|
|
| Author |
Message |
Alerik
Sir Postalot
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1375
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Grummpy
Luke Warm
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 322
|
 Posted: 03/10/03 - 14:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Sad, just plain sad.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Manuva
Banned
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 14:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
But we need to give the inspectors more time!
People are f*****g stupid, the inspectors job is not to go on a search for weapons, but to verify proof that they've been destroyed, which has not been done at all.
*boom*
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 14:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
The funny thing is that when the International Atomic Energy authority (or whatever their exact name is), released proof over the weekend that all the documents the US used in Colin Powel's speech to the UN about how Iraq was trying to obtain uranium were all forged, it got almost no press at all.
They also presented even more convincing evidence that the aluminum tubes that GW keeps talking about could not possibly have been used for a nuclear reactor, as well as a paper trail illustrating the specific uses they were intended for.
If the US is using forged documents to prove wrongdoing by the Iraqis, you have to ask yourself who, exactly, forged them. Or maybe you don't.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Alerik
Sir Postalot
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1375
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 14:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
OK, so ignoring the Uranium you are still left with the most possible and plausible WMD's that iraq can produce. Biological Agents, which that whole article happens to be about.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fluxus the Rogue
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 15:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | The funny thing is that when the International Atomic Energy authority (or whatever their exact name is), released proof over the weekend that all the documents the US used in Colin Powel's speech to the UN about how Iraq was trying to obtain uranium were all forged, it got almost no press at all.
They also presented even more convincing evidence that the aluminum tubes that GW keeps talking about could not possibly have been used for a nuclear reactor, as well as a paper trail illustrating the specific uses they were intended for.
If the US is using forged documents to prove wrongdoing by the Iraqis, you have to ask yourself who, exactly, forged them. Or maybe you don't. |
Can you link anything about this? Was wanting to read a document that proved the U.S. was forging documents to force the U.N. to go to war. That'll be a good read.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 15:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Fluxus the Rogue wrote: | | Can you link anything about this? Was wanting to read a document that proved the U.S. was forging documents to force the U.N. to go to war. That'll be a good read. |
I've been looking. It was on the ABC newswire yesterday morning, but it's already scrolled off by newer news. I realize the thread was about chemical/biological weapons, not nuclear - it's just that that makes me suspicious of everything I hear.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 15:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Fluxus the Rogue wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: | The funny thing is that when the International Atomic Energy authority (or whatever their exact name is), released proof over the weekend that all the documents the US used in Colin Powel's speech to the UN about how Iraq was trying to obtain uranium were all forged, it got almost no press at all.
They also presented even more convincing evidence that the aluminum tubes that GW keeps talking about could not possibly have been used for a nuclear reactor, as well as a paper trail illustrating the specific uses they were intended for.
If the US is using forged documents to prove wrongdoing by the Iraqis, you have to ask yourself who, exactly, forged them. Or maybe you don't. |
Can you link anything about this? Was wanting to read a document that proved the U.S. was forging documents to force the U.N. to go to war. That'll be a good read. |
I, too, would like a link. Unfortunately, it mostly likely does not exist or was created as propaganda by some biased organization. I couldn't find it on their site:
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 15:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually, it looks like the IAEA doesn't use the word "forgery"; they call the documents "not authentic": http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
| Quote: | The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.
The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials. |
The newswire report went into a little more detail, calling them "clumsy forgeries", and describing how the signatures on the documents didn't match the officials' real signatures, and sometimes were signed after the official was no longer in office.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 16:20 Post subject: Let the record speak for itself...
|
|
|
| Quote: | This information comes from the Council on Foreign Relations. That ought to give your conspiracy advocates something to angst over.
Since the United Nations was formed there have been about 26 international conflicts. Shooting wars involving member nations. Of these 26 conflicts, only 3 received UN support. The three that did receive U.N. support were The Korean War, the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. You have noted, haven't you, that the United States requested the UN approval in all three instances. The Russians, the French and the Chinese .. all of who have engaged in international conflicts since the inception of the United Nations, have never sought UN backing for their military moves.
Interesting that we are held to a differnt standard and second rate socliastics mess up countries. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pankrat
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 603
Location: Land of Paranoia
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 18:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
"The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place."
If Iraq and Niger say it ain't so must be true by golly.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/10/03 - 19:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Pankrat wrote: | "The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place."
If Iraq and Niger say it ain't so must be true by golly. |
I think the more relevant quote is "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic."
So, to justify the war to the UN, Colin Powell presented: forged documents, misconstruals subsequently proven false, and plagiarized and out of date info presented as if it were US intelligence. So do you believe ANYTHING that the US says to prove the case?
I don't shrink from going to war if war is needed. But I'll be damned if I'll be duped into it. At this point, if George Bush said "there's sand in Iraq" I'd be dubious.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xzander NecroMonk
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 169
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 00:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
How did you get that the US forged those documents?
"The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001. "
It says A NUMBER OF STATES, not the United States. Still doesn't mean the document was untrue just says that it is "in fact not authentic"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tanaren
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 210
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 04:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | How did you get that the US forged those documents? |
Sinrakin never claimed they were made by the US, only that we cited them as evidence.
"US is using forged documents"
"Colin Powell presented: forged documents"
| Quote: | | It says A NUMBER OF STATES, not the United States. |
"States" as in nation-states, like the US and Britain. The UK provided them to the IAEA. After reviewing them, the US presented them as evidence. The press statement was being polite by not mentioning names.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html
| Quote: | Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.
"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents. |
http://www.msnbc.com/news/882813.asp
| Quote: | The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq’s secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa.
Who was to blame for undermining the case against Saddam? One Bush administration official told NEWSWEEK that the uranium story was promoted by the British. “U.S. intelligence has always been skeptical,” said one official, saying there was “no corroboration” for the British report. However, the British government never named Niger as the potential supplier for Iraq’s nuclear program. The Brits carefully said in September that Iraq had sought “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” London claimed several sources linking Iraq to a number of African states, but never named Niger. It was the Bush administration that named Niger in mid-December, when it listed dozens of omissions in Iraq’s weapons declaration to the United Nations. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fluxus the Rogue
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 11:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
There are 3 scenarios I think are possible here:
1) The people in Iraq and Nigeria involved in this deal forged the documents themselves because they were making the deal in the shadows and behind the scenes of formal channels (which would be normal considering the nature of the transaction: i.e. selling nuclear material to terrorists).
2) The people in Iraq and Nigeria intentionally made the documentation sloppy in order to create Plausible Deniability.
3) The CIA hired mentally retarded kids, giving them no supporting intelligence, to produce said forged documents.
As Blix has demonstrated recently by not mentioning the illegal drone found in Iraq during his presentation last week, the U.N. Inspectors are either dishonest or mentally challenged. I can't decide which is that case.
The intent (or at least how I read it) of Sin's original post was to imply that the U.S. was forging documents to build its case. I feel 100% certain that if the U.S. wanted to forge documents it would have produced documents much more damning and much more realistic.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 14:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Xzander NecroMonk wrote: | How did you get that the US forged those documents?
"The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001. "
It says A NUMBER OF STATES, not the United States. Still doesn't mean the document was untrue just says that it is "in fact not authentic" |
Shhh, logic doesn't apply on realpoor!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
USA
Fresh Meat
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 7
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 14:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
there is no question that Iraq has / seeks these weapons the USA claims they have.
The real and only real crime the USA has committed here is in the b******t the nuttless Bush Admin has spewed.
The USA does not give a shit about other countries human rights to the extent of war, or any possible ( possible ) threat they may be to another nation neighbor nation.
To the USA, Iraq is a present and future threat to USA lives as a direct result of 9-11.
Bush should simply stand up and state, f**k this mother f****r, and any m**********r who would attack us in -any- way.
We, the USA will remove from power, anyone who f***s with us.
simple.
in EQ terms:
Does ED have to explain thier raids? Does ED care if they run over a guild to a spawn? Why did ED kill the sleeper? To stop the flow of primals to other guilds like BC who was just starting to become a threat.
USA tells the world:
"thnx loot"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 14:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| USA wrote: | | To the USA, Iraq is a present and future threat to USA lives as a direct result of 9-11. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 14:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
You miss the point Sinrakin...
9/11 was the result of inactivity on the USA's part to deal with countries/organisations that are (wether you choose to believe that or not) out to hurt the USA and western civilization. We cannot be passive about these types of things any longer.
Iraq seeks weapons of mass destruction so that they can incinerate Israel and any arab nations they wish to conquer. Which would have a serious destabilizing effect on the entire globe.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xzander NecroMonk
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 169
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 14:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frax wrote: | You miss the point Sinrakin...
9/11 was the result of inactivity on the USA's part to deal with countries/organisations that are (wether you choose to believe that or not) out to hurt the USA and western civilization. We cannot be passive about these types of things any longer.
Iraq seeks weapons of mass destruction so that they can incinerate Israel and any arab nations they wish to conquer. Which would have a serious destabilizing effect on the entire globe. |
to use your own words frax. "Shhh, logic doesn't apply on realpoor!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 15:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frax wrote: | You miss the point Sinrakin...
9/11 was the result of inactivity on the USA's part to deal with countries/organisations that are (wether you choose to believe that or not) out to hurt the USA and western civilization. We cannot be passive about these types of things any longer.
Iraq seeks weapons of mass destruction so that they can incinerate Israel and any arab nations they wish to conquer. Which would have a serious destabilizing effect on the entire globe. |
U.S. Marine Corp Barracks before explosion
U.S. Marine Corp Barracks after explosion
In the early morning hours of 23 October 1983, a truck loaded with explosives crashed through the security perimeter of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. In the explosion that followed, 241 U.S. Military personnel were killed and 80 seriously wounded.These young people, on a mission of peace in a land stricken by violence, were killed as they slept.
My close highschool friend was the 3rd to the last Marine pulled out of the rubble.
His name was Jeff Boulis, he was 21.
All that was left of him was his teeth.
241 Marines getting killed, wasn't enough to get the USA motivated to do what needed to be done.
Things are different now, the hawks are in charge.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 16:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
um in 1983 Ronnie Raygun was in charge, he was hardly a dove 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 16:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frax wrote: | | um in 1983 Ronnie Raygun was in charge, he was hardly a dove |
The public is behind this pre-eptive war, as much as the CNNs will tell you otherwise.
9/11 made total retailiation and pre-emptive wars possible. Personally I would have done this in 83 but the country would not have gone for it, and the Gipper knew this.
Besides, Ronald won the cold war, he did pretty good as it was.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 16:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The thing about retaliation is it helps if you retaliate against whomever did what it is you're responding to. Conquering Iraq is in no way a retaliation for something that happened 20 years ago in Lebanon. Attacking people who are the same color, or the same religion, as someone who's injured you is the classic recipe for an infinite cycle of hate and war. Don't you think that the people who are setting off bombs have their own pet injuries that they think they're retaliating for?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Manuva
Banned
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 17:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
What the hell are you talking about?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 17:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Manuva wrote: | | What the hell are you talking about? |
Oh, umm, Kbarr's last two posts I guess 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 18:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | The thing about retaliation is it helps if you retaliate against whomever did what it is you're responding to. Conquering Iraq is in no way a retaliation for something that happened 20 years ago in Lebanon. Attacking people who are the same color, or the same religion, as someone who's injured you is the classic recipe for an infinite cycle of hate and war. Don't you think that the people who are setting off bombs have their own pet injuries that they think they're retaliating for? |
Umm, reread my post, I also said Pre-emptive.
Yes, I do understand that the people who set off bombs/planes into buildings, here in the states have reasons/pet injuries. Just because they have "reasons" doesn't stop us from making them dead. If they are dead, they can't bomb us. People think there are an infinite supply of people who are willing to kill themselves with a bomb, in an effort to "terrorize" us. I disagre. I think the more of them we kill, the less there are.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 18:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: |
Besides, Ronald won the cold war, he did pretty good as it was. |
Yep. Bang-up job if I do say so myself.
What was his policy towards Iraq again? Remind me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/11/03 - 18:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: |
Yep. Bang-up job if I do say so myself.
What was his policy towards Iraq again? Remind me. |
Read up on it and post 500 a word report about it, by tomorrow.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
