P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 28-01-04, 01:54 PM   #21
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default

yo scoob way to ignore a request for a link to the original site from gtrguy.
--------------------------------------------

The Nuclear Market: An Array of Vendors
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: January 25, 2004


ASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — The bluntly worded conclusion by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, David Kay, that Saddam Hussein "got rid" of his unconventional weapons long before the Iraq invasion last year underscores a point that has become clear to intelligence experts in the past few months: President Bush moved first, and most decisively, against a country that posed a smaller proliferation risk than North Korea, Libya and Iran or even one of America's allies, Pakistan.

While Dr. Kay's team has come up largely empty-handed so far, contributing to his decision to resign on Friday, a team of American experts visiting North Korea were shown what appeared to be at least a rudimentary ability to produce plutonium — though they were not able to confirm that North Korea spent 2003 churning out new weapons.

Advertisement


Meanwhile, investigators crawling through Libya's newly opened nuclear weapons program have uncovered a remarkably sophisticated network of nuclear suppliers, spanning the globe from Malaysia to Dubai.

On Friday, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, personally acknowledged what his government has slowly begun to admit over the past month: Pakistani nuclear scientists set up a nuclear bazaar that stretches back 15 years, selling sophisticated technology for enriching uranium for what General Musharraf called "personal financial gain."

In retrospect, as even some of the administration's own intelligence experts now acknowledge, each of those programs was more advanced than was Iraq's, and consequently posed a greater threat of passing weapons and technology to terrorists.

Speaking to reporters on his plane on Saturday on the way to Tbilisi, Georgia, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that Dr. Kay's comments left open the question of whether weapons stockpiles existed in Iraq, but not the question of Saddam Hussein's abilities and intentions to produce and use such weapons. As a result, he asserted, the comments did not undercut the rationale for going to war.

Most important, Mr. Powell said, it was clear that the Iraqis were trying to exhaust their enemies, stretch out the process and have sanctions lifted so they could return to their intention of making weapons.

But the information also shows that the National Intelligence Estimate, produced in 2002 by the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies, significantly overestimated Iraq's current abilities. The document provided the rationale for going to war quickly, without waiting for the United Nations Security Council to become convinced of the threat.

Intelligence officials now say that comparable assessments understated the progress Iran and Libya were making in enriching uranium and missed many of the signals that Pakistan's scientists had provided their designs to Iran and Libya. To this day, the intelligence agencies are arguing over what exactly the North Koreans are able to accomplish, facing a difficult task of sorting out what is boast and what is real.

Yet of all these threats, Mr. Bush determined, by his own account, that the combination of Saddam Hussein's ambitions and his potential to obtain unconventional weapons some day in the near future posed the greater threat. His critics say he was motivated by settling unfinished business; his defenders say it would have been foolish to wait, only to discover too late that Mr. Hussein could unleash hidden weapons.

Mr. Bush and his aides are still defending their warnings about mobile biological laboratories, active nuclear programs and the like. The president defended his decision all week, with no apologies but using wording that was far more hedged than the claims he made last year.

In a carefully worded assessment in his State of the Union address, he said Dr. Kay's group had found evidence of "W.M.D.-related program activities," words drawn straight from Dr. Kay's interim report to Congress. But he avoided any mention of Dr. Kay's broader conclusions at the time, that Iraq had no active stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, much less the chief inspector's more recent conclusion that it was highly unlikely that such stockpiles would ever be found.

Traveling the country this week, Mr. Bush made clear that he had no regrets. He told visitors to the White House that he still believed that eventually weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq.

In public, he told audiences in Ohio, Arizona and New Mexico this week that Mr. Hussein was a "brutal dictator" who gassed his own people and set up gulags and rape rooms, and deserved the fate he met — a line that drew big applause at every stop. Mr. Bush also argued that Mr. Hussein's fall was making other nations with nuclear ambitions come clean.

"Nine months of intense discussion with Qaddafi worked because the word of this country matters," Mr. Bush said in Roswell, N.M., on Thursday, referring to the Libyan leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi. "When you say something, you better believe it. People now trust the word of America."

But America's allies and competitors are likely to interpret Dr. Kay's findings very differently: that America's word — or at least its intelligence findings — cannot be fully trusted.

Dr. Kay concluded, for example, that Mr. Hussein once had a very active nuclear program — before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. But along with the chemical and biological programs, it was virtually halted, it now appears, by the combination of intrusive inspections by the United Nations, sanctions that made imports of new technology extremely difficult, and Iraq's own decisions to get rid of some of its stockpiles.

"The strategy of containing Iraq appears to have been largely successful," Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded in an interview late last year. "As far as we can tell, the system was working."

But Dr. ElBaradei's other conclusion is perhaps the most alarming: that while Iraq was contained, the rest of the world had turned into a "Wal-Mart of private-sector proliferation," one where many nuclear aspirants — with the notable exception of Iraq — seemed to go shopping regularly, often without detection.

Libya had not actually produced a weapon by the time Mr. Qaddafi decided to dismantle his weapons program. But what was found there has "astounded many of my colleagues," a senior American intelligence official said earlier this week. "It looks like there were factories dedicated around the world to the production of centrifuge parts," including one in Malaysia that American officials are now working to shut down. A network of middlemen, some operating in Dubai, apparently with close ties to the Pakistani scientists, operated with comparative freedom, supplying both Iran and Libya.

Mr. Bush has not ignored that network. His "Proliferation Security Initiative" has gathered more than a dozen nations in a coalition to fight trafficking in unconventional weapons.


NY times source
greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 04:31 PM   #22
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by greedy_lars
yo scoob way to ignore a request for a link to the original site from gtrguy
yo greed ignoring you say? my point, which you so aptly ignored, is it's a good idea to search and find info on your own. the presidents speech is not something that would be difficult to find, it's only all over the web.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 05:32 PM   #23
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default

true enough, but 'his' speech was undoubtably not written by 'him'. if it was it would contain such jewels as

"most of our imports come from overseas nowadays"

without that comic relief included, i dont find what his speech writers say particularlly interesting. talk about repeating the same shit over and over.
greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 07:55 PM   #24
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by greedy_lars
talk about repeating the same shit over and over.
lol...you never do that!



speaking of comic relief.....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	dem_clone.jpg
Views:	1201
Size:	52.5 KB
ID:	6875  
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 08:17 PM   #25
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

let's see...we launched a pre-emptive war, $150 billion down the tubes, over 500 dead Americans with more dying every day, mired in a military and financial black hole in the Middle East for years to come - all of this to find out that containment worked as well in Iraq as it does in North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba etc.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 09:48 PM   #26
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default david kay at senate hearing today....

Quote:
A great deal has been accomplished by the team, and I do think ... it important that it goes on and it is allowed to reach its full conclusion. In fact, I really believe it ought to be better resourced and totally focused on WMD; that that is important to do it.

But I also believe that it is time to begin the fundamental analysis of how we got here, what led us here and what we need to do in order to ensure that we are equipped with the best possible intelligence as we face these issues in the future.

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

I think the aim -- and certainly the aim of what I've tried to do since leaving -- is not political and certainly not a witch hunt at individuals. It's to try to direct our attention at what I believe is a fundamental fault analysis that we must now examine.

And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation.
full transcript.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay...ipt/index.html
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 10:06 PM   #27
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default Re: david kay at senate hearing today....

Quote:
Originally posted by David Kay
"It turns out we were all wrong, and that is most disturbing," Kay said.
same source, see i can cherry pick too
greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 10:41 PM   #28
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default Re: Re: david kay at senate hearing today....

Quote:
Originally posted by greedy_lars
same source, see i can cherry pick too
didn't cherry pick greedy. just posted what i saw as pertinent points. you, on the other hand, zeroed in on one sentence, ignoring what was said before and after it.

you've learned well from the liberal biased media.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-04, 11:11 PM   #29
greedy_lars
everything you do
 
greedy_lars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: wlll come back around to you
Posts: 3,982
Default

Kay told the senators that the intelligence he had seen before the war indicated Saddam had banned weapons and that France and Germany -- countries that had opposed the war -- had stated that the Iraqi dictator possessed such weapons.

"It turns out we were all wrong, and that is most disturbing," Kay said.

Kay said that while it was "theoretically possible" large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons could be found in Iraq, the prospect was "highly unlikely."


the sentance before and after.
greedy_lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-04, 01:57 AM   #30
CORRUPTERBUSTER
Apprentice Napsterite
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Second Rock From The Sun
Posts: 58
Default Wow Thanks for your words.

[quote]Originally posted by ranger121
[b]FAO CORRUPTERBUSTER

Seems to me, that you are basing your opinion of what war actually is on the Hollywood version of events. Contrary to popular belief, Private Ryan did not exist. The Americans were not the only nationality who died on the beaches of Normandy, and they did not win the war single-handed, as Mr Speilberg would have you believe.

You are right this wasn't a true story and I should have mentioned that in my thread. I guess what I was going after was the Realism of the war at least the first 15 min of the movie.
CORRUPTERBUSTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-04, 02:11 AM   #31
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default

i liked the part (in the first 15 min) where you were underwater with the bullets visually racing by and the trails they made. cool sound effects too.

war is sooo cool on TV
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-04, 06:17 PM   #32
CORRUPTERBUSTER
Apprentice Napsterite
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Second Rock From The Sun
Posts: 58
Default How did he do that?

Some times I would like to think that people really know what they are talking about when they post a message. Like the person above me, yeah we spent a lot of money on the war, but that will be paid back with Oil, Yeah we lost some good people over there, which is hard no matter how you look at it. What did the Iraqis loose? Well, a whole lot more then what we lost, they lost their whole country. So when you compare that with the money we spent and the troops that died, I don’t think it is as bad as you make it sound. It really could be worse. I am still waiting for some one to let a nuke off in the United States. Now that would get some people’s attention.
CORRUPTERBUSTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-04, 10:21 PM   #33
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
I am still waiting for some one to let a nuke off in the United States. Now that would get some people’s attention.
it's sad that it would take something like that to actually get peoples attention. it could happen...hope to God it doesn't...but it could happen.

according to homeland security there is a heightened concern of terror threat for the next 72 hours.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/


Quote:
31 January 2004--

A confluence of information and events appear to be making the next 72 hours perhaps the most critical time for terrorist attacks in the US since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. The next 72 hours is the IMMEDIATE window of concern, although our short-term concern extends through the end of the Islamic year 1424 (February 21st, 2004). In order to fully comprehend the nature of the threat against and within the US, it is important to look at what is currently taking place in Saudi Arabia, as events are likely to begin with the attack and planned toppling of that fragile regime unless thwarted by Saudi forces.

We have previously reported in detail that it is the intent of al Qaeda operatives and their terrorist lackeys to dethrone the royal family, take over that country and in so doing, launching a major terrorist offensive against and inside of the United States in the process. Note that the reference (link) above appears to indicate a two-fold attack in Saudi Arabia - those who take part in the overthrow, and those who martyr themselves in other arenas, such as the countries of their origins.

While some consider the Super Bowl to be an "enviable" terrorist target, we are looking at the possibility that it is not the primary or intended target. Rather, the vast viewing audience of the Super Bowl provides an interesting platform - a day when most Americans will be at home watching their televisions. As presented by analysts on this site before, the terrorists want to insure that they have the eyes and ears of the American people, watching the next attack or the start of the next "series of attacks" unfold. What better American audience can there be?

Based on a review of numerous communications from a number of sources, it would appear that the primary threat against one US city is nuclear in nature. What is less clear is the type of device. One possible scenario indeed involves New York City as illustrated in this analysis and graphic.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-04, 04:17 PM   #34
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default Re: How did he do that?

Quote:
Originally posted by CORRUPTERBUSTER
Some times I would like to think that people really know what they are talking about when they post a message. Like the person above me
Did you not understand what I said? because I did.

Or did you not know what you were talking about?

Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
it's sad that it would take something like that to actually get peoples attention. it could happen...hope to God it doesn't...but it could happen.

according to homeland security there is a heightened concern of terror threat for the next 72 hours.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

How much more attentive can people be?

Houston would be a very prime target to drive the fear further to have americans give up the last of our rights.

Like Tommy Franks said, after the next terrorist attack the constitution will be shredded and the grand experiment that was democracy will be gone and replaced with a military dictatorship.
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-04, 04:53 PM   #35
Wenchie
Salsera
 
Wenchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sunshine Coast , Australia
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
31 January 2004--

A confluence of information and events appear to be making the next 72 hours perhaps the most critical time for terrorist attacks in the US since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. The next 72 hours is the IMMEDIATE window of concern, although our short-term concern extends through the end of the Islamic year 1424 (February 21st, 2004). In order to fully comprehend the nature of the threat against and within the US, it is important to look at what is currently taking place in Saudi Arabia, as events are likely to begin with the attack and planned toppling of that fragile regime unless thwarted by Saudi forces.

We have previously reported in detail that it is the intent of al Qaeda operatives and their terrorist lackeys to dethrone the royal family, take over that country and in so doing, launching a major terrorist offensive against and inside of the United States in the process. Note that the reference (link) above appears to indicate a two- fold attack in Saudi Arabia - those who take part in the overthrow, and those who martyr themselves in other arenas, such as the countries of their origins.

While some consider the Super Bowl to be an "enviable" terrorist target, we are looking at the possibility that it is not the primary or intended target. Rather, the vast viewing audience of the Super Bowl provides an interesting platform - a day when most Americans will be at home watching their televisions. As presented by analysts on this site before, the terrorists want to insure that they have the eyes and ears of the American people, watching the next attack or the start of the next "series of attacks" unfold. What better American audience can there be?

Based on a review of numerous communications from a number of sources, it would appear that the primary threat against one US city is nuclear in nature. What is less clear is the type of device. One possible scenario indeed involves New York City as illustrated in this analysis and graphic.
Talk about scare tactics !!

Let me see.......is this the same 'intelligence' that :

1. Didn't know/warn about sept 11 attacks?

2. Gave us the whole WMD fairytale ?


pass thankyou!
Wenchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

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






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)