Mmissing Nerve Gas, Anthraz, Nuke Bomb Parts - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-19-2002, 09:18 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Mmissing Nerve Gas, Anthraz, Nuke Bomb Parts

Missing: four tons of nerve gas, 8.5 tons of anthrax, and assorted nuclear bomb parts
By David Usborne and Rupert Cornwell
20 December 2002


The United States pushed the world closer to armed conflict last night when Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, asserted that Iraq's declaration on its weapons capacities "totally failed" to meet the conditions laid down by the United Nations. The document, he said, was nothing more than "a catalogue of flagrant omissions and recycled information."

Speaking after the two senior UN weapons inspectors had told the Security Council there were serious "holes" in the declaration, General Powell said the shortcomings constituted a "material breach" of Baghdad's obligations two words that have been treated as a coded trigger for war.

But he indicated the US would not immediately unleash a military campaign. Instead, over the "coming weeks" Washington would seek to intensify UN inspections and secure interviews with Iraqi scientists outside Iraq, while enlisting as broad diplomatic support as possible for the military action that now seems inevitable.

General Powell left only the barest chink of light for Saddam Hussein to comply. The declaration had been a final opportunity to come clean over Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities, he said, but "so far" the Iraqi leader had responded "with new lies".

Specifically, he cited major discrepancies between the former production capacity for anthrax and botulinum, two deadly biological agents, admitted by Iraq in the new document, and the findings of the previous UN inspectors after they left Iraq in late 1998. These estimated capacity to be three times larger.

Coupled with Washington's announcement of plans to send 50,000 more troops to the Gulf by mid-January, doubling its military manpower in the region, yesterday's developments in the UN only added to the impression that war is on the way, most likely in early or mid-February.

But while consensus prevailed in the Security Council that Iraq's declaration was broadly unsatisfactory, no other member was ready to back the US in declaring a new material breach. Even Britain, which has stood arm-in-arm with Washington on the issue, declined to utter the words. Ministers in London have said omissions in the text are not in themselves grounds for war. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said war was not inevitable but Iraq had pulled one "trigger" and "they now have their finger on the other trigger".

The Security Council had met to hear a preliminary assessment of the 12,000-page Iraqi report by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, and Mohammed al-Baradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Both men said they would offer a more conclusive analysis of the material in the new year. They are also to give their first formal report on the progress of weapons inspections on 27 January cited as a possible war decision date for President Bush.

Mr Blix said: "An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence. They can still provide it orally, but it would have been better if it was in the declaration."

Going further, he said: "There were a lot of open questions at the end of 1998 and these have not been answered. The absence of that evidence means one cannot have confidence that there does not remain weapons of mass destruction."

Iraq reiterated its claim that nothing had been omitted. Amir al-Saadi, a presidential adviser, told a news conference in Baghdad: "It seems they [the US and Britain] are more worried than we are about this assessment. We are not worried. It's the other side that is worried because there is nothing they can pin on us."

Mr Blix and Mr al-Baradei said Iraq had so far co-operated properly and promptly with inspectors, giving them prompt and easy access to sites. But Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said it was not enough. "One hundred per cent co-operation [from Iraq] with inspectors is going to be necessary," he warned, "not on process but on the substance of what needs to be cleared up. That will be the test."
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 11:07 PM   #2
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 08:13 AM
if the americans and britich would put 1/1000th of the same effort into creating peace as opposed to striving for war, it would be interesting to see.
__________________

__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 12-19-2002, 11:37 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:13 PM
The USA does not strive for war, it strives for security and peace. It is Saddam that strives for war and power. He is the one that is in violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement and 16 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 02:28 AM   #4
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 08:13 AM
oh fuck that already, im so sick and tired of you bringing that up all the time.

if were so fucking concerned about that little detail, why arent the states pounding the shit out of israel everytime they violate every rule in the book whenever the decide to occupy more and more of palestine?!

why didnt they do anything in cyprus, huh?!

dont give me NO bullshit that the us doesnt strive for war. thats all they want, theyre begging iraq to slip up.

and the most humourous part of it all, is when rumsfeld says on tv how it makes him angry that us planes are being shot at when theyre patrolling THEIR no fly zones over SOMEONE ELSES COUNTRY.

does he, of all people, not know that the states have been bombing sites for 10 years? and they SERIOUSLY expect the iraq to sit by and take it all?! what the hell do they think?!

this is stupidity, ignorance, and hatrid all tied into one lovely comment by one of People magazines sexiest men of the year.
__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 05:17 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Cow,

"if were so fucking concerned about that little detail, why arent the states pounding the shit out of israel everytime they violate every rule in the book whenever the decide to occupy more and more of palestine?!"

"why didnt they do anything in cyprus, huh?!"

United Nations resolutions past in regards to Israel and Cyprus were passed under CHAPTER 6 RULES! Chapter 6 Rules do not allow the use of force to bring violators into compliance with the resolutions. The 16 UN resolutions that Iraq is in violation of were passed under CHAPTER 7 RULES of the United Nations which require, if need be, the use of force to bring about compliance with United Nations resolutions.

Iraq's violations are not little things and the reason such UN resolutions exist is because of Iraq's unlawful invasion and annexation of Kuwait, attacks on Saudi Arabia and Israel. Israel on the other hand was forced to take the West Bank, Golan, Gaza, and Sinai in 1967 to prevent the country from being overrun by Arab forces. Israel has agreed to comply with UN resolutions and will once a peace agreement is worked out that safeguards Israels security and right to exist, which until recently was not recognized by most Arab countries. The United Nations has recognized the obvious difference of both conflicts which is why resolutions of Israel have been passed under Chapter 6 resolutions while resolutions in regards to Iraq have been passed under Chapter 7 resolutions.

If all the US wanted was war, Saddam Hussain would have been dead long ago.

The pilots who patrol the UNITED NATIONS approved no fly zones(which prevent Iraq from using aircraft to slaughter shia's in the south and Kurds in the North) only fire if they are first fired upon. The Pilots only fire back at Air Defense sites that are engaged in attempting to destroy coalition aircraft flying a UN approved mission.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 06:38 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cow of the Seas
oh fuck that already, im so sick and tired of you bringing that up all the time.

if were so fucking concerned about that little detail, why arent the states pounding the shit out of israel everytime they violate every rule in the book whenever the decide to occupy more and more of palestine?!

why didnt they do anything in cyprus, huh?!

dont give me NO bullshit that the us doesnt strive for war. thats all they want, theyre begging iraq to slip up.

and the most humourous part of it all, is when rumsfeld says on tv how it makes him angry that us planes are being shot at when theyre patrolling THEIR no fly zones over SOMEONE ELSES COUNTRY.

does he, of all people, not know that the states have been bombing sites for 10 years? and they SERIOUSLY expect the iraq to sit by and take it all?! what the hell do they think?!

this is stupidity, ignorance, and hatrid all tied into one lovely comment by one of People magazines sexiest men of the year.
Excellent unbiased post....

I would respond but I have to go pray that Iraq slips up so we can go to war. I want nothing more than to see American men and women in harms way.

Merry Christmas
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 02:25 PM   #7
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 08:13 AM
you know how i feel about the united nations, i fully believe they are under the complete control of the us. what the un says, i really dont care, cause as far as im concerned the un is really the us except with a spelling error.

i could care less about what is filed under this chapter or that one, that does not change the fact its still wrong! dont be so blind to just follow where their red tape leads. the bottom line is what theyre doing is wrong, no matter what category they fall in.

if im biased, then so are you dreadsox. its impossible to be purely unbiased, i admit that, as im sure you would too.
__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 02:28 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:13 AM
wink

e-z
mr manatee


DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 02:35 PM   #9
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 08:13 AM
its easy to be quiet and not heard.

a group of 16 people from my town are going to Jordan in January to build homes through "Build a Village" the "MCC" and "Habitat for Humanity." its great theyre doing this, but what bothers me is that if theres a war, they wont get to help the people of jordan because they will have to raise tents and take care of an expected 500,000 iraqi refugees which are expected to flee.

ofcourse, they wont take care of all them, but you get what im saying. it bothers me that they might not get to do what they were supposed to do in the first place, ya know? i mean, now these people wont have new homes, AND others will be forced out of whatever existing ones they have in iraq to move to a tent village. its very depressing.
__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 02:47 PM   #10
The Fly
 
Hi Bias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southwest, U S
Posts: 49
Local Time: 02:13 PM


BUSH'S RACE TO WAR PUTS WORLD AT RISK



THE day has been marked in President Bush's diary. January 27, 2003. The date when he will decide on war against Iraq.

But no one really believes that a big decision will be taken in the White House on that day. The die was cast long ago.

Mr Bush and the warmongers in his cabinet want a war against Saddam Hussein. They say they must stop him because he has weapons of mass destruction.

But only one leader has weapons of mass destruction and plans to use them. His name is George W Bush and it is he who must be stopped.

What he plans to do against Iraq will not save lives or make peace. It will destabilise the world and threaten thousands, possibly millions.

President Bush is determined to go to war to demonstrate to the United States' rednecks that he is committed to the war on terrorism launched after 9/11.

Yesterday the Americans declared that Iraq is in "material breach" - the key words - of United Nations resolutions.

Not even the British government went that far. Though Jack Straw came close to it and will doubtless take the short step to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr Bush.

But they must be stopped. Before this mad, dangerous war is begun. The cost in human life could be enormous. It would far outweigh the current threat from Saddam.

It is true that weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed in the wrong hands.

But they are. They are in President Bush's. That is the greatest threat facing the world.
__________________
Hi Bias is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 02:58 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:13 AM
We heard the same fanatical hyperbole when Reagan was elected. And just how many weapons of mass destruction did he unleash?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 03:02 PM   #12
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 08:13 AM
though that article is purely opinionated and not really fact based (as in, where are there sources?) i still agree with it.

it all comes down to, "who gave the americans the right to decide who can and can not have weapons of mass destruction?"

cant we all just get rid of ALL of them? :S
__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 03:07 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Cow of the Seas
it all comes down to, "who gave the americans the right to decide who can and can not have weapons of mass destruction?"
A good understanding of 20th century history will help you answer this question.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 03:25 PM   #14
The Fly
 
Hi Bias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southwest, U S
Posts: 49
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
We heard the same fanatical hyperbole when Reagan was elected. And just how many weapons of mass destruction did he unleash?
1. Reagan gave arms to the Ayatollah in Iran, using the Israelis as middlemen.

2. Reagan gave arms to death squads in Central America.

Both actions against U. S. laws. Yet, Clinton gets impeached for not admitting to a personal intercession.

Reagan-Bush-I gave arms and trained (CIA) Muhajedin, Why do you think they (Taliban) are so effective?

All weapons are dangerous in the wrong hands.

These are not the hands that build America.
__________________
Hi Bias is offline  
Old 12-20-2002, 03:29 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 09:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


A good understanding of 20th century history will help you answer this question.
Which part of 20th Century history would you be referring to? From my studies, I seem to recall that only one nation has unleashed nuclear holocaust upon another. Is it possible that the U.S. is practicing the age old maxim, "Do as I say, not as I do" ?
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com