Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 8th, 2003, 07:21 PM        "Proof" that Iraq sought uranium was fake
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030307/3/38p33.html

Saturday March 8, 06:01 AM

"Proof" that Iraq sought uranium was fake

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear agency has shot down allegations that Iraq tried to revive its nuclear arms programme and says fake documents back U.S. claims Baghdad tried to buy uranium to make bombs.

In what some believe was his last update report to the U.N. Security Council on weapons inspections in Iraq, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei undermined Washington's position just as it scrambles for support for a U.N. resolution paving the way for war in Iraq.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded ... that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council on Friday.

"We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded," he said.

Britain and the United States have alleged that Iraq had tried to revive an ambitious atomic weapons program that was neutralised by the United Nations before inspectors left in December 1998.

The claim Iraq had attempted to import the uranium was vital to the U.S. accusation, since it would not have needed the uranium for anything other than a nuclear weapons programme.

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq," he said.

To date, the IAEA's inspectors have carried out 218 inspections at 141 sites, he said.

THE TROUBLE WITH TUBES

ElBaradei said extensive investigations of high-strength aluminium tubes Iraq attempted to purchase had confirmed that they were not suitable for a uranium enrichment centrifuge programme, as the United States had alleged.

In his speech to the council, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted that the IAEA should "keep the issue open" and said Iraq was also "found shopping for these tubes" in Europe.

But ElBaradei said a team of international centrifuge manufacturing experts believed Baghdad had told the truth about wanting them for rockets.

"Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets," he said.

Knocking down another U.S. allegation, ElBaradei said IAEA experts had concluded that none of Iraq's declared high- strength magnets could be used directly to enrich uranium.

But, ElBaradei added: "Iraq possesses the expertise to manufacture high-strength permanent magnets suitable for use in enrichment centrifuges."

For this reason, he said the IAEA would keep an eye out for equipment and materials that could be used to enrich uranium.

Baghdad has consistently denied it had attempted to revive its nuclear weapons program.

Echoing similar comments from chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix, the top nuclear inspector concluded his speech by saying Iraq had become more cooperative in recent weeks.

"I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its cooperation," ElBaradei said.
-30-
Reply With Quote
  #2  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2003, 03:31 PM       
I think the fact that nobody in the pro-war camp (both on and off this board) wants to talk about this speaks volumes on just how badly folks want this war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

washingtonpost.com
Senator Seeks FBI Probe of Iraq Documents

By KEN GUGGENHEIM
The Associated Press
Friday, March 14, 2003; 3:12 PM


The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI on Friday to investigate forged documents the Bush administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein and his military ambitions in Iraq.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he was uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program.

An investigation should "at a minimum help to allay any concerns" that the government was involved in the creation of the documents to build support for administration policies, Rockefeller wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has denied the U.S. government had any hand in creating the false documents.

"It came from other sources," Powell told a House committee Thursday. "We were aware of this piece of evidence, and it was provided in good faith to the inspectors."

Rockefeller asked the FBI to determine the source of the documents, the sophistication of the forgeries, the motivation of those responsible, why intelligence agencies didn't recognize them as forgeries and whether they are part of a larger disinformation campaign.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The documents indicated that Iraq tried to by uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Niger's largest export. The documents had been provided to U.S. officials by a third country, which has not been identified.

A U.S. government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was unclear who first created the documents. The official said American suspicions remain about an Iraq-Niger uranium connection because of other, still-credible evidence that the official refused to specify.

In December, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries.

Rockefeller said U.S. worries about Iraqi nuclear weapons were not based primarily on the documents, but "there is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq."

At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing Thursday, Powell said the State Department had not participated "any way in any falsification."

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the committee's top Democrat, noted a Washington Post report that said a foreign government might have been conducting a deception campaign to win support for military action against Iraq. When Obey asked Powell if he could say which country that was, Powell replied, "I can't with confidence."

The Niger documents marked the second time that ElBaradei has challenged evidence presented by the United States meant to illustrate Iraq's nuclear weapons program. He also rejected the U.S. position that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended to make nuclear bombs.

ElBaradei has said his inspectors have found no evidence that Saddam has revived its nuclear weapons program.

---

Associated Press writer John J. Lumpkin contributed to this story.

On the Net: State Department's Niger page: http://www.state.gov/p/af/ci/ng/


© 2003 The Associated Press
Reply With Quote
  #3  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2003, 08:11 PM       
"The documents indicated that Iraq tried to by uranium from Niger.. ."


I was never a big fan of the Washington Post reporting wise, but I had more faith in its Editors than to miss blatant typoes.

Being a Pro-War representative, I'll simply say, the proposed rationales for this war (take your pick) have all pretty much been baseless. As far as altruism goes, the United States has never done anything which did not benefit itself in some way.

However, the war is still necessary. The Middle East has been a region of turmoil for the last few thousand years, and rather than coming closer to civilized behaviour with the advances in social reform and technological breakthroughs, they have drifted even further away than they were. I hate the arrogance of the statement, but I can't see any other way to bring about peace or change save through outsife interference. With Western friendly gov'ts put in place, perhaps with a little time, we'll have as great as success as we did with So Korea.

Now, having said that, I believe the fraudulent papers should be examined ruthlessly, and if they can be traced to the Bush administration in origin (giving Powell the benefit of the doubt) I say hand Dubya for treason against the United States of America.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2003, 08:27 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
However, the war is still necessary. The Middle East has been a region of turmoil for the last few thousand years, and rather than coming closer to civilized behaviour with the advances in social reform and technological breakthroughs, they have drifted even further away than they were. I hate the arrogance of the statement, but I can't see any other way to bring about peace or change save through outsife interference. With Western friendly gov'ts put in place, perhaps with a little time, we'll have as great as success as we did with So Korea.
Well, in regards to South Korea, what you also have there is a hyper-capitalist system that is modernizing so rapidly that any shred of previous history and culture will soon be a part of folklore. Granted, this is probably still better than poverty and suffering under a Stalinist maniac.....

But anyway-- is this really another case of the "white man's burden," Ror...? Haven't white Europeans done a bang up job w/ that region as it is (please note sarcasm)????

Quote:
Now, having said that, I believe the fraudulent papers should be examined ruthlessly, and if they can be traced to the Bush administration in origin (giving Powell the benefit of the doubt) I say hand Dubya for treason against the United States of America.
I believe Powell when he says they had no idea they were fake. I think this administration is so eager and anxious to get this war rolling, that they'd use just about ANYTHING in condeming Hussein.

IMO, there's enough REAL evidence to condemn Hussein with, and there's really no need to fabricate anything. However, I don't know that the truth justifies a unilateral war....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2003, 08:54 PM       
Kevin: Well, in regards to South Korea, what you also have there is a hyper-capitalist system that is modernizing so rapidly that any shred of previous history and culture will soon be a part of folklore. Granted, this is probably still better than poverty and suffering under a Stalinist maniac.....

Respectfully friend, I disagree. There is enough of a culture remaining in Korea that they would eagerly embrace their Northern cousins if not for Kim Jung Il's policies. While many of their traditions seems to be disappearing, I admit, the same is true of most nations which adapt and develope, always changing. Static tendancies bring stagnation.

Kevin: But anyway-- is this really another case of the "white man's burden," Ror...? Haven't white Europeans done a bang up job w/ that region as it is (please note sarcasm)????

Heh, well, thats certainly a different light than I'd looked at it in. You're quite correct, thats exactly what it is, but what else is left? Leaving them to their own devices has done nothing to improve matters. Over the last fifty years things have gotten worse, not better. It's not due to lack of education, or money, or protection. It has to do with the oppressive regimes which have ruled the region with total disregard to the people's will. Your man Jefferson was right, ' The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. '(letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787). And if you doubt that tyranny exists there, despite your philosophical view of what tyranny is, there is justification to show it does exist:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson


Kevin I believe Powell when he says they had no idea they were fake. I think this administration is so eager and anxious to get this war rolling, that they'd use just about ANYTHING in condeming Hussein.

Well. . .I'm not sure. I trust Powell, but Cheney and Bush have had motivations for their actions above and beyond the simplistic tenant of displacing Saddam. It is quite possible the papers were completely contrived. Never forget than many of Bush's appointees are left over from the days of Iran/Contra, and have broken US and International law in the past without hesitation.

Kevin: IMO, there's enough REAL evidence to condemn Hussein with, and there's really no need to fabricate anything. However, I don't know that the truth justifies a unilateral war....

Unilateral war. . .We do have the combined support of both Britain and Spain, neither of which I believe will retract themselves. As for Hussein, there are plenty of reasons to remove him, simply none which call upon the United States to do so. Rightly, it should be the people of the Iraq, but I do not believe they could do so in such a day and age as exists now.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2003, 09:15 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Respectfully friend, I disagree. There is enough of a culture remaining in Korea that they would eagerly embrace their Northern cousins if not for Kim Jung Il's policies. While many of their traditions seems to be disappearing, I admit, the same is true of most nations which adapt and develope, always changing. Static tendancies bring stagnation.
I think they'd gladly embrace N. Korea, which is great, but that doesn't mean South Korea is retaining its own cultural values. I don't think the demise of culture for "progress" should be termed as the cure for stagnation. Since my former "significant other" is from there, I get a little bit of "insider knowledge" on the matter, and Seoul for example is quickly turning into one big fast food restaurant. Again, better than the daily misery felt by your average N. Korean? Definitely.

Quote:
Heh, well, thats certainly a different light than I'd looked at it in. You're quite correct, thats exactly what it is, but what else is left? Leaving them to their own devices has done nothing to improve matters. Over the last fifty years things have gotten worse, not better. It's not due to lack of education, or money, or protection. It has to do with the oppressive regimes which have ruled the region with total disregard to the people's will.
But we haven't left them alone. We have in fact aided, benefited, and continue to do both with the very same bad guys you mention (even the "butcher of Baghdad" at one time). I constantly revert to this example, but why not react to a nation such as Iraq the way we do with China? China is an undemocratic nation that has human rights violations up the wazoo, and has likewise shown aggression towards Taiwan and Tibet (similar to Kuwait?). Yet our "solution" for China has been open markets, free trade, cure them with capitalism, etc. Why sanction one oppressive regime and reward another? Why not open up trade with Iraq, lift sanctions, and allow a healthy Iraqi people, with access to internet and global press, why not allow them to emancipate themselves not only physically from that monster, but ideologically as well????

Quote:
Your man Jefferson was right, ' The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. '(letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787). And if you doubt that tyranny exists there, despite your philosophical view of what tyranny is, there is justification to show it does exist:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Well I'm beginnging to appreciate Madison more and more, too.

I know Locke (which comes out very clearly in Jefferson's words) believed that a king, or any one who would rule over others, in essense is a "terrorist." They are a terrorist to their own people, in the most literal sense. Under that logic, overthrowing Saddam would be very relevant in regards to the war on terror.

But I don't know that John Locke would support this war, and neither do I.

I think if our game plan is to liberate the third world from every terrible regime around, we have a lot of work ahead of us.....


Quote:
Well. . .I'm not sure. I trust Powell, but Cheney and Bush have had motivations for their actions above and beyond the simplistic tenant of displacing Saddam. It is quite possible the papers were completely contrived. Never forget than many of Bush's appointees are left over from the days of Iran/Contra, and have broken US and International law in the past without hesitation.
Can you say Poindexter?

Quote:
Unilateral war. . .We do have the combined support of both Britain and Spain, neither of which I believe will retract themselves.
We have Blair, not necessarily Britain, and I'm willing to bet that if this war happens without a UN resolution, we'll se a new PM in England before 2004.

And I think when people say "unilateral," they mean nations of significant miltary and economic clout (or a permanent member of the UN SC). I mean, sure, if it was America and Haiti declaring war on Iraq, it TECHNICALLY isn't unilateral in the literal sense, BUT....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2003, 09:44 PM       
Kevin: I think they'd gladly embrace N. Korea, which is great, but that doesn't mean South Korea is retaining its own cultural values. I don't think the demise of culture for "progress" should be termed as the cure for stagnation. Since my former "significant other" is from there, I get a little bit of "insider knowledge" on the matter, and Seoul for example is quickly turning into one big fast food restaurant. Again, better than the daily misery felt by your average N. Korean? Definitely.

You're a lucky guy, always found myself attracted to Koreans as well. Korean was my target language in the Navy, and I took the credits for it here at Uni as well. I'm not exactly ignorant, though I admit to terrible blind spots. . .The world is changing, and America makes up a large portion of the force which promotes that change. Isolationism is nearly impossible, and because of that, every nation must give up a bit of itself simply to be compatible with the world at large. Traditions, such as celebrating one's sixtieth birthday in Korea, are being lost, but why? Because sixty is no longer seen as an advanced age anymore. When celebrating the new year do they still burn their ornamental masks created just for that occassion to ensure demons don't wrack havok on the crops for the next year? No, because in light of scientific progress, such beliefs are seen as superstitious. Knowledge of their past isn't lost, it's just been set aside. I don't think thats so terrible really.

Kevin: But we haven't left them alone. We have in fact aided, benefited, and continue to do both with the very same bad guys you mention (even the "butcher of Baghdad" at one time). I constantly revert to this example, but why not react to a nation such as Iraq the way we do with China? China is an undemocratic nation that has human rights violations up the wazoo, and has likewise shown aggression towards Taiwan and Tibet (similar to Kuwait?). Yet our "solution" for China has been open markets, free trade, cure them with capitalism, etc. Why sanction one oppressive regime and reward another? Why not open up trade with Iraq, lift sanctions, and allow a healthy Iraqi people, with access to internet and global press, why not allow them to emancipate themselves not only physically from that monster, but ideologically as well????

I can't tell you why for sure, only what I believe. There are a number of reasons really: The Chinese, despite being Marxist, have had a history of bad blood with Russia (which, when Mao usurped imperial rule, during the height of Stalin's power, was beneficial to the United States) also because China was once a great ally, up until world war two. Finally, even though there have been tensions between they and us, the Chinese have never tried to close themselves away from the United State's influence, always having kept communication lines open. . .And having a massive army helps too Regardless of political differences, the mentality isn't that different between us really. Their system now is almost capitolistics really.


Kevin: Well I'm beginnging to appreciate Madison more and more, too.

We'll make a believe of you yet!

Kevin: I know Locke (which comes out very clearly in Jefferson's words) believed that a king, or any one who would rule over others, in essense is a "terrorist." They are a terrorist to their own people, in the most literal sense. Under that logic, overthrowing Saddam would be very relevant in regards to the war on terror.

But I don't know that John Locke would support this war, and neither do I.

Hopefully neither, which is where I stand. It's an illegal and unjust war. Those whom promote it do so without the support of those they rule over and have had to convince their constituants to trust them, which is not how it should be. I only hope, and may our progeny forgive us for it, that the eventual rights will out weigh the great injustice we perform now.

Kevin: I think if our game plan is to liberate the third world from every terrible regime around, we have a lot of work ahead of us.....

And then he'd have to inspire a civil war. By Jeffersons definition of terrorism, our current government is certainly unsatisfactory.

Kevin: Can you say Poindexter?

Aye, and I can continue on as well:

Robert McFarlane
this is fun
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...ml?id=95001406

Otto Reich
(re-nominated to the Asst. Secretary of State post)

Elliot Abrams
(currently Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations at the National Security Council)

Richard Armitage
(Deputy Secretary of State )

John Negroponte
(U.N. Ambassador)

Mitch Daniels
(Budget Director)


Kevin: We have Blair, not necessarily Britain

Quite right.

Kevin: And I think when people say "unilateral," they mean nations of significant miltary and economic clout (or a permanent member of the UN SC). I mean, sure, if it was America and Haiti declaring war on Iraq, it TECHNICALLY isn't unilateral in the literal sense, BUT....

In that case, it will be unilateral until we get either China or Russia to side with us.[/url]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.