SaintSatan :
I only rebutted H?s false claim. It is amusing watching all the twists and turns you guys make when presented with the facts....lol
tons of iraq explosives missing
material could be used as nuclear trigger .
cnn) -- some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under american control, the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog says.
SaintSatan :
I only rebutted H?s false claim. It is amusing watching all the twists and turns you guys make when presented with the facts....lol
tons of iraq explosives missing
material could be used as nuclear trigger .
cnn) -- some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under american control, the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog says.
"""This administration took the world to war on the basis of misniformation, Clinton did not.""
On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."
More from Clinton: "And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Of course, Saddam's son-in-law was killed when he returned to Iraq. Now, I know that everybody on the right said Clinton was using Iraq to distract from his impeachment scandal. You have a point, but screw it. This is what Clinton said, and I think someone should point it out to his supporters who are now out there saying there were never any WMD in Iraq.
Clinton always spoke about Hussein's arsenal as a fact - with none of his characteristic wiggle room or hedging - and of the dictator's determination to build it as a fact. At the time, Democrats from Al Gore to Senator Tom Daschle backed Clinton 100%. So did the United Nations. President Clinton and the UN relied on intelligence information similar to the information relied on by Bush, folks. Yet when it was suggested that Clinton acted out of personal reasons to deflect from his criminal offenses, today's Bush critics dismissed that as "politics." Of course unlike Clinton and the UN, Bush is not a liberal. He took effective steps to destroy Saddam Hussein - and for that, he's attacked.
tons of iraq explosives missing
material could be used as nuclear trigger .
cnn) -- some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under american control, the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog says.
Robar:
"" What does your cut and paste job have to do with my response re: the Russians and WWII?""
Helloooo, anyone home? I did not respond because this is off topic and has nothing to do with the facts of the matter, nice try. (however, you are wrong)
During WWII, the Good General fought in southeast Asia, against Japan, not in the Europe arena. And I am familiar with his remark, which was more of a wish to defete Hitler than any approval of the Russian Red Army. If Hitler did not attack Russia, Stalin would have continued to be aligned with Germany.
The "Cut and Past" has everything to do with the topic at hand.
Simon:
""You mean that if it weren't for the French and British YOU would be goose-stepping? YOU IGNORANT ASSHOLE""
With respect, I resent your insults and name calling.
I appeal to you as one human to another, with different viewpoints, and to your sense of fairness and to the very rules you have created for this site.
(So, you are claiming that if the US did not intervene in your war, you guys would have one WWII anyway? Wow....Germany, Italy, Japan...hummm) At any rate, here is the reasons for my claim about France:
France vs. Germany - Rise of Hitler 1933-1939 A.D. (Germany bullies France into letting them take more territory - the wussies wouldn't even fight over it - they adopted a policy of 'appeasement' - can you say SCARED?)
France vs. Germany Round II - WWII June 22, 1940 A.D. (France surrenders to Hitler at Compiegne after putting up a fight that made Polish Army look good. Notice Vichy France who quickly jumped ship to be friends with the Germans. Without the help of good old Uncle Sam the Atlantic Wall would never have been penetrated - France would either be a part of the 3rd Reich or a satellite country of Communist Russia under Uncle Joe Stalin)
Wow!
tons of iraq explosives missing
material could be used as nuclear trigger .
cnn) -- some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under american control, the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog says.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
And the myth continues.....
NATION'S POVERTY RATE PLUNGES TO A 21 YEAR LOW
poverty line:
1999 FAM,OF 4 $17,029
1999 FAM OF 3 $13,290
Poverty rates reach historic lows except for white
23.6 27,910 Af Am
22.8 30,375 Hispanic
10.7 51,025 Asian PI
7.7 44,366 NonH white
Black Hispanic poverty about the same, Asians higher
poverty but also higher household income vs whites
\doc\web\96\07\incpov.txt
Median household income 1994, 1995 and
1995 poverty rate by group
1994 1995 95 pov
Race
NHwhite 35766 36121 8.5
black 21623 22393 29.3
hisp 24085 22860 30.3(2)
asian 41629 40614 14.6
all 34076 13.8
Immigration status
native-born 13.0
for-born 22.2
naturalized 10.7
for-noncit 27.8
(2) first time Hispanic poverty is higher than black
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
""So, are we arguing semantics now? ""
(You mean like what "is", "is"?)
No, just refuting false claims. Your implication was Reagan went out of his way to insult the Black race. And as I have shown, you have only propagated a Myth that hurts, not help, your race.
( Note: Due to the space time distortion of your reality, the intent of this message may be lost, confused or stolen.)
tons of iraq explosives missing
material could be used as nuclear trigger .
cnn) -- some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under american control, the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog says.
Robdar:
""That response is becomming tiresome and boring. Is that all ya got to answer with? ""
I guess you have not read all the rest of my posts here? Here is some more:
(Note:Due to the space time distortion of your reality, the intent of this message may be lost, confused or stolen. )
Oct. 27, 2004 - Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing -- presumably stolen due to a lack of security -- was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility -- a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.
The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News Tonight." Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2004 ABC News Internet Ventures
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 28, 2004
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.
The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.
A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.
However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.
Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.
The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
hey all,.
i've only recently begun smoking and i find that i like cigars.
cigarettes aren't doing it for me, they burn up too fast and you have to keep knocking the ash into something.
A good non cuban cigar is CAO. Any size. PM me your address, and I will send a Cuban Monticristo Edmoundo...the best smoke in the worlk, IMHO....
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
This was not his first Major speech. And he is misquoted in your story. That really makes suspect the rest of the information...
"""Here is what Reagan actually said :
What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment. (Emphasis added.)
To be sure, it is difficult to imagine that Reagan was oblivious to the historical baggage of the phrase "states' rights" in Mississippi, and it cannot be ruled out that he was conscious of the problematic implication of his choice of words, just as Jimmy Carter was not presumed innocent of his use of "ethnic purity" in 1976. But "states' rights" was a sound principle of federalism that was debased by Democratic party rule in the south, for which it is not Republicans who owe an apology. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, and this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement. "Most of those at the rally," the New York Times reported, "apparently regarded the statement as having been made in that context." And as a westerner Reagan had fully associated himself with the "Sagebrush Rebellion," for whom "states' rights" had no racial content, but rather meant wresting control of land from Washington. This was far from an outlandish or minority view. The same day Reagan made his "states' rights" remark in Mississippi, the National Governors Association issued what the Associated Press described as "a militant call for reduced federal involvement in state and local affairs." Arizona's liberal Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt wrote in a New York Times op-ed article that "It is time to take hard look at 'states' rights' ? and responsibilities ? and to sort out the respective functions of the federal government and the states." I missed where Jack White added Babbitt to his roster of racists (never mind Carter's calculated appeal to "ethnic purity" in 1976).
To liberals, however, employing the phrase "states' rights" in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation. Little time was wasted in accusing Reagan not simply of pandering to old-fashioned segregationist sentiment in the south, but of actively sympathizing with it. Patricia Harris, Carter's secretary of Health and Human Services, told a steelworkers' union conference in early August: "I will not attempt to explain why the KKK found the Republican candidate and the Republican platform compatible with the philosophy and guiding principles of that notorious organization." (A KKK chapter in Louisiana had scored some cheap publicity by endorsing Reagan in 1980, which endorsement Reagan immediately and forcefully rejected.) But, Harris added, when Reagan speaks before black audiences many blacks "will see the specter of a white sheet behind him." Andrew Young went even further, saying that Reagan's remarks seemed "like a code word to me that it's going to be all right to kill niggers when he's President." Coretta Scott King managed to top Young: "I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party." Maryland Congressman Parren Mitchell, a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that " Reagan represents a distinct danger to black Americans." Reagan, it should be noted, received the endorsement of several black leaders in 1980, including the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, Martin Luther King's successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement.
Even the bastions of media liberalism knew that attacking Reagan as a racist was wrong. The New Republic: "President Carter has made a grave moral error in trying to portray Ronald Reagan as a racist." Carter's statements "are frightful distortions, bordering on outright lies." Washington Post reporter Richard Harwood wrote that "There is nothing in Reagan's record to support the charge that he was 'racist.'" The editorial page of the Post said that "This description [as a racist] doesn't fit Mr. Reagan."
The race-baiting attack on Reagan in 1980 backfired badly against Jimmy Carter, and contributed to Carter's defeat. As in 1980, liberals may be about to overreach on the Lott affair in much the same way, so long as Republicans will follow Reagan's example of standing on their principles.
? Steven Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Age of Reagan , from which this article is adapted.""
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
You claimed:
""IMO, its no coincidence that Ronald Reagan started his campaign for President in the same small Mississippi community where four civil rights workers were murdered.""
No where does it state what you claim. nowhere. what do you take us for?
I Only see propaganda ....