| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Jean Guernon" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2004 11:43:10 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <QO2bd.16967$Ia5.7869@edtnps89>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ZvydnTdCU6gJRPbcRVn-pw@locallink.net>, " John F Lemke"
<jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, nuclear technology known and tagged by inspectors in Iraq after the
first Gulf War disappearing from Iraq?
Is this another example of Bush Administration incompetence that points to
further nuclear proliferation and the spreading of WMD thru the volatile
Middle East? Wouldn't this be counter to the foreign policy of the Bush
Administration?
I would think that when Bush had the military guard the oil fields instead of
the nuclear facilities that people would have figured out where Bush's
priorities were. Avoiding "nukular" proliferation in the Middle East was
obviously not as high a priority as Iraqi oil to the Bush administration.
After
all, actions speak louder than words.
Woods
He wanted to avoid that they would set it on fire like they did before.
New contingencies take adaptation.
That's the whole point, Jean. Bush was more concernd about the oil fields than
he was about the nuclear material. That demonstrates the level of importance of
the oil fields(extreme importance) versus his concern with nuclear material
getting out (zero, none, zilch, nary a blip on the radar screen).
Woods
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
Then what happened? The UN inspectors weaseled out when there was too
much action, they didn't tell the busy coalition to monitor these things
for them, they just vanished.
Since all these parts, even entire buildings, were shipped out to
neighboring countries, don't you think that the weasels are, much like
with the oil for food program, partly those who tipped off the hostile
party to benefit from such transfer given the way they operated?
I'll bet that if there is an investigation it will show once again that
the UN is fully responsible for what happened.
Incredible how weasels will do anything to undermine freedom.
J.
.
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
13 Oct 2004 08:29:03 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Being that Bush went this alone, against the will of the UN, it's up to him,
*not the UN*, to take the responsibility for these facilities, which he
didn't... the oil fields were more important to him than the possibility of
WMD's
Then what happened? The UN inspectors weaseled out when there was too much
action, they didn't tell the busy coalition to monitor these things for
them, they just vanished.
Like I said, the UN opposed the action, so you can't really blame them for
wanting to get out of there before the ***** hit the proverbial fan.
Additionally, these facilities would still be there today if it wasn't for
the distraction that is the coalition of the willing.
Since all these parts, even entire buildings, were shipped out to
neighboring countries, don't you think that the weasels are, much like
with the oil for food program, partly those who tipped off the hostile
party to benefit from such transfer given the way they operated?
*ENTIRE* buildings were shipped out of Iraq! That means that there was
*NOBODY* monitoring them... not a single US or Brittish soldier. If there
had been just 1 soldier assigned to watch each building, then we would have
known they were being disassembled and shipped out.
But there was none. Not a single person. The most important objective for
Bush was the oil fields, not stopping the proliferation of WMD. His actions
prove this.
I'll bet that if there is an investigation it will show once again that
the UN is fully responsible for what happened.
At least, the US state department will allocate the blame to the UN.
Incredible how weasels will do anything to undermine freedom.
Incredible how unthinking sheeple will perpetuate obvious lies in the face
of contrary evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 07:46:02 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$fs1k5i$fvb$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Who was IAEA Source?
Being that Bush went this alone, against the will of the UN, it's up to him,
*not the UN*, to take the responsibility for these facilities,
Says who and with what force? I remember the UN stealing oil money and
paying off France, Russia, Germany to keep their mouths shut. So what
does the UN have any relevance to what happened. So did they steal the
crap too and sell it off?
Are you saying the UN is liked to terrorist Organizations now, because
they sure were involved in a 11+ Billion dollar scam that hurt many
Iraqi Children.
which he
didn't... the oil fields were more important to him than the possibility of
WMD's
Then what happened? The UN inspectors weaseled out when there was too much
action, they didn't tell the busy coalition to monitor these things for
them, they just vanished.
Like I said, the UN opposed the action, so you can't really blame them
Wait look at the context of everything they did about Iraq and not one
part only. The UN is not the problem it is the people in there at the
moment.
for
wanting to get out of there before the ***** hit the proverbial fan.
Additionally, these facilities would still be there today if it wasn't for
the distraction that is the coalition of the willing.
Since all these parts, even entire buildings, were shipped out to
neighboring countries, don't you think that the weasels are, much like
with the oil for food program, partly those who tipped off the hostile
party to benefit from such transfer given the way they operated?
*ENTIRE* buildings were shipped out of Iraq! That means that there was
*NOBODY* monitoring them... not a single US or Brittish soldier.
I would stop blaming Bush and start blaming the UN.
If there
had been just 1 soldier assigned to watch each building, then we would have
known they were being disassembled and shipped out.
They would have been shot. So can you tell me why this is not a
problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 09:40:15 PM |
|
|
In article <dd3256f0.0410161646.5b54a4ea@posting.google.com>, (Michael Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$fs1k5i$fvb$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Who was IAEA Source?
Read the article, it's an IAEA report.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 02:17:39 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <dd3256f0.0410161646.5b54a4ea@posting.google.com>, (Michael Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$fs1k5i$fvb$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Who was IAEA Source?
Read the article, it's an IAEA report.
Woods
Doesn't matter Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed the worry, but it is a lie to
conclude that there were anything taken.
Woods, I told you to wait for more clarification... of course the UN
inspectors want to go back taking up that excuse and making up *****
about the whole thing, but look:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6487469
Iraq's Science and Technology Minister Rashad Omar said everything at
the nuclear sites belonging to his ministry was accounted for and that
there had been no recent disappearances.
He said nothing had gone missing since a looting spree after the
U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, which the United States and Britain
said was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
14 Oct 2004 12:53:42 PM |
|
|
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Being that Bush went this alone, against the will of the UN, it's up to him,
*not the UN*, to take the responsibility for these facilities, which he
didn't... the oil fields were more important to him than the possibility of
WMD's
Then what happened? The UN inspectors weaseled out when there was too much
action, they didn't tell the busy coalition to monitor these things for
them, they just vanished.
Like I said, the UN opposed the action, so you can't really blame them for
wanting to get out of there before the ***** hit the proverbial fan.
Additionally, these facilities would still be there today if it wasn't for
the distraction that is the coalition of the willing.
The UN still should have made sure that when the US assumed that they
had taken charge of a facility, that before they fled like frightened
rabbits, they had warned them to take over. There seem to be foul play
here.
Since all these parts, even entire buildings, were shipped out to
neighboring countries, don't you think that the weasels are, much like
with the oil for food program, partly those who tipped off the hostile
party to benefit from such transfer given the way they operated?
*ENTIRE* buildings were shipped out of Iraq! That means that there was
*NOBODY* monitoring them... not a single US or Brittish soldier. If there
had been just 1 soldier assigned to watch each building, then we would have
known they were being disassembled and shipped out.
But there was none. Not a single person. The most important objective for
Bush was the oil fields, not stopping the proliferation of WMD. His actions
prove this.
*****. It proves only the lack of responsibility of the UN, or else
their complicity.
The oil fields, gee Woods, they are guarded just so that they don't go
up in flame like they did during desert storm.
What is the matter with you being obsessed by false concerns. There is
no other object about guarding these oil fields than the terrible
environmental and economical disaster to the region that would be
inflicted by the terrorists if left unchecked.
I'll bet that if there is an investigation it will show once again that
the UN is fully responsible for what happened.
At least, the US state department will allocate the blame to the UN.
I wouldn't be surprising if it is what happened, since it would show
their implicit duplicity, if not explicit complicity. Let's see first
what the inquiry shows the sequence of events was.
Incredible how weasels will do anything to undermine freedom.
Incredible how unthinking sheeple will perpetuate obvious lies in the face
of contrary evidence.
What contrary evidence? All I said what was on the Euro-news channel.
Let's wait and see before you accuse your own country and your own
military of any foul play, will you?
Oh I just noticed it's Aidan. Sorry, I thought I was speaking to the
original poster. Well the same goes, although of course you will ***** on
the US with no matter what lie you make up.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
14 Oct 2004 06:58:38 PM |
|
|
In article <G2zbd.2715$cr4.135@edtnps84>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Being that Bush went this alone, against the will of the UN, it's up to him,
*not the UN*, to take the responsibility for these facilities, which he
didn't... the oil fields were more important to him than the possibility of
WMD's
Then what happened? The UN inspectors weaseled out when there was too much
action, they didn't tell the busy coalition to monitor these things for
them, they just vanished.
Like I said, the UN opposed the action, so you can't really blame them for
wanting to get out of there before the ***** hit the proverbial fan.
Additionally, these facilities would still be there today if it wasn't for
the distraction that is the coalition of the willing.
The UN still should have made sure that when the US assumed that they
had taken charge of a facility, that before they fled like frightened
rabbits, they had warned them to take over. There seem to be foul play
here.
The US basically told the UN to get out of Iraq, as they came out and said that
we couldn't guarantee the safety of anyone. Ergo - Bush's responsibility.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
14 Oct 2004 07:48:24 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <G2zbd.2715$cr4.135@edtnps84>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:yWcbd.36979$663.4947@edtnps84...
That is not true. First there was no problem with these facilities after
the invasion, and then the UN stepped in and was monitoring the situation.
No, that's untrue: the material started disappearing soon after the
invasion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1219072.htm
" The International Atomic Energy Agency has written to the United Nations
Security Council expressing grave fears about the missing material, saying
it began disappearing soon after the US led invasion began. "
Being that Bush went this alone, against the will of the UN, it's up to him,
*not the UN*, to take the responsibility for these facilities, which he
didn't... the oil fields were more important to him than the possibility of
WMD's
Then what happened? The UN inspectors weaseled out when there was too much
action, they didn't tell the busy coalition to monitor these things for
them, they just vanished.
Like I said, the UN opposed the action, so you can't really blame them for
wanting to get out of there before the ***** hit the proverbial fan.
Additionally, these facilities would still be there today if it wasn't for
the distraction that is the coalition of the willing.
The UN still should have made sure that when the US assumed that they
had taken charge of a facility, that before they fled like frightened
rabbits, they had warned them to take over. There seem to be foul play
here.
The US basically told the UN to get out of Iraq, as they came out and said that
we couldn't guarantee the safety of anyone. Ergo - Bush's responsibility.
Woods
Show me where the US said to the UN to get out, let alone irresponsibly.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
14 Oct 2004 08:43:38 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:s7Fbd.3337$cr4.357@edtnps84...
Show me where the US said to the UN to get out, let alone irresponsibly.
J.
You make it so easy Jean (though I expect you to be as pig-headed as always
in light of the requested evidence):
(1)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/07/MNG9H955791.DTL
"The U.N. inspectors left not because Iraq kicked them out, but because the
United States said it was about to launch an invasion and their safety could
not be guaranteed."
(2)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/
"Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission],
the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from
the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our
staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will
withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors.
-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan"
2 separate, and independant sources report that the US advised the UN
inspectors "it would be prudent" to get the hell out of Iraq, as they could
not be guaranteed safety.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 06:55:55 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$05xl5i$9lc$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:s7Fbd.3337$cr4.357@edtnps84...
Show me where the US said to the UN to get out, let alone irresponsibly.
J.
You make it so easy Jean (though I expect you to be as pig-headed as always
in light of the requested evidence):
(1)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/07/MNG9H955791.DTL
"The U.N. inspectors left not because Iraq kicked them out, but because the
United States said it was about to launch an invasion and their safety could
not be guaranteed."
OK Jean said Where did US ''tell them to leave?'' Not this link?
Showing your stupidity on that link ;)
(2)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/
"Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission],
the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from
the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our
staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will
withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors.
-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan"
"prudent "
Again your stupidity is showing. The UN could stay if they wanted too.
In fact the terrorist scared their silly ***** away ;)
2 separate, and independant sources report
OF CRAP as you are ;)
that the US advised the UN
Jean saud TELL NOT "advised"
try to tell me those are the same meanings?
inspectors "it would be prudent"
How is 'prudent' the same as 'tell?'
to get the hell out of Iraq, as they could
not be guaranteed safety.
Humm. Are you dancing because you rejoice your stupidness?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 01:33:14 PM |
|
|
Michael Johnathan McDonald a écrit:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$05xl5i$9lc$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:s7Fbd.3337$cr4.357@edtnps84...
Show me where the US said to the UN to get out, let alone irresponsibly.
J.
You make it so easy Jean (though I expect you to be as pig-headed as always
in light of the requested evidence):
(1)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/07/MNG9H955791.DTL
"The U.N. inspectors left not because Iraq kicked them out, but because the
United States said it was about to launch an invasion and their safety could
not be guaranteed."
OK Jean said Where did US ''tell them to leave?'' Not this link?
Showing your stupidity on that link ;)
(2)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/
"Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission],
the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from
the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our
staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will
withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors.
-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan"
"prudent "
Again your stupidity is showing. The UN could stay if they wanted too.
In fact the terrorist scared their silly ***** away ;)
2 separate, and independant sources report
OF CRAP as you are ;)
that the US advised the UN
Jean saud TELL NOT "advised"
try to tell me those are the same meanings?
inspectors "it would be prudent"
How is 'prudent' the same as 'tell?'
to get the hell out of Iraq, as they could
not be guaranteed safety.
Humm. Are you dancing because you rejoice your stupidness?
In fact if he speaks of the period prior to the invasion, he is right.
The US-led coalition told them to get out. They were not going to go
there with them in the middle of the fray.
I truly thought this happened after the invasion, when the UN supposedly
returned, then got out, then returned again, and what I got on Euronews
made me think they had left again more recently.
I misunderstood since that it was not what they were talking about since
they had no access to these sites. I can make mistakes too.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
17 Oct 2004 06:25:19 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<KVycd.15061$cr4.12548@edtnps84>...
Michael Johnathan McDonald a écrit:
Humm. Are you dancing because you rejoice your stupidness?
In fact if he speaks of the period prior to the invasion, he is right.
The US-led coalition told them to get out. They were not going to go
there with them in the middle of the fray.
I truly thought this happened after the invasion, when the UN supposedly
returned, then got out, then returned again, and what I got on Euronews
made me think they had left again more recently.
I misunderstood since
Then I misunderstood his post. But his post seemed as if the US told
the UN What to do - they only suggested.
that it was not what they were talking about since
they had no access to these sites.
I addressed that in another reply to him. He thought that one soldier
was good enough, I thought that one soldier gaurd would be shot.
I can make mistakes too.
....aussi moi ;)
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
15 Oct 2004 12:11:07 AM |
|
|
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:s7Fbd.3337$cr4.357@edtnps84...
Show me where the US said to the UN to get out, let alone irresponsibly.
J.
You make it so easy Jean (though I expect you to be as pig-headed as always
in light of the requested evidence):
(1)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/07/MNG9H955791.DTL
"The U.N. inspectors left not because Iraq kicked them out, but because the
United States said it was about to launch an invasion and their safety could
not be guaranteed."
(2)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/
"Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission],
the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from
the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our
staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will
withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors.
-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan"
2 separate, and independant sources report that the US advised the UN
inspectors "it would be prudent" to get the hell out of Iraq, as they could
not be guaranteed safety.
You are right. The program yesterday gave me the impression that UN
staff, which really returned after the invasion, (remember that the
anti-semite replaced the representative who was blown up?), was also
overlooking the facilities. I was wrong.
This is the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3736158.stm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iraqi interim Minister of Science and Technology, Rashad Omar, told
the BBC that the buildings concerned were comprehensively looted during
the days following the American-led capture of Baghdad last year and
before the coalition troops could secure the facilities.
He said the US did take control - with the approval of the IAEA - of
quantities of low-grade uranium.
Since the transfer of sovereignty, the Iraqi government has assumed
responsibility for the sites.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is under the responsibility of the Iraqis.
But then again, when your read on further:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An IAEA spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, said that the Agency has been
monitoring foreign ports to try to track the flow of nuclear-related and
'dual-usage' items out of Iraq.
He said there has been a steady flow of mildly radioactive scrap items,
including missile engines, turning up in locations including Jordan and
the Netherlands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading about that a year ago. It was assumed that Saddam had
shipped these in bulk then and that useless material was discarded and
the WMDs part was kept by those he had given/sold it to. But it appears
now it might be looters.
If I go on:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The IAEA says it cannot do its job of guarding the world against secret
nuclear proliferation if it is prevented from keeping track of such
equipment.
The Americans may well know what has happened to it - or they may not.
Mr ElBaradei does not know because he has been kept out of the
information loop - and he wants some answers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence maybe the US knows what exactly happened and when. Hope they find
out. We shall see... The fact that entire buildings have been dismantled
suggest that the US or the Iraqi government is behind the project.
In another article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3736158.stm
it says that Iraqis have asked the UN to help sell off unwanted nuclear
material.
Looters wouldn't dismantle whole buildings. The UN simply has no clue.
But you are right, I thought that their presence after the war included
the monitoring of these facilities. I was wrong. Doesn't mean this is
necessarily what they suggest.
We shall see.
Anyway, sorry Woods, I thought it was more recently that they had
vacated the place.
And thanks Aidan. Can't wait to know more from the administration. I'm
sure we will soon find out.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
15 Oct 2004 12:43:13 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:LZIbd.6074$_u6.1282@edtnps89...
....
Anyway, sorry Woods, I thought it was more recently that they had vacated
the place.
And thanks Aidan. Can't wait to know more from the administration. I'm
sure we will soon find out.
J.
Hey wow, I was wrong too...
My hat goes off to you Jean, this is probably the first time I've seen you
display humility when faced with contradiction.
<*does happy dance*>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Foreign policy paradox: incompetence and proliferation? |
16 Oct 2004 06:49:37 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$d88m5i$hpc$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:LZIbd.6074$_u6.1282@edtnps89...
J.
Hey wow, I was wrong too...
My hat goes off to you Jean,
'Chapeau' is the correct expression in French and you could say your
entire sentence with this brevity of usage. ;)
this is probably the first time I've seen you
display humility when faced with contradiction.
You know Kerry cites this Duelfer guy in the debates allot ya know. ;)
This must give credence to Kerry's argument that Leftists should
listen to him give this guy the props on national television. So in
essence the lefties should begin to understand the Saddam was a huge
threat to the world and that this silly argument of Saddam was no
threat, as Kerry said in Debate #2 then turned around and said he was
a significant threat, in the same speech, means that egg heads and
splatter brains who cannot follow Kerry because Kerry confused them
can console in the same stance as Bush now that their leader approves
of the guy investigation as significant.
Feel better that Kerry supports the war because he now understands its
importance? ;)
Duelfer: 'A lot of material
left Iraq and went to Syria'
More see link:
The Iraq Survey Group, headed by Duelfer, said Russia, Syria, Jordan
and other arms suppliers were paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
A CIA report, authored by the Iraq Survey Group, identified Russia and
Syria atop a list of 12 arms suppliers to Iraq until the U.S.-led war
against Baghdad started in March 2003.
The report listed Russia and Syria above North Korea — regarded as the
leading missile proliferator to the Middle East — as leading suppliers
to Baghdad.
After Jordan came Belarus, China, India, North Korea, South Korea,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, France, Romania and Turkey. The report
said these countries were involved in both "weapons of mass
destruction and arms-related procurement."
The report said Saddam diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food
program to pay for both conventional and nonconventional weapons and
components.
The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied U.N.
sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad. The report
said Syria also served as the leading route for illegal arms supplies
from Europe and other countries.
Several of Iraq's neighbors were said to have joined in the secret
military effort to aid Baghdad. The report — based on interviews with
senior Iraqi officials and 40 million pages of documents and
classified intelligence — cited Jordan and Turkey as leading suppliers
to the Saddam regime.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40946
<*does happy dance*>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
