Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: French-made anti-aircraft missiles found in Iraq

Sono senza parole....
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/03/iraq031003

 Sono senza parole....
E infatti non c'e` da dire un tubo.
Giano
---
--
Le nostre vite cominciano a finire il giorno in cui iniziamo a tacere sulle
cose che contano
Martin Luther King Jr.

E infatti non c'e` da dire un tubo.
Sono solo prove dell'acquisto di armi in barba all'embargo, in
violazione del cessate il fuoco :)
-Stefano



Il solito buffone... ci dimostri che le hanno vendute in barba
all'embrago? LOL...

 E infatti non c'e` da dire un tubo.
Come non c'è da dire un tubo??!!!
Mi meraviglio di te Giano. I Francesi hanno venduto armi a Saddam (il nemico
dell'occidente), in spregio dell'embargo ma sopratutto per dare uno schiaffo
a Bush.
Questo dimostra che Chirac ha fatto il doppio gioco. E uno schifoso verme
francese e basta!

>
Armi che cmq  non esistono piu`a quanto pare.....mi pare che si cada nel
ridicolo se si mettessero in conto gli AK 47 russi , come questi razzi
francesi , venuti da chissa`dove per giunta....... nella ricerca delle WMD.
Giano

 che non avrebbe fatto se non gli avessimo fatto guerra!
Il tuo ragionamento è assolutamente illogico, poiché esclude la possibilità
che tu abbia torto su qualcosa di cui non hai certezza. Dunque, se le WMD
fossero state trovate, la guerra sarebbe stata palesemente giustificata;
visto che non le si è (finora) trovate, ora sarebbe la loro inesistenza a
giustificare la guerra? E la possibilità che le WMD fossero state
effettivamente distrutte, come disse Tareq Aziz al "Corriere della Sera",
non la metti nemmeno in conto? Possibile che gran parte del "mazzo di carte"
sia in mano agli USA e nessuno sappia un accidente di queste WMD? Ora, se
voi filo-USA volete attestarvi sulla giustificazione per cui "è stato in
ogni caso un bene abbattere il regime di Saddam", OK (mi sembra,
francamente, un'opinione stupida, tuttavia, almeno, è formalmente logica);
ma insistere sulle WMD a prescindere dalla loro esistenza o meno, configura
un atteggiamento mentale che reca in sé l'ombra della follia. Shalom.
Namib

 un atteggiamento mentale che reca in sé l'ombra della follia. Shalom.
E' un opinione tua e sei legittimato ad averla.

 che non avrebbe fatto se non gli avessimo fatto guerra!
Mah! Mah! Mah! .........Questa e`l'ipotesi piu`assurda che si possa
immaginare !
Giano

 guerra. Cosa che non avrebbe fatto se non gli avessimo fatto guerra!
A parte il fatto che coi "se" non si va da nessuna parte, queste sono
ipotesi di peso almeno pari a quella secondo cui tali armi non si trovano
semplicemente perche' non c'erano armi da trovare.
Andrea
salo...@mediacomm.it

 immaginare !
E Perché sarebbe un ipotesi assurda scusa?

non si trovano semplicemente perche' non c'erano armi da trovare.
Nel 1991 tali armi c'erano.  E non e' mai stata dimostrata la loro
distruzione ne la loro vendita, esportazione o altro.
-Stefano

 wrote in message
news:f_Zfb.5051$uv4....@news.edisontel.com...

Con la differenza che non le avrebbe distrutte se non fossimo intervenuti
militarmente!

 ... non le avrebbe distrutte se non fossimo intervenuti militarmente!
Anche questo pero' e' un "se", per giunta anche meno dimostrabile
di tanti altri. Come ad esempio questo: "se non e' stato trovato nulla,
perche' non dare per default che le armi proprio non ci fossero ed
aspettarsi logicamente che sia il contrario a dover essere dimostrato?".
P.S. Comunque avrai gia' capito, mio buon amico, che verso i "se" io
sono sempre alquanto diffidente...
Andrea
salo...@mediacomm.it

 Non lo sanno neppure gli USA. Altrimenti le avrebbero trovate.
"Neppure"? Loro le cercano; i capi del regime dovrebbero sapere. Inoltre,
quando si fa un'ipotesi, questa deve seguire il principio dell' "economia":
l'ipotesi migliore è quella che necessita del minor numero di supposizioni
collaterali. Il fatto che le WMD non siano state né trovate né usate nel
corso dell'op. (ah ah) "Iraqi freedom" spinge a supporre (in quanto ipotesi
più economica) che dette armi, all'epoca, non esistessero più. Anyway,
lèggiti questo:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/30/iraq/main575851.shtml
(Noterai che non è Aljazeera...)
(CBS/AP) In the run-up to war with Iraq, President Bush accused Saddam
Hussein of "deception and denial" on his country's weapons programs. Saddam
denied any such programs existed.
Now it appears possible both the United States and Saddam were duped. The
U.S. might have been deceived by people who claimed Saddam was lying. And
Saddam may have thought he was lying, but in fact told the truth.
Iraq's alleged arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and its suspected
active pursuit of nuclear arms were the chief justification for the war.
No weapons have been reported found to date. An interim CIA report from
chief weapons hunter David Kay expected this week, while preliminary in
nature, will apparently include no evidence of the suspected weapons
stockpiles.
A published report Monday suggested Iraq stopped all significant weapons of
mass destruction research in the early 1990s, but may have obscured this
fact for strategic reasons. Another report called into question the evidence
provided to the United States by defectors.
Time magazine reports that several Iraq scientists it has interviewed tell
the same story: that Iraq stopped pursuing weapons of mass destruction in
the early 1990s and destroyed the relevant documents, but did not tell U.N.
inspectors because Saddam wanted to conceal his real ambitions, which
related to conventional air defenses, radar and missiles.
It is even possible, the magazine reports, that Saddam himself did not know
that his WMD arsenal had ceased to exist. The Iraqis running Saddam's
weapons program may have lied to Saddam, boasting of fake weapons programs
simply to get more money.
One Iraqi who once worked for Saddam's weapons program, where the man
purchased growth media for biological weapons, says he was told before the
first Gulf war to destroy documents on his work. When U.N. inspectors began
asking for those papers, there was nothing to give them.
Another former weapons researcher, engineering professor Nabil al-Rawi, told
Time he was ordered last November to offer a seminar for other scientists on
how to get research funding, because there was no more weapons work.
Some weapons experts doubt Saddam stopped all biological and chemical
weapons research. They question why he would have eliminated his most lethal
weapons, but kept no records - thereby eroding his defenses without reducing
the possibility of invasion. There is also some evidence Iraq destroyed
large caches of weapons but retained a few as seeds for further research.
But, the magazine reports, Saddam may have concealed his destruction of
weapons to preserve a deterrent against invasion. When that deterrent failed
in March, and the United States invaded, Iraq's front line troops lacked any
WMD to use. "We wanted them but didn't have any," one Army captain told
Time.
The New York Times, meanwhile, reports the Defense Intelligence Agency has
concluded that most of what Iraqi defectors revealed was useless, and the
rest was largely untrue.
The defectors' data involved information about alleged weapons programs and
the Iraqi government. The program involved more than six defectors who were
debriefed late last year and early this year. Some of their claims were made
public.
According to the Times, an internal DIA report found that only a third of
the information provided by defectors was considered useful, and most of
that data did not turn out to be true. The DIA found that some of defectors
sponsored by Iraq National Congress head Ahmad Chalabi, faked or inflated
their resumes.
Two Pentagon officials defended the program, noting the uneven reliability
of human intelligence in general. Chalabi says two of the three people he
brought forward provided helpful tips.
The Bush administration on Sunday disputed the assertions that the United
States went to war in Iraq on the basis of outdated and vague intelligence.
The leaders of the House intelligence committee said in a letter last week
to CIA Director George Tenet that the prewar claims resulted largely from
fragmentary and circumstantial evidence filled with uncertainties.
The letter from the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee,
Porter Goss of Florida, and the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman of California,
reportedly cited "significant deficiencies" in the intelligence agencies'
ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq after U.N. weapons inspectors
left in 1998.
Instead, the letter said, the agencies relied on "past assessments" and
"some new 'piecemeal' intelligence" that went largely unchallenged.
But senior U.S. officials said that treating the information as obsolete
would have assumed a dramatic change in behavior by Saddam - the elimination
of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction since the departure of U.N. inspectors
in 1998.
"I just don't think that was plausible," national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice said in a broadcast interview.
Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Saddam's use of poison gas against
Kurdish civilians - 5,000 died - to put down unrest in 1988.
"Now, if you want to believe that he suddenly gave up that weapon and had no
further interest in those sorts of weapons, whether it be chemical,
biological, or nuclear, then I think you're - it's a bit naive to believe
that," Powell said in a broadcast interview.
Also Sunday, White House aides said they would cooperate with a Justice
Department review of allegations that administration officials violated
federal law by naming a clandestine CIA agent whose husband raised doubts
about the U.S. weapons claims.
----------------------
Da antologia l' "argomento" di quel mentecatto di Powell: "Now, if you want
to believe that he suddenly gave up that weapon" ecc. "Suddenly"? Fra il
1988 e oggi ci sono state TRE campagne belliche (Desert storm, Desert fox e
Iraqi freedom) e un embargo sterminatore... Bah & shalom.
Namib


Ho letto.
E mi ritrovo al 100% nelle dichiarazioni di Powell:
""Now, if you want to believe that he suddenly gave up that weapon and had
no further interest in those sorts of weapons, whether it be chemical,
biological, or nuclear, then I think you're - it's a bit naive to believe
that," Powell said in a broadcast interview."
bye

 that," Powell said in a broadcast interview."
La risposta di Powell suppone quel che intende dimostrare (ovvero
l'esistenza - dopo una guerra ed un embargo apocalittici - di WMD mai usate,
peraltro durante l'ultimo conflitto), ed è quindi un'affermazione
oggettivamente stupida. "A bit naive" sarà chi ci crede... Shalom.
Namib