Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb
Secretary cites evidence of missile effort
By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg
Updated: 11:16 p.m. ET Nov. 17, 2004SANTIAGO, Chile - The United States has
intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear
weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a
nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday.
Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is
enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons
inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons.
"I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been actively
working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put it in
something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with him
to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or
fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a
warhead."
Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and
three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed to limit
Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for military
use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to go
into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its
uranium enrichment program.
"I'm talking about information that says they not only have these missiles, but
I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to how
to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of matching
warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop in Manaus,
Brazil.
'No doubt in my mind'
"There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward from what
we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a nuclear
weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to
deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said.
Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that it was
seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts were
underway, not previously disclosed, to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.
Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, said Powell's remarks indicated that Iran
was trying to master the difficult technology of reducing the size of a nuclear
warhead to fit on a ballistic missile.
"Powell appears to be saying the Iranians are working very hard on this
capability," Cirincione said. He said Powell's comments were striking because
the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that it had not seen any
information that Iran had conducted weapons-related work.
In a 32-page report released this week, the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei,
wrote that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for,
and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities," such as
weapons programs. But ElBaradei said that he could not rule out the possibility
that Iran was conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Powell also told reporters that the United States had not decided what action
to take following Sunday's agreement. The Bush administration had insisted that
Iran's past violations warranted taking the matter to the U.N. Security
Council.
Powell said the United States would monitor verification efforts "with
necessary and deserved caution because for 20 years the Iranians have been
trying to hide things from the international community."
Blueprints in mid-90s
Meanwhile, in Paris, the exile group charged that Iran was continuing to enrich
uranium and would continue despite the pledge made Sunday to European foreign
ministers. The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, or NCRI,
also claimed that Iran received blueprints for a Chinese-made bomb in the
mid-1990s from the global nuclear technology network led by the Pakistani
scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network sold the same type of bomb
blueprint to Libya, which has since renounced its nuclear ambitions.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the
Paris-based NCRI, told reporters at a news conference that the Khan network
delivered to the Iranians a small quantity of highly enriched uranium that
could be used in making a bomb. But he said the amount was probably too small
for use in a weapon.
The NCRI is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen organization, which
the U.S. State Department has labeled a terrorist organization. The NCRI helped
expose Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2002 by disclosing the location of the
government's secret uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But many of its
subsequent assertions about the program have proven inaccurate.
On Wednesday, Mohaddessin used satellite photos to pinpoint what he said was
the new facility, inside a 60-acre complex in the northeast part of Tehran
known as the Center for the Development of Advanced Defense Technology. The
group said that the site also houses Iranian chemical and biological weapons
programs and that uranium enrichment began there a year and a half ago, to
replace a nearby facility that was dismantled in March 2004 ahead of a visit by
a U.N. inspections team.
The group gave no evidence for its claims, but Mohaddessin said, "Our sources
were 100 percent sure about their intelligence." He and other group members
said the NCRI relies on human sources, including scientists and other people
working in the facilities and locals who might live near the facilities and see
suspicious activities.
The IAEA , the U.N. nuclear monitoring body, had no immediate comment on the
claims but said it took all such reports seriously.
The agency has no information to support the NCRI claims, according to Western
diplomats with knowledge of the U.N. body's investigations of Iran.
Some diplomats and arms control experts privately discounted the Iranian
group's latest claim, saying it appeared designed to undermine the deal that
the Tehran government signed with Britain, France and Germany. In Tehran on
Wednesday, Iranian officials said they considered the enrichment suspension
temporary and contingent upon a favorable decision at the IAEA meeting next
week and on quick progress in talks next month on long-term guarantees that
Iran can apply nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Richburg reported from Paris. Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer in
Washington contributed to this report.
.
|
|
| User: "Boner the Cat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
18 Nov 2004 10:35:20 AM |
|
|
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they will be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be attacked.
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041118101924.00442.00000678@mb-m17.aol.com...
Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb
Secretary cites evidence of missile effort
By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg
Updated: 11:16 p.m. ET Nov. 17, 2004SANTIAGO, Chile - The United States
has
intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear
weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to
acquire a
nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday.
Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran
is
enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons
inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons.
"I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been
actively
working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put
it in
something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with
him
to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about
uranium or
fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a
warhead."
Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and
three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed to
limit
Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for
military
use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to
go
into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its
uranium enrichment program.
"I'm talking about information that says they not only have these
missiles, but
I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to
how
to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of
matching
warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop in
Manaus,
Brazil.
'No doubt in my mind'
"There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward from what
we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a nuclear
weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able
to
deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said.
Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that it
was
seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts were
underway, not previously disclosed, to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.
Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the
Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, said Powell's remarks indicated that
Iran
was trying to master the difficult technology of reducing the size of a
nuclear
warhead to fit on a ballistic missile.
"Powell appears to be saying the Iranians are working very hard on this
capability," Cirincione said. He said Powell's comments were striking
because
the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that it had not seen
any
information that Iran had conducted weapons-related work.
In a 32-page report released this week, the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei,
wrote that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted
for,
and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities,"
such as
weapons programs. But ElBaradei said that he could not rule out the
possibility
that Iran was conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Powell also told reporters that the United States had not decided what
action
to take following Sunday's agreement. The Bush administration had insisted
that
Iran's past violations warranted taking the matter to the U.N. Security
Council.
Powell said the United States would monitor verification efforts "with
necessary and deserved caution because for 20 years the Iranians have been
trying to hide things from the international community."
Blueprints in mid-90s
Meanwhile, in Paris, the exile group charged that Iran was continuing to
enrich
uranium and would continue despite the pledge made Sunday to European
foreign
ministers. The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, or
NCRI,
also claimed that Iran received blueprints for a Chinese-made bomb in the
mid-1990s from the global nuclear technology network led by the Pakistani
scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network sold the same type of bomb
blueprint to Libya, which has since renounced its nuclear ambitions.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the
Paris-based NCRI, told reporters at a news conference that the Khan
network
delivered to the Iranians a small quantity of highly enriched uranium that
could be used in making a bomb. But he said the amount was probably too
small
for use in a weapon.
The NCRI is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen organization,
which
the U.S. State Department has labeled a terrorist organization. The NCRI
helped
expose Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2002 by disclosing the location of the
government's secret uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But many of its
subsequent assertions about the program have proven inaccurate.
On Wednesday, Mohaddessin used satellite photos to pinpoint what he said
was
the new facility, inside a 60-acre complex in the northeast part of Tehran
known as the Center for the Development of Advanced Defense Technology.
The
group said that the site also houses Iranian chemical and biological
weapons
programs and that uranium enrichment began there a year and a half ago, to
replace a nearby facility that was dismantled in March 2004 ahead of a
visit by
a U.N. inspections team.
The group gave no evidence for its claims, but Mohaddessin said, "Our
sources
were 100 percent sure about their intelligence." He and other group
members
said the NCRI relies on human sources, including scientists and other
people
working in the facilities and locals who might live near the facilities
and see
suspicious activities.
The IAEA , the U.N. nuclear monitoring body, had no immediate comment on
the
claims but said it took all such reports seriously.
The agency has no information to support the NCRI claims, according to
Western
diplomats with knowledge of the U.N. body's investigations of Iran.
Some diplomats and arms control experts privately discounted the Iranian
group's latest claim, saying it appeared designed to undermine the deal
that
the Tehran government signed with Britain, France and Germany. In Tehran
on
Wednesday, Iranian officials said they considered the enrichment
suspension
temporary and contingent upon a favorable decision at the IAEA meeting
next
week and on quick progress in talks next month on long-term guarantees
that
Iran can apply nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Richburg reported from Paris. Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer
in
Washington contributed to this report.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
18 Nov 2004 10:43:13 PM |
|
|
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041118101924.00442.00000678@mb-m17.aol.com...
Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb
Secretary cites evidence of missile effort
By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg
Updated: 11:16 p.m. ET Nov. 17, 2004SANTIAGO, Chile - The United
States
has
intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a
nuclear
weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to
acquire a
nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday.
Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that
Iran
is
enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N.
weapons
inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons.
"I have seen some information that would suggest that they have
been
actively
working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until
you put
it in
something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters
traveling with
him
to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking
about
uranium or
fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does
with a
warhead."
Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between
Iran and
three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed
to
limit
Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for
military
use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and
due to
go
into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely
suspend its
uranium enrichment program.
"I'm talking about information that says they not only have these
missiles, but
I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard
as to
how
to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of
matching
warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop
in
Manaus,
Brazil.
'No doubt in my mind'
"There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward
from what
we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a
nuclear
weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be
able
to
deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said.
Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying
that it
was
seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts
were
underway, not previously disclosed, to arm missiles with nuclear
warheads.
Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the
Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, said Powell's remarks indicated
that
Iran
was trying to master the difficult technology of reducing the size
of a
nuclear
warhead to fit on a ballistic missile.
"Powell appears to be saying the Iranians are working very hard on
this
capability," Cirincione said. He said Powell's comments were
striking
because
the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that it had
not seen
any
information that Iran had conducted weapons-related work.
In a 32-page report released this week, the IAEA chief, Mohamed
ElBaradei,
wrote that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been
accounted
for,
and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited
activities,"
such as
weapons programs. But ElBaradei said that he could not rule out the
possibility
that Iran was conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Powell also told reporters that the United States had not decided
what
action
to take following Sunday's agreement. The Bush administration had
insisted
that
Iran's past violations warranted taking the matter to the U.N.
Security
Council.
Powell said the United States would monitor verification efforts
"with
necessary and deserved caution because for 20 years the Iranians
have been
trying to hide things from the international community."
Blueprints in mid-90s
Meanwhile, in Paris, the exile group charged that Iran was
continuing to
enrich
uranium and would continue despite the pledge made Sunday to
European
foreign
ministers. The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran,
or
NCRI,
also claimed that Iran received blueprints for a Chinese-made bomb
in the
mid-1990s from the global nuclear technology network led by the
Pakistani
scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network sold the same type of
bomb
blueprint to Libya, which has since renounced its nuclear
ambitions.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of
the
Paris-based NCRI, told reporters at a news conference that the Khan
network
delivered to the Iranians a small quantity of highly enriched
uranium that
could be used in making a bomb. But he said the amount was probably
too
small
for use in a weapon.
The NCRI is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen
organization,
which
the U.S. State Department has labeled a terrorist organization. The
NCRI
helped
expose Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2002 by disclosing the location
of the
government's secret uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But many
of its
subsequent assertions about the program have proven inaccurate.
On Wednesday, Mohaddessin used satellite photos to pinpoint what he
said
was
the new facility, inside a 60-acre complex in the northeast part of
Tehran
known as the Center for the Development of Advanced Defense
Technology.
The
group said that the site also houses Iranian chemical and
biological
weapons
programs and that uranium enrichment began there a year and a half
ago, to
replace a nearby facility that was dismantled in March 2004 ahead
of a
visit by
a U.N. inspections team.
The group gave no evidence for its claims, but Mohaddessin said,
"Our
sources
were 100 percent sure about their intelligence." He and other group
members
said the NCRI relies on human sources, including scientists and
other
people
working in the facilities and locals who might live near the
facilities
and see
suspicious activities.
The IAEA , the U.N. nuclear monitoring body, had no immediate
comment on
the
claims but said it took all such reports seriously.
The agency has no information to support the NCRI claims, according
to
Western
diplomats with knowledge of the U.N. body's investigations of Iran.
Some diplomats and arms control experts privately discounted the
Iranian
group's latest claim, saying it appeared designed to undermine the
deal
that
the Tehran government signed with Britain, France and Germany. In
Tehran
on
Wednesday, Iranian officials said they considered the enrichment
suspension
temporary and contingent upon a favorable decision at the IAEA
meeting
next
week and on quick progress in talks next month on long-term
guarantees
that
Iran can apply nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Richburg reported from Paris. Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Dafna
Linzer
in
Washington contributed to this report.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
18 Nov 2004 11:59:56 PM |
|
|
a écrit:
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
*****.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Total lie. They had to go there because there was no other way to find
out. And they expected WMD used, that is why they all had protective
gear. You make up *****.
J.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
19 Nov 2004 01:16:48 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a =E9crit:
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they
will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be
attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
*****.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Total lie. They had to go there because there was no other way to
find
out.
LOL
So supposing that all the sophisticated intelligence gathering networks
and devices that taxpayers pay for dearly are worth zilch. Same for
several years worth of UN inspections...
Why didn't they just ask any country in the region? Iran, Kuwait,
Syria, the Saudis, the Pakistanis.... any country in the region who had
any REAL concern or interest to know about Iraq's offensive capacities
knew Saddam had nothing left. Even in his hay days when he was
promising the "Mother of all Wars", all Saddam could manage was firing
six scud missiles, only one of which hit the target and killed a dozen
marines. Iranians and Kuwaitis - two countries actually attacked by
Iraq - had practically seized watching Saddam since year 2000. Saddam
was no threat to anyone because he had NOTHING, and everyone in the
world knew that except some morons who believe everything they hear on
CNN!
And they expected WMD used, that is why they all had protective
gear.
You mean condoms?
You make up *****.
J.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands
and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
=20
=20
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
20 Nov 2004 01:08:48 AM |
|
|
I see it is no use getting through to you.
J.
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Jean Guernon wrote:
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they
will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be
attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
*****.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Total lie. They had to go there because there was no other way to
find
out.
LOL
So supposing that all the sophisticated intelligence gathering networks
and devices that taxpayers pay for dearly are worth zilch. Same for
several years worth of UN inspections...
Why didn't they just ask any country in the region? Iran, Kuwait,
Syria, the Saudis, the Pakistanis.... any country in the region who had
any REAL concern or interest to know about Iraq's offensive capacities
knew Saddam had nothing left. Even in his hay days when he was
promising the "Mother of all Wars", all Saddam could manage was firing
six scud missiles, only one of which hit the target and killed a dozen
marines. Iranians and Kuwaitis - two countries actually attacked by
Iraq - had practically seized watching Saddam since year 2000. Saddam
was no threat to anyone because he had NOTHING, and everyone in the
world knew that except some morons who believe everything they hear on
CNN!
And they expected WMD used, that is why they all had protective
gear.
You mean condoms?
You make up *****.
J.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands
and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
20 Nov 2004 10:09:58 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:44Cnd.3296357$yk.513983@news.easynews.com...
I see it is no use getting through to you.
You weren't really asked to Jean ;-)
The original discussion was about Iran. Then you jumped in to call me a
bullshitter and a liar for stating an irrefutable fact (NO WMD IN IRAQ) -
which is known by the whole planet, and now admitted by the US government as
well.
Now don't get me wrong. The point here is not the US attack on Iraq. Since
WWII, US has carried out over 200 military operations around the globe
(mostly on completely defenseless countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan). In
most of these cases, the US government didn't even bother to inform the
public, let alone fabricate phony reasons for them.
So the question is why they are going through so much trouble now?
Has Public Opinion become the other Super Power as some intellectuals
predicted after the fall of USSR? I certainly hope so, and as part of that
Public, I think we should strengthen our force by dealing in truths and
facts, rather than having a knee jerk reaction everytime these facts need be
stated.
Now back to Iran. Do they have WMDs and will they use them in case of an US
aggression on their sole?
J.
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Jean Guernon wrote:
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they
will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be
attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
*****.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Total lie. They had to go there because there was no other way to
find
out.
LOL
So supposing that all the sophisticated intelligence gathering networks
and devices that taxpayers pay for dearly are worth zilch. Same for
several years worth of UN inspections...
Why didn't they just ask any country in the region? Iran, Kuwait,
Syria, the Saudis, the Pakistanis.... any country in the region who had
any REAL concern or interest to know about Iraq's offensive capacities
knew Saddam had nothing left. Even in his hay days when he was
promising the "Mother of all Wars", all Saddam could manage was firing
six scud missiles, only one of which hit the target and killed a dozen
marines. Iranians and Kuwaitis - two countries actually attacked by
Iraq - had practically seized watching Saddam since year 2000. Saddam
was no threat to anyone because he had NOTHING, and everyone in the
world knew that except some morons who believe everything they hear on
CNN!
And they expected WMD used, that is why they all had protective
gear.
You mean condoms?
You make up *****.
J.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands
and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
21 Nov 2004 07:53:24 AM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
mostly on completely defenseless >countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan).
LOL!!!
Iraq defenseless? Maybe you should tell that to the people of the two nations
that Saddam invaded and the over 1,000,000 people that were killed by his
actions. Also ask the other 4 nations that sugffered missile attacks from Iraq.
As for Afghanistan, they allowed their nation to be used as a base from which
the evil plot of 9-11 was launched, they deserve what they got.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
21 Nov 2004 04:03:10 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041121085324.08086.00001015@mb-m05.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
mostly on completely defenseless >countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan).
LOL!!!
Iraq defenseless? Maybe you should tell that to the people of the two
nations
that Saddam invaded and the over 1,000,000 people that were killed by his
actions. Also ask the other 4 nations that sugffered missile attacks from
Iraq.
I didn't say Iraq was ALWAYS defensless.
In fact, Iraq maintained one of the strongest military forces in the region
through out the 70's and the 80's thanks to massive military aid from the
Soviets (up to 74-75) and then the United States, Germans and French all the
way up to 1990 when they invaded Kuwait. During the Iran-Iraq war, arms were
flowing to Iraq from the United States. Saddam DID HAVE and USE WMDs which is
why there were a 1 million deaths. Without US support, that war would have
lasted at most a year, or most proably would have never happened.
By the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Iraq was already fairly weak militarily
and economically. To strengthen its forces, Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.
This resulted in his getting his ***** kicked further, and was forced to
surrender unconditionally. Following that war and the 12 years of
international sanctions, Iraq became weaker and weaker. By 2003, Iraq had
become so weak it was virtually defensless. When US invaded Iraq, Saddam
hardly managed to shoot a few rifle shots in the air. He had absolutely
nothing left and this is why US figured it is safe to invade it.
From a military point of view of course, this was a very sound strategy. Why
risk your troops' lives to invade a country that can defend itself? So that
is not the question. The question is rather would the United States attack a
country that might be able to defend itself. Iran for example?
As for Afghanistan, they allowed their nation to be used as a base from
which
the evil plot of 9-11 was launched, they deserve what they got.
Well, if we extend that logic to other terrorsit cases, then after the London
bombings by IRA, the British should have bombed West Belfast and IRA's
sources of fiances in places like Boston. Or US should have oblitrated Idaho
and Montana after the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City.
----------
BTW Tony, as a personal side note, I've been reading this NG for a couple of
weeks now and I must say I enjoy your posts a lot, even if I don't always
agree with your opinions. I think your posts are very frank, to the point and
represent a line of thinking that is becoming more and more prevalent in the
United States. They are also short (contrary to mine) and often quite funny.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
26 Nov 2004 03:50:27 AM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20041121085324.08086.00001015@mb-m05.aol.com>...
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
mostly on completely defenseless >countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan).
LOL!!!
Iraq defenseless?
Yes!
Maybe you should tell that to the people of the two nations
that Saddam invaded and the over 1,000,000 people that were killed by his
actions. Also ask the other 4 nations that sugffered missile attacks from >Iraq.
What "two nations"? You mean when Saddam was encouraged by the yanks
to invade Iran? Kept the Iranians occupied and hence the spread of
their fundamentalism to Saudi...oil is thicker than blood pantyboy to
the yanks!
As for Afghanistan, they allowed their nation to be used as a base from which
the evil plot of 9-11 was launched, they deserve what they got.
Tony
And yankieland was used as a base to launch this illegal attack on
Iraq. If someone bombs you bastards then you too "deserve" it!
WH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thelasian" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
21 Nov 2004 05:00:15 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20041121085324.08086.00001015@mb-m05.aol.com>...
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
mostly on completely defenseless >countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan).
LOL!!!
Iraq defenseless? Maybe you should tell that to the people of the two nations
that Saddam invaded and the over 1,000,000 people that were killed by his
actions.
Oh, you must mean the murders committed by Saddam during the period in
which he was ARMED, FINANCED, BACKED, and SUPPORTED by the USA!
FACT: in 1982, Iraq was REMOVED from the US STate Dept list of
terrorist nations so as to ease the way for the transfer of BILLIONS
Of dollars to Saddam and to provide him with chemical/bio weapons
components INCLUDING ANTHRAX.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
21 Nov 2004 04:29:28 AM |
|
|
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:44Cnd.3296357$yk.513983@news.easynews.com...
I see it is no use getting through to you.
You weren't really asked to Jean ;-)
The original discussion was about Iran. Then you jumped in to call me a
bullshitter and a liar for stating an irrefutable fact (NO WMD IN IRAQ) -
which is known by the whole planet, and now admitted by the US government as
well.
No, I jumped in because you inferred there was another way to know. THIS
is a lie. And second, the irrefutability only hinges on not finding out
what happened to them yet.
Now don't get me wrong. The point here is not the US attack on Iraq. Since
WWII, US has carried out over 200 military operations around the globe
(mostly on completely defenseless countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan). In
most of these cases, the US government didn't even bother to inform the
public, let alone fabricate phony reasons for them.
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
So the question is why they are going through so much trouble now?
There is no question that they had to implement the UN resolution. Go
through so much trouble was the will of the world, until the US
implemented it. They then decided to chicken out, most because they had
sold their soul to Saddam for some oil taken from the mouth of the Iraqi
children for which they had promised him they would prevent the
implementation of the UN resolution.
Has Public Opinion become the other Super Power as some intellectuals
predicted after the fall of USSR? I certainly hope so, and as part of that
Public, I think we should strengthen our force by dealing in truths and
facts, rather than having a knee jerk reaction everytime these facts need be
stated.
Public opinion is not the weasels who go in the streets, who are totally
uninformed and brainwashed, The facts are that the UN resolution had to
be implemented and there was no reason not to, especially not the 12
years when it hadn't been, for no reason other than appease the weasels,
once there was a last chance resolution.
Now back to Iran. Do they have WMDs and will they use them in case of an US
aggression on their sole?
Depends if they are wearing sandals...?
But seriously, yes, you are right, in that if they are not intercepted
before they do have them, it will be a mistake. But with the way the UN
betrayed their own signatures, I don't see any reason to go through them
if they can't stop that.
J.
J.
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Jean Guernon wrote:
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they
will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be
attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
*****.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Total lie. They had to go there because there was no other way to
find
out.
LOL
So supposing that all the sophisticated intelligence gathering networks
and devices that taxpayers pay for dearly are worth zilch. Same for
several years worth of UN inspections...
Why didn't they just ask any country in the region? Iran, Kuwait,
Syria, the Saudis, the Pakistanis.... any country in the region who had
any REAL concern or interest to know about Iraq's offensive capacities
knew Saddam had nothing left. Even in his hay days when he was
promising the "Mother of all Wars", all Saddam could manage was firing
six scud missiles, only one of which hit the target and killed a dozen
marines. Iranians and Kuwaitis - two countries actually attacked by
Iraq - had practically seized watching Saddam since year 2000. Saddam
was no threat to anyone because he had NOTHING, and everyone in the
world knew that except some morons who believe everything they hear on
CNN!
And they expected WMD used, that is why they all had protective
gear.
You mean condoms?
You make up *****.
J.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands
and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
21 Nov 2004 03:52:25 PM |
|
|
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in fact
completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be sure and had
to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is really the case, then
the people in Washington are even more incompetent than most think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY LONG
time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US government
official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As for UN
resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has broken so far,
or 187? United States cannot be serious about attacking a country because
they broke UN resolutions.
You also state:
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
Out of the over 200 US military interventions since WWII around the globe, at
best a dozen can be qualified as legitimate. But to stay with only the
irrefutable cases, take the covert war that was launched after the Sandinista
revolution took control in Nicaragua. In1984, Nicaragua responded in a way
appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case against the United
States to the World Court in the Hague. The court ordered the United States
to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' (read International Terrorism)
against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. But Washington ignored
the court, and then vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions affirming the
judgment and calling on all states to observe international law.
So unless you consider as legitimate attacking other countries who don't tow
the Washington line, most US military interventions go agaist internation
law. But this is again beside the point because there is just way too many
cases and evidence where US has used force illegally and illegitimately to
obtain what it can't through other means. Now we accept these basic and
irrefutable facts, we can move forward and predict what future has in store
for us. On the other hand if we insist on believing propaganda lies, then
will be shaky.
Re Iran: Agree that the UN circus is not going to be a determing factor. Just
last week, ONE day after the Iranians signed a UN agreement not to pursue any
more uranium enrichments activities, Colin Powell was charging back with his
now infamous "information from reliable sources", that Iran was still trying
to make a nuclear bomb. I don't know if this is true or not, but frankly
given the actual context of the world, any country - and in particular Iran -
would be very stupid not to arm itself to the teeth if they can. Deterence
seems to be the only reliable defense. Sad, but that is another irrefutable
fact that we have to deal with.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:c6_nd.5466934$6p.882618@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:44Cnd.3296357$yk.513983@news.easynews.com...
I see it is no use getting through to you.
You weren't really asked to Jean ;-)
The original discussion was about Iran. Then you jumped in to call me a
bullshitter and a liar for stating an irrefutable fact (NO WMD IN IRAQ) -
which is known by the whole planet, and now admitted by the US government
as well.
No, I jumped in because you inferred there was another way to know. THIS is
a lie. And second, the irrefutability only hinges on not finding out what
happened to them yet.
Now don't get me wrong. The point here is not the US attack on Iraq. Since
WWII, US has carried out over 200 military operations around the globe
(mostly on completely defenseless countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan).
In most of these cases, the US government didn't even bother to inform the
public, let alone fabricate phony reasons for them.
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
So the question is why they are going through so much trouble now?
There is no question that they had to implement the UN resolution. Go
through so much trouble was the will of the world, until the US implemented
it. They then decided to chicken out, most because they had sold their soul
to Saddam for some oil taken from the mouth of the Iraqi children for which
they had promised him they would prevent the implementation of the UN
resolution.
Has Public Opinion become the other Super Power as some intellectuals
predicted after the fall of USSR? I certainly hope so, and as part of that
Public, I think we should strengthen our force by dealing in truths and
facts, rather than having a knee jerk reaction everytime these facts need
be stated.
Public opinion is not the weasels who go in the streets, who are totally
uninformed and brainwashed, The facts are that the UN resolution had to be
implemented and there was no reason not to, especially not the 12 years
when it hadn't been, for no reason other than appease the weasels, once
there was a last chance resolution.
Now back to Iran. Do they have WMDs and will they use them in case of an
US aggression on their sole?
Depends if they are wearing sandals...?
But seriously, yes, you are right, in that if they are not intercepted
before they do have them, it will be a mistake. But with the way the UN
betrayed their own signatures, I don't see any reason to go through them if
they can't stop that.
J.
J.
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Jean Guernon wrote:
Monsieurstat@yahoo.com a écrit:
Boner the Cat (n-spam) wrote:
This is how this is going to play out:
First we now have only chicken hawks in our government and they
will
be
advocating a preemptive strike on Iran. (chicken hawk is those that
never
served but love war)
Israel and Bushwacker will bomb Irans nuke facilities. (sorry they
are in
North Korea)
Iran will nuke Israel. (they already have nukes and missiles)
The rest of the world will say, hey you attack expect to be
attacked.
Chicken hawks won't attack any country that might be able to defend
itself.
*****.
Even in the case of Iraq they had the inspectors make sure Saddam
wasn't hiding any little surprises before sending the Boys over.
Total lie. They had to go there because there was no other way to
find
out.
LOL
So supposing that all the sophisticated intelligence gathering networks
and devices that taxpayers pay for dearly are worth zilch. Same for
several years worth of UN inspections...
Why didn't they just ask any country in the region? Iran, Kuwait,
Syria, the Saudis, the Pakistanis.... any country in the region who had
any REAL concern or interest to know about Iraq's offensive capacities
knew Saddam had nothing left. Even in his hay days when he was
promising the "Mother of all Wars", all Saddam could manage was firing
six scud missiles, only one of which hit the target and killed a dozen
marines. Iranians and Kuwaitis - two countries actually attacked by
Iraq - had practically seized watching Saddam since year 2000. Saddam
was no threat to anyone because he had NOTHING, and everyone in the
world knew that except some morons who believe everything they hear on
CNN!
And they expected WMD used, that is why they all had protective
gear.
You mean condoms?
You make up *****.
J.
Israelis however, might decide to take the matters into their hands
and
put the chicken hawks before a 'fait accompli'.
As for what the rest of the world will say... I guess we'll have to
wait and see how much public opinion will matter by then.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
21 Nov 2004 10:35:20 PM |
|
|
MonsieurStat a écrit:
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in fact
completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be sure and had
to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is really the case, then
the people in Washington are even more incompetent than most think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY LONG
time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US government
official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As for UN
resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has broken so far,
or 187? United States cannot be serious about attacking a country because
they broke UN resolutions.
No, they didn't have any evidence, and no, same old anti-semite *****,
resolution about Israel do not implicate any authorization of force,
unlike Iraq.
You also state:
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
Out of the over 200 US military interventions since WWII around the globe, at
best a dozen can be qualified as legitimate. But to stay with only the
irrefutable cases, take the covert war that was launched after the Sandinista
revolution took control in Nicaragua. In1984, Nicaragua responded in a way
appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case against the United
States to the World Court in the Hague. The court ordered the United States
to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' (read International Terrorism)
against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. But Washington ignored
the court, and then vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions affirming the
judgment and calling on all states to observe international law.
Again, you pick old stuff that was perfectly justified in light of the
cold war, to preserve democracy. All you can do is whine your anti-US
and anti-Israel propaganda. Which is kind of sad and redundant.
J.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
22 Nov 2004 07:15:03 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:c0eod.4910471$ic1.462685@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in fact
completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be sure and
had to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is really the
case, then the people in Washington are even more incompetent than most
think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY LONG
time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US government
official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As for UN
resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has broken so
far, or 187? United States cannot be serious about attacking a country
because they broke UN resolutions.
No, they didn't have any evidence, and no, same old anti-semite *****,
resolution about Israel do not implicate any authorization of force, unlike
Iraq.
Knee-jerk reaction to the word Israel?
Which part of my question you consider anti-Semite?
Do you even know what anti-Semite means?
FYI, United States can veto any UN resolution, which they have in many cases
involving Israel. Despite this, there are some 178 non-respected resolutions
on Israel that have passed, some of which would be enforceable by the use of
force, except there is nobody around to enforce them (UN doesn't have an army
to enforce its resolutions)
You also state:
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
Out of the over 200 US military interventions since WWII around the globe,
at best a dozen can be qualified as legitimate. But to stay with only the
irrefutable cases, take the covert war that was launched after the
Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. In1984, Nicaragua
responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case
against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court
ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' (read
International Terrorism) against Nicaragua and to pay substantial
reparations. But Washington ignored the court, and then vetoed two UN
Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all
states to observe international law.
Again, you pick old stuff that was perfectly justified in light of the cold
war, to preserve democracy. All you can do is whine your anti-US and
anti-Israel propaganda. Which is kind of sad and redundant.
Following your logic every violent act in history becomes legitimate. I don't
know of any country attacking another without some kind of a reason. After
all Nazis started the WWII because they believed their superior race should
rule the world. Soviets invaded half of Europe because they thought Americans
were coming to undo their revolution. Israel has attacked half of his
neighbors because they are scared of Arabs. And Ad Nausea... there is always
a reason.
But the bottom line is that International law and human decency considers
raping, killing and destroying other peoples countries WRONG, no matter under
what light you look at it.
J.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
22 Nov 2004 12:35:54 PM |
|
|
Same old long debunked anti-semite *****. But from you, there is no
surprise, anti-semite loser.
J.
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:c0eod.4910471$ic1.462685@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in fact
completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be sure and
had to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is really the
case, then the people in Washington are even more incompetent than most
think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY LONG
time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US government
official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As for UN
resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has broken so
far, or 187? United States cannot be serious about attacking a country
because they broke UN resolutions.
No, they didn't have any evidence, and no, same old anti-semite *****,
resolution about Israel do not implicate any authorization of force, unlike
Iraq.
Knee-jerk reaction to the word Israel?
Which part of my question you consider anti-Semite?
Do you even know what anti-Semite means?
FYI, United States can veto any UN resolution, which they have in many cases
involving Israel. Despite this, there are some 178 non-respected resolutions
on Israel that have passed, some of which would be enforceable by the use of
force, except there is nobody around to enforce them (UN doesn't have an army
to enforce its resolutions)
You also state:
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
Out of the over 200 US military interventions since WWII around the globe,
at best a dozen can be qualified as legitimate. But to stay with only the
irrefutable cases, take the covert war that was launched after the
Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. In1984, Nicaragua
responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case
against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court
ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' (read
International Terrorism) against Nicaragua and to pay substantial
reparations. But Washington ignored the court, and then vetoed two UN
Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all
states to observe international law.
Again, you pick old stuff that was perfectly justified in light of the cold
war, to preserve democracy. All you can do is whine your anti-US and
anti-Israel propaganda. Which is kind of sad and redundant.
Following your logic every violent act in history becomes legitimate. I don't
know of any country attacking another without some kind of a reason. After
all Nazis started the WWII because they believed their superior race should
rule the world. Soviets invaded half of Europe because they thought Americans
were coming to undo their revolution. Israel has attacked half of his
neighbors because they are scared of Arabs. And Ad Nausea... there is always
a reason.
But the bottom line is that International law and human decency considers
raping, killing and destroying other peoples countries WRONG, no matter under
what light you look at it.
J.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
22 Nov 2004 07:05:36 PM |
|
|
You may ressort to name calling, now that you feel cornered by your own line
of reasoning, or there lack of.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:ekqod.4943623$ic1.464796@news.easynews.com...
Same old long debunked anti-semite *****. But from you, there is no
surprise, anti-semite loser.
J.
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:c0eod.4910471$ic1.462685@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in fact
completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be sure and
had to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is really the
case, then the people in Washington are even more incompetent than most
think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY LONG
time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US government
official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As for UN
resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has broken so
far, or 187? United States cannot be serious about attacking a country
because they broke UN resolutions.
No, they didn't have any evidence, and no, same old anti-semite *****,
resolution about Israel do not implicate any authorization of force,
unlike Iraq.
Knee-jerk reaction to the word Israel?
Which part of my question you consider anti-Semite?
Do you even know what anti-Semite means?
FYI, United States can veto any UN resolution, which they have in many
cases involving Israel. Despite this, there are some 178 non-respected
resolutions on Israel that have passed, some of which would be enforceable
by the use of force, except there is nobody around to enforce them (UN
doesn't have an army to enforce its resolutions)
You also state:
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
Out of the over 200 US military interventions since WWII around the
globe, at best a dozen can be qualified as legitimate. But to stay with
only the irrefutable cases, take the covert war that was launched after
the Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. In1984, Nicaragua
responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case
against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court
ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' (read
International Terrorism) against Nicaragua and to pay substantial
reparations. But Washington ignored the court, and then vetoed two UN
Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all
states to observe international law.
Again, you pick old stuff that was perfectly justified in light of the
cold war, to preserve democracy. All you can do is whine your anti-US and
anti-Israel propaganda. Which is kind of sad and redundant.
Following your logic every violent act in history becomes legitimate. I
don't know of any country attacking another without some kind of a reason.
After all Nazis started the WWII because they believed their superior race
should rule the world. Soviets invaded half of Europe because they thought
Americans were coming to undo their revolution. Israel has attacked half
of his neighbors because they are scared of Arabs. And Ad Nausea... there
is always a reason.
But the bottom line is that International law and human decency considers
raping, killing and destroying other peoples countries WRONG, no matter
under what light you look at it.
J.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
23 Nov 2004 01:19:54 AM |
|
|
Not at all. Only anti-semites resort to comparing Iraq with Israel.
Iraq is the only country that had the authorization of force against ot
for non-compliance. Iraq had to abide by the resolutions, there was no
counter-part from Kuwait. There are many idiots abroad, and even in the
US, who have no clue about moral obligation and undermine the US. The
latest being Jessie Jackson, who really does a disservice by lying about
the full legality of the intervention in Iraq, A fucking loser. But this
is domestic policies, let's get back at YOUR problem. Israel situation
is totally different from Iraq, except fort the Muslim aggression that
both started the problem.
Israel is bound by the resolutions ONLY insofar as Palestinians are
bound by it. Israel reacts only when Palestinians break their
obligations and kill innocent civilians, If it wasn't for the Muslim
aggression against Israel there would not be any extraordinary security
measures to protect the innocent civilians and go after the murderers.
It takes two to tango. Anyone who compares ONLY demonstrate his blatant
anti-semitism.
But then again, we see that the world is anti-semite prone for having
questioned the only thing that prevents the barbarians from killing
innocent civilians (temporary barrier) and kissing up to Arafat. There
is no Palestine yet, and there will be one only when there will be a
negotiated settlement, which requires first to stop the violence.
As I have said when Arafat croaked, it may now be possible, Makmoud
abbas has vowed to cracked down on the murderers when he was in charge,
which is the FIRST step to any road map, and now that Arafat is gone, it
is possible to achieve progress, although it remains to be seen. Of
course any group that question the existence of Israel must be
eradicated before any deal takes place. These people are against any
peace deal. How can there be any resolution of this conflict with them
around to sabotage any progress. Their hate ideology must be put to an
end. Just like yours.
J.
MonsieurStat a écrit:
You may ressort to name calling, now that you feel cornered by your own line
of reasoning, or there lack of.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:ekqod.4943623$ic1.464796@news.easynews.com...
Same old long debunked anti-semite *****. But from you, there is no
surprise, anti-semite loser.
J.
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:c0eod.4910471$ic1.462685@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in fact
completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be sure and
had to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is really the
case, then the people in Washington are even more incompetent than most
think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY LONG
time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US government
official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As for UN
resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has broken so
far, or 187? United States cannot be serious about attacking a country
because they broke UN resolutions.
No, they didn't have any evidence, and no, same old anti-semite *****,
resolution about Israel do not implicate any authorization of force,
unlike Iraq.
Knee-jerk reaction to the word Israel?
Which part of my question you consider anti-Semite?
Do you even know what anti-Semite means?
FYI, United States can veto any UN resolution, which they have in many
cases involving Israel. Despite this, there are some 178 non-respected
resolutions on Israel that have passed, some of which would be enforceable
by the use of force, except there is nobody around to enforce them (UN
doesn't have an army to enforce its resolutions)
You also state:
Again, not true, the US always had legitimate reason to intervene
militarily.
Out of the over 200 US military interventions since WWII around the
globe, at best a dozen can be qualified as legitimate. But to stay with
only the irrefutable cases, take the covert war that was launched after
the Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. In1984, Nicaragua
responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case
against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court
ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' (read
International Terrorism) against Nicaragua and to pay substantial
reparations. But Washington ignored the court, and then vetoed two UN
Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all
states to observe international law.
Again, you pick old stuff that was perfectly justified in light of the
cold war, to preserve democracy. All you can do is whine your anti-US and
anti-Israel propaganda. Which is kind of sad and redundant.
Following your logic every violent act in history becomes legitimate. I
don't know of any country attacking another without some kind of a reason.
After all Nazis started the WWII because they believed their superior race
should rule the world. Soviets invaded half of Europe because they thought
Americans were coming to undo their revolution. Israel has attacked half
of his neighbors because they are scared of Arabs. And Ad Nausea... there
is always a reason.
But the bottom line is that International law and human decency considers
raping, killing and destroying other peoples countries WRONG, no matter
under what light you look at it.
J.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb |
23 Nov 2004 02:49:33 AM |
|
|
"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel." --
Colin Powell
He got shafted for this, so you figure it's ok to regurgitate Zionist racist
crap on how Palestenian are all barbaric, and don't want peace because they
are all so hateful, bla bla bla...
This is what Zionist leaders and intelectuals think, and you're just echoing
the same hateful thoughts in your own small way:
FROM: whatreallyhappened.com
1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in
ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are
our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters
away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but
actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The
Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they
want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28,
2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin,
speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts".
New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed
against the boulders and walls." " Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) in a
speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it
will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael
Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, New York Times, 14
April 1983.
6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return
them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda
Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967
and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which
was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled,
Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.
9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab
leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have
taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that
interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the
Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing:
we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they
the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that
Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the
young will forget."
10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live
here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of
General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do
that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about
American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the
Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001,
to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's
cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon
may not have been joking.
12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one
centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand.
We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us
on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces -
Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never
do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael
Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash
Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem
regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a
Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate
Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port
Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General
Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New
York 1978.
16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and
the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab
population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not
even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because
geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab
villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz
Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and
Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place
built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe
Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his
question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion
waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin,
leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times,
23 October 1979.
19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of
Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of
woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on
Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.
20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a
high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our
surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is
easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over
those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an
additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which
will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15
percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940
[and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's
Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.
21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to
enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...
Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign
Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing
Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly
and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time.
The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish
State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their
lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it
employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor
must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder
of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,
Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:twBod.5561713$6p.896225@news.easynews.com...
Not at all. Only anti-semites resort to comparing Iraq with Israel.
Iraq is the only country that had the authorization of force against ot for
non-compliance. Iraq had to abide by the resolutions, there was no
counter-part from Kuwait. There are many idiots abroad, and even in the
US, who have no clue about moral obligation and undermine the US. The
latest being Jessie Jackson, who really does a disservice by lying about
the full legality of the intervention in Iraq, A fucking loser. But this is
domestic policies, let's get back at YOUR problem. Israel situation is
totally different from Iraq, except fort the Muslim aggression that both
started the problem.
Israel is bound by the resolutions ONLY insofar as Palestinians are bound
by it. Israel reacts only when Palestinians break their obligations and
kill innocent civilians, If it wasn't for the Muslim aggression against
Israel there would not be any extraordinary security measures to protect
the innocent civilians and go after the murderers. It takes two to tango.
Anyone who compares ONLY demonstrate his blatant anti-semitism.
But then again, we see that the world is anti-semite prone for having
questioned the only thing that prevents the barbarians from killing
innocent civilians (temporary barrier) and kissing up to Arafat. There is
no Palestine yet, and there will be one only when there will be a
negotiated settlement, which requires first to stop the violence.
As I have said when Arafat croaked, it may now be possible, Makmoud abbas
has vowed to cracked down on the murderers when he was in charge, which is
the FIRST step to any road map, and now that Arafat is gone, it is possible
to achieve progress, although it remains to be seen. Of course any group
that question the existence of Israel must be eradicated before any deal
takes place. These people are against any peace deal. How can there be any
resolution of this conflict with them around to sabotage any progress.
Their hate ideology must be put to an end. Just like yours.
J.
MonsieurStat a écrit:
You may ressort to name calling, now that you feel cornered by your own
line of reasoning, or there lack of.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:ekqod.4943623$ic1.464796@news.easynews.com...
Same old long debunked anti-semite *****. But from you, there is no
surprise, anti-semite loser.
J.
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:c0eod.4910471$ic1.462685@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
We can go round and round forever on this. I think evidence was too
overwhelming that the US government knew Iraq had no WMD, and was in
fact completely defenseless. You seem to think that they could not be
sure and had to spend 150B dollars to prove the obvious. If that is
really the case, then the people in Washington are even more
incompetent than most think.
However, I agree 100% that Saddam had to be removed - in fact a VERY
LONG time ago. First Gulf War was a good opportunity, but as a US
government official put it, they didn't have anybody to replace him. As
for UN resolutions however... is it 178 resolutions that Israel has
broken so far, or 187? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
