Newsgroup: it.economia.borsa
Titolo: trovato l'antrace

        836 TELEVIDEO Do 02 Mar 18:48:01
 
 
 
   Iraq: trovati antrace e gas nervino    
"Nuove ricerche hanno permesso di sco- 
 prire ingenti quantitä di antrace e    
 gas nervino,su cui l'Onu chiedeva chia-
 rimenti da anni".                      
 


Confermato anche qui.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=33422


ora sta a vedere se è merito degli iracheni o degli ispettori...
che non è una cosa di poco conto.....

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3e6248ee...@powernews.libero.it...

e chissà quanta ce ne è in giro.
Ma no, cattivo, cosa dico, saddam è così buono, saranno stati gli amerikani
a imboscarlo di nascosto.

In tutti i casi può essere il motivo (più o meno) "occasionale" per 
attaccare.
-- 
"Ho visto cose che voi umani............
Giovani avventurieri nella Galassia Soru acquistare Tiscali a 1000 e 
gridare:T.P.1500!!!!
Tutto questo accadeva anni luce fà................

attaccare.
non è detto......il fatto che la notizia sia stata data dagli iracheni
potrebbe significare che hanno collaborato al ritrovamento....

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3e6248ee...@powernews.libero.it

Sono stati gli Iraqueni a segnalare i ritrovamenti agli ispettori dell'ONU.
Per l'antrace si tratta di bombe cariche ritrovate negli arsenali.
Per il VX (che anche Rainews si ostina a chiamarlo Gas nervino in realtà è
un liquido colloso) sono state ritrovate tracce su luogo dove è stato a suo
tempo distrutto.

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3e624e34...@powernews.libero.it

Appunto.
Questa è anzi la prova che l'Iraq sta collaborando attivamente con gli
ispettori.
Si può dire che poteva farlo prima, ma direi che è una buona notizia.


No gli americani non l'hanno inboscato.
Loro sono quelli che lo hanno venduto all'Iraq.


dove hai trovato che sono stati gli iracheni che io è mezz'ora che
giro a vuoto.....

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3e625132...@powernews.libero.it

Sia la notizia Ansa che quella di RaiNews 24 dicono che la notizia del
ritrovamento è stata data un funzionario del governo Iraqueno durante una
conferenza stampa, quindi presumo che il materiale lo abbiano trovato gli
Iraqueni. Fra l'altro una collaborazione attiva alle ricerche era proprio
ciò che veniva richiesto loro dagli ispettori.
http://www.ansa.it/rubriche/mondo/2003-03-02_1654579.html
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=33422

ritrovamento č stata data un funzionario del governo Iraqueno 
si....perň č meglio andarci cauti.....aspetto la conferma...fra 5
minuti c'č il tg...

 minuti c'è il tg...
Il tg se va bene legge l'Ansa.

Il tg se va bene legge l'Ansa.
       :-)        penso anch'io.......:-)

 amerikani a imboscarlo di nascosto.
Allora i casi sono due, anzi uno:.
Se non si trova niente si fa la guerra perche' non ci sono
le prove della distruzione. Se si trova qualcosa si fa la
guerra perche' "chissa' quanta ce n'e' in giro"
--
Stardust®



Ehi, beota
Lo sai quanto antrace c'è in circolazione negli USA?
E se lopossono procurare anche i coglioni come quelli
che mandano in giro le lettere
Beota, guarda meno TG4

 > Ma no, cattivo, cosa dico, saddam č cosģ buono, saranno stati gli



Siccome sono stati gli Iraqueni a trovare alcuni proiettili carichi e a
indicarne la presenza agli ispettori la cosa dovrebbe testimoniare che
l'Iraq collabora e le ispezioni funzionano e quindi allontanare la guerra ed
essere positiva per le borse.
Solo che poi magari Bush dice che a lui non gliene può fregare di meno e che
la guerra s'ha da fare comunque perchè Saddam gli sta antipatico e allora si
torna al punto di partenza.
Comunque la mia impressione è che a volere la guerra a questo punto sono
veramente in pochi (anche Powell sembra iniziare ad essere più possibilista
su una prosecuzione delle ispezioni, e persino Bush padre tenta di
convincere il figlio ad adottare un atteggiamento più moderato) e che viste
le difficoltà in Turchia e i tempi tecnici ormai al lumicino, almeno per
adesso (ma spero non solo per adesso) la guerra non si farà.

Inoltre la cattura in Pakistan di uno dei capoccia di Al Quaida dovrebbe
essere vista come un altro fatto positivo sul fronte geopolitico.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/02/sprj.irq.missiles/index.html
Qui trovi la notizia con maggiore dettaglio.

"Neo" <N...@The.Matrix> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:fes8a.262655$0v.72...@news1.tin.it...

sbagliato!!!!!!!!
produzione tedesca, pacifisti vero?
informarsi prego

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jfm46vg2p2p7dbqtd...@4ax.com...

Poveraccio, mi fai pena, no anzi, schifo.
Guardati un tg, uno qualsiasi, meglio di niente.

 informarsi prego
Certo che tu per fare figuracce sei fatto apposta.
Sapresti darmi la fonte di questa tua informazione ?
La mia č il Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5
2241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

 La mia è il Washington Post.
Peccato che sia una pagina a pagamento.
Hai l'abbonamento?


Mai pagato una lira.
Forse hai dei problemi col browser oppure Outlook Express ti ha massacrato
il link.
Prova con questo link qui 
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2D521893
Comunque il testo è qui di seguito.
--------------------------------------
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01
High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against
Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and
biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What
U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a
period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during
the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary,
whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy
paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified
documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was
using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of
international conventions.
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his
1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing,
supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating
Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical
example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which
deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes
overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the
principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still
in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a
bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American
states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East
version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn
Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to
routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the
Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews
with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support
played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave"
attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and
George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both
military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly
biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials
about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to
stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass
destruction.
"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth
M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening
Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts
and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We
were constantly fighting the State Department."
"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former
U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in
Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran,
because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term
hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more
responsible."
What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say
Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the
August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost
overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United
States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more
alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War
When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across
the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States
was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with
either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for
Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic
fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as
the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was
disposed to intervene.
By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed
dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and
Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second
largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might
achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf
states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.
"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different
from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security
Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan
administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation
from getting worse."
To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield
intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through
third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined
in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few
important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified.
According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United
States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from
losing the war with Iran.
The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi
forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the
Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare,
a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S.
condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the
scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the
all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.
Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe,
told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed
that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the
Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a
large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in
several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the
Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad
enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that
the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a
strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on
Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption
of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the
conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely
pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations
to a new level."
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein
about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State
Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon
spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with
Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department
notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters
that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war
against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one
of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was
a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents
show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a
wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic
relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until
the following year.
As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq
from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated
objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have
been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to
channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South
Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first
drawn up in 1979.
Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list
provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader
Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play
host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu
Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad
after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the
cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly
American tourist.
Iraq Lobbies for Arms
While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats
and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a
diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key
figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English
speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most
skillful lobbyists in town.
"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia,"
recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House.
"Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence,
which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly
effective with the American Jewish community."
One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf
allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated
with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward
Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and
congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would
result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."
According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United
States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with
billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and
advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to
Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in
the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company,
Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the
Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.
At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of
weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off
supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely
successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when
the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of
the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the
world.
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or
British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration
effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as
chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian
applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce
departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and
acquire political leverage over Hussein.
When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991
Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and
computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union
Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of
biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the
Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently
identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological
warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of
insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being
used for chemical warfare.
The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In
February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their
use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that
for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it
. . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."
Chemicals Kill Kurds
In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against
Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance
with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were
part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages,
provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against
Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to
the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with
Baghdad.
"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political
and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy
wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons
question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or
counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."
Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons
"against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the
Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime
presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.
The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the
end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick
Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured
the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its
recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine
injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve
gas attacks.
Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq
actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to
Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed
sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the
Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.
Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s,
there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5
million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they
could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official
reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale,
despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would
cause death "from asphyxiation."
The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab
leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents
show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with
Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she
assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an
Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent
man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current
president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."
"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson,
Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S.
official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the
best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial
relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History
will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company

2241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
Lla sua sono i telegiornali italiani
Specie quello di Fede
Certo che ne fa figuracce, te ne stupisci?
Gli idioti tendono a farsi riconscere dicendo idiozie
Potrebbero non dirle ma che idioti sarebbero allora?

Guardati un tg, uno qualsiasi, meglio di niente.
Ecco, bravo
Tu invece guadane di meno
Perchč ti BEVI tutto quel che ti raccontano
Beato davanti a quei bei telegiornali,il beota si beava

 Beato davanti a quei bei telegiornali,il beota si beava
Che cesso d'uomo.
Estremista senza palle.
Sei proprio un cesso.

Sei proprio un cesso.
Beh, penso di poter dire quasi la stessa cosa di te
Che cesso.
Estremista senza palle
Sei proprio un cesso
QUASI la stessa cosa..