04-02-2003, 10:40 AM
LeeG, it's not the sole piece of evidence that has led to war. You know that. There is much more evidence. So one piece of evidence has turned out to be false. Let's throw the baby out with the bath water then? :confused:

Jim H
04-02-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
most recent
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGABYNOF3DD.html

Jim, the thing that's disturbing is that when the US populace , Congress and allies are asking for proof,,and the proof the President provides is based on forged documents,,well it kind of confirms that we're really just along for the ride as the war was at least a couple years in the making with 9/11 a trigger to an existing plan.

Surely it's not as egregious as "we're not bombing in Cambodia",,,but it's a hell of a lot more significant than Peter Arnetts profesional and ethical screwup.Lee,

CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9011-2003Mar22?language=printer)

The first public charge that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa came from Britain, in a document published last Sept. 24. In December, a State Department "fact sheet" said that the African country in question was Niger, and that Iraq's failure to declare the attempted purchase was one of the many lies it told about its weapons of mass destruction.
In his State of the Union address in January, Bush said "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In separate statements in January, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made the same charge, without mentioning the British.
British officials said they "stand behind" the original allegation. They note they never mentioned "Niger," the subject of the forged documents, and imply, but do not say, that there was other information, about another African country.

__________________________________________________ ____________

The British do have more involvement in Africa, if they continue to stand behind their statement I see no reason to doubt the information.

"U.S. intelligence officials said they had not even seen the actual evidence, consisting of supposed government documents from Niger, until last month. The source of their information, and their doubts, officials said, was a written summary provided more than six months ago by the Italian intelligence service, which first obtained the documents.
Shortly after receiving the documents, the United States turned them over to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within weeks, U.N. inspectors, along with an independent team of international experts, determined that the documents were fake. " (emphasis mine)

"U.S. Intelligence officials (anon.)had not seen the documents", that speaks volumes. U.N. Inspectors determined the documents were fake, who were they and how did they determine they were fake?

LeeG
04-02-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by High C:
LeeG, it's not the sole piece of evidence that has led to war. You know that. There is much more evidence. So one piece of evidence has turned out to be false. Let's throw the baby out with the bath water then? :confused: High C,,I'm slowly getting around to understanding the position,,"it's for national security",,and the only position is to trust the leaders. I mean it. None of us are in the throne. None of us listen to the secret data.
But C,,it's ok that some data can be false,,just like some war reports can vary and change when they happen. But your telling me that the prez and his handlers didn't know it was false until after it was used?
The point is we don't need evidence if false evidence is used. The evidence is immaterial. Terrorism has been nibbling away at our extremities now that the USSR is off the map so it's another enemy,,a real one but diffuse. We have a sophisticated and professional military that is well suited for engaging in war with clear military objectives. Gotta use the tools we have,,if they don't work we'll use others. Like I said it aint Bushs daughters. I hope someone is leaning on them for propoganda/morale campaigns. The last thing the prez. needs is to have his kids whooping it up.

High C
04-02-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
LeeG, it's not the sole piece of evidence that has led to war. You know that. There is much more evidence. So one piece of evidence has turned out to be false. Let's throw the baby out with the bath water then? :confused: High C,,I'm slowly getting around to understanding the position,,"it's for national security",,and the only position is to trust the leaders. I mean it. None of us are in the throne. None of us listen to the secret data.
But C,,it's ok that some data can be false,,just like some war reports can vary and change when they happen. But your telling me that the prez and his handlers didn't know it was false until after it was used?
The point is we don't need evidence if false evidence is used. The evidence is immaterial. Terrorism has been nibbling away at our extremities now that the USSR is off the map so it's another enemy,,a real one but diffuse. We have a sophisticated and professional military that is well suited for engaging in war with clear military objectives. Gotta use the tools we have,,if they don't work we'll use others. Like I said it aint Bushs daughters. I hope someone is leaning on them for propoganda/morale campaigns. The last thing the prez. needs is to have his kids whooping it up.</font>[/QUOTE]Lee, you're right that we are in a tough spot knowing where to place our faith. It is a leap of faith to know whom to believe, and how to see the big picture. The problem is compounded by the lousy reputation of politicians in regard to honesty. To make it even harder, it is strategically necessary that the Pres and other military leaders NOT be totally honest about some war related issues. They may well play disinformation games to keep Hussein off balance. To be totally open and honest to the American people is to give away important secrets to the enemy. It's a difficult leap, but as you say, none of us are privy to the secret data. We must make a careful judgement.

That said, we don't know if the Pres and his people knew if the Niger data was false before it was used. Perhaps it was not given careful enough scrutiny because of the loud and constant demands from some to produce more evidence, and "the smoking gun". Lots of evidence was produced, some of it solid, some less so, but the calls for more and more evidence continued. Maybe the administration was too anxious to placate these skeptics and got a bit careless.

We do have to make that leap of faith, and I find the President to be an honest (given those strategic exceptions) man whose motivation is in the right place. I'm not totally certain, it is a leap of faith, but that's where I hang my hat, and I pray that I've made the right choice.

LeeG
04-02-2003, 02:42 PM
This makes sense,,the fundamentals, Faith and trust. The thing that bothers me is that while the president was becoming a governor and cleaning his act up the architects of this war were in training. Some took a break out of the Clinton adminstration, some worked within it. The gov't doesn't flip flop 180 degrees with every administration,,,folks are working there through each administration. And the nature of the challenges don't necessarily change, ie. OBL says, "republicans in power, time to make war!" So when the administration that can support this design of world view comes to power we've got this war. For good and bad. Not because it's repub/demo. Because it's the US. The thing that bothers me is that it's unbelievable that a blatant forgery could be used. I suppose it was the timing and need to "make it up" as they go along. But this feels like Iran/Contra X 100.

LeeG
04-02-2003, 03:00 PM
Are you really asking me which agency determined they were fake?

"U.S. Intelligence officials (anon.)had not seen the documents", that speaks volumes. U.N. Inspectors determined the documents were fake, who were they and how did they determine they were fake?

Jim,,jeeezus fllipping busted marbles if you're going to click and paste why don't you start with the opening paragraph of the same page ??

"CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials."


I think there are four kinds of people,,

LeeG
04-02-2003, 03:02 PM
clikc and paste click and paste from the same gd links ::

But in the days preceding the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, some intelligence officials had begun to acknowledge more openly their doubts about how this and other information was used to support charges that Iraq has a significant covert program to produce weapons of mass destruction.

"I have seen all the stuff. I certainly have doubts," said a senior administration official with access to the latest intelligence. Based on the material he has reviewed, the official said, the United States will "face significant problems in trying to find" such weapons. "It will be very difficult."

According to several officials, decisions about what information to declassify and use to make the administration's public case have been made by a small group that includes top CIA and National Security Council officials. "The policy guys make decisions about things like this," said one official, referring to the uranium evidence. When the State Department "fact sheet" was issued, the official said, "people winced and thought, 'Why are you repeating this trash?' "

LeeG
04-02-2003, 03:16 PM
Jim,,ok,,so the CIA "has doubts" , top security council officials call it trash ,, by implication it's embarassing. UN inspectors who KNOW who sells what and who's signature means what says it's a forgery. And you still want to argue?
ok,,fine,,we don't need reasons. It's the middle east. It's an occupation. Be honest. It's for national security. OK. But get ready cuz this is our occupation. Our West Bank. OBL developed out of COOPERATION of the whole damn region. Al Queda developed out of poverty and disallusioned children of the wealthy countries that were our ALLIES. And now the whole damn region is against it except for a few little emirates needing protection.
I think it's time to start making kayaks and sticking my head in the sand.

High C
04-02-2003, 03:29 PM
to quote LeeG:
"Al Queda developed out of poverty and disallusioned children of the wealthy countries that were our ALLIES."

May I suggest that it appears that Al Queda was developed, not by the poor of wealthy Middle East countries, rather by the rich of these countries. OBL is filthy rich, and our so-called allies in the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) are in it up to their necks, providing $$$ support to terrorists throughout the region. There may well be many disallusioned poor who have joined their ranks, but the top people all seem to be quite wealthy. Poverty and disallusionment is nothing new in the Arab world. These conditions existed long before terrorism became commonplace.

[ 04-02-2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Jim H
04-02-2003, 03:31 PM
Lee, with respect I think you missed the point.


U.S. intelligence officials said they had not even seen the actual evidence How can anyone, especially "U.S. intelligence sources", make that determination when they have not even seen the actual material. The intelligence service that developed the evidence still stands behind it.


Shortly after receiving the documents, the United States turned them over to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within weeks, U.N. inspectors, along with an independent team of international experts, determined that the documents were fake. " (emphasis mine)
If they were deemed the real thing, who would have lost face, IAEA?

Jim H
04-02-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by High C:
to quote LeeG:
"Al Queda developed out of poverty and disallusioned children of the wealthy countries that were our ALLIES."

May I suggest that it appears that Al Queda was developed, not by the poor of wealthy Middle East countries, rather by the rich of these countries. OBL is filthy rich, and our so-called allies in the House of Suad (Saudi Arabia) are in it up to their necks, providing $$$ support to terrorists throughout the region. There may well be many disallusioned poor who have joined their ranks, but the top people all seem to be quite wealthy. Poverty and disallusionment is nothing new in the Arab world. These conditions existed long before terrorism became commonplace.Lee, the well known terrorist groups were usually made up of upper middle class, college educated men and women. Shining Path, Badr-Mienhoff, Red Brigades etc.

LeeG
04-02-2003, 03:48 PM
Jim and HighC ,,I got a little excited with mixing adjective and nouns together, we're in agreement here.
Al Queda developed out of disallusioned children of the wealthy countries that could utilize and galvanize the people living in poverty. And now the whole damn region is against it except for a few little emirates needing protection.

We're moving out of Saudi Arabia,,Egypt is a little busy,,,,occupation doesn't appear to be an effective tool for erradicating terrorism.

Jim H
04-02-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
And now the whole damn region is against it except for a few little emirates needing protection.Publicly yes they are, privately I'm sure they'll be happy to see sadam gone. You cannot have regional stability with a loose cannon rolling around the deck.

LeeG
04-02-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by JimHillman:
Lee, with respect I think you missed the point.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> U.S. intelligence officials said they had not even seen the actual evidence How can anyone, especially "U.S. intelligence sources", make that determination when they have not even seen the actual material. The intelligence service that developed the evidence still stands behind it.

Jim, with respect you are playing fast and loose with your mouse, you conveniently left out the part that says,,"until last month". So you mean to say that the president of the US will use unsubstantiated reports of purchases of uranium as a basis for war?? you mean it wasn't worth running by the CIA?? As though the CIA never had an opinion?? Come on, it was bunk, the CIA said it was bunk. A cigar may be a cigar but this is a blow job. The Italian intelligence service sent their doubts on the matter 6months previous and you STILL wonder?? "uh,,President?, the Italian intelligence agency questions the integrity of this information,,,er,,as in on this date on the letter head this official wasn't in office,,of course we haven't seen the letter and you are about to speak to the nation but we thought you should know"

U.S. intelligence officials said they had not even seen the actual evidence, consisting of supposed government documents from Niger, until last month. The source of their information, and their doubts, officials said, was a written summary provided more than six months ago by the Italian intelligence service, which first obtained the documents.


Shortly after receiving the documents, the United States turned them over to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within weeks, U.N. inspectors, along with an independent team of international experts, determined that the documents were fake. " (emphasis mine)
If they were deemed the real thing, who would have lost face, IAEA?</font>[/QUOTE]What does "face" have to do with it?

The apparent genesis of the letters, or at least the U.S. and British willingness to believe in them, was a 1999 tour of African countries, including Niger, by Iraq's ambassador to Italy, noted at the time by a number of Western intelligence agencies. At some later point, a U.N. official recently told reporters, a Niger diplomat turned the letters over to Italian intelligence, which provided summaries of the information to Washington and London.

Remember the fear? the nuclear materials that were going to show up in a dirty bomb or in Iraqs laboratories to be used on the US??? So the US had "summaries" not the real documents. Ok,,lets talk to the people and UN based on summaries from the Italian intelligence agency that questions the veracity of the document.

Come on Jim,,it was last minute propoganda to move people and votes around. The end justifies the means.
We don't need Turkey, we don't need the UN, hell didn't Rumsfield almost imply at one point that if the UK couldn't join it wouldn't stop us?

LeeG
04-02-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by JimHillman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
And now the whole damn region is against it except for a few little emirates needing protection.Publicly yes they are, privately I'm sure they'll be happy to see sadam gone. You cannot have regional stability with a loose cannon rolling around the deck.</font>[/QUOTE]Jim,,at least try and find a common ground with me here. Is the cause of this instability that loose cannon,,,or is it by nature,,unstable?

High C
04-02-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Jim and HighC ,,I got a little excited with mixing adjective and nouns together, we're in agreement here.
Al Queda developed out of disallusioned children of the wealthy countries that could utilize and galvanize the people living in poverty. And now the whole damn region is against it except for a few little emirates needing protection.

We're moving out of Saudi Arabia,,Egypt is a little busy,,,,occupation doesn't appear to be an effective tool for erradicating terrorism.smile.gif

John of Phoenix
04-02-2003, 04:55 PM
The fact that the government is lying to us doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately. :rolleyes: :mad:

What puzzles me is who would concoct such a story and why? Why would the Italians or the Nigerians, if it were either of them, put something like that together? What could be gained? Who could gain from that forgery?

LeeG
04-02-2003, 06:47 PM
John, given the stakes and summary given by the Italian agency a half yr before doesn't it appear awfully queer that it was spun out?

Oyvind Snibsoer
04-04-2003, 05:53 PM
There actually seems to be quite a disagreement between the US and the UN/IAEA on the nuclear potential of Iraq. Note that nobody says that they actually have any nukes though. This document sums it pretty well up. (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsn.html) It has some interesting sections on bio and chem weapons, too. The author, Glen Rangwala, is a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University.

For those too lazy to open the link and read, my conclusion after reading it is that the US administration is either lying or alarmingly misinformed or a combination of those. Now you'll have to read it, won't you ;)

Scott Rosen
04-04-2003, 06:12 PM
I can't recall a US official ever claiming that Iraq has a nuclear bomb or the ability to deliver it. US officials have said that Iraq has sought and continues to seek weapons grade nuclear material. I don't know if that is true. Either way, it wouldn't affect my view on things.

Oyvind Snibsoer
04-04-2003, 06:18 PM
I was perhaps a little brief or inaccurate. What I meant was Iraqs potential for developing a working nuclear weapon presuming they could get hold of the necessary nuclear material. Sorry about that.