Saddam's Nuclear Weapons - Busted

by Perry 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Perry

  Iraq Nuke Evidence Found, American Media Buries, El Rushbo Unearths January 20, 2003 It is just stunning and amazing that the United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and no one in the American media cares. The US pointed them to the home of an Iraqi scientist, and the UN found the proof. This stuff was supposed to have been destroyed as part of all those old UN resolutions, but it's still around.

  Total Stack of Stuff from the Telegraph of London and the UK Independent. Everybody uses this smoking gun talking point to say that if the inspectors dont find anything, theres no cause for war. Bull. We're having this build-up and talk about assassinating Saddam for a reason. I linked to the headlines below, and its as if theres a concerted effort not to report this huge document find. Sundays Washington Post: Iraqi Scientist Accused UN of Mafia Tactics. It worries about how they grabbed the documents, as if this scientist should have had Miranda rights, but theres nothing about the documents! CBS downplays it too, and I have to ask: if the British papers can pursue the contents of these documents, why can't the American news agencies? Why are our papers clinging to anything that would downplay the significance of this? It really makes me scratch my head. Two UK papers have reported this and Colin Powell has confirmed it, yet we get total silence from our own media. Total silence. This is why you have the EIB Network, folks. As I always say, we're doing the job that the mainstream press used to do.

  Listen to Rush... (discuss the pile of evidence of Saddams nukes that apparently isnt news) (ask why the U.S. press doesnt report evidence of a material breach in Iraq)
• 

  Yerusalyim

  But Al Baridei said Saddam doesn't have a current program to develop nuclear weapons, even though the 3000 documents found in the Iraqi scientists home proved otherwise.
• 

  Mary

  This whole scenario is just like what happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis. The Soviets openly denied that they were putting nuclear weapons into Cuba and tries telling the world that it was the US that was "pushing the world to the brink of disaster." Of course, they were lying their asses off and America proved that they WERE putting these weapons in to Cuba.

  Just because Saddam Hussein denies that he's making weapons of mass destruction, doesn't make it so. The guy is a totally insane, murderous, fanatical Dictator who cannot be trusted. What's it going to take for the world to wake up? Maybe anthrax released on major cities throughout the world? Will it take another 9-11? Let's not forget that their 'holy book', the Koran openly advocates killing infidels and preferably Jews, because apparently, Allah will reward you in heaven for doing so. With the fantical hatred they have for the rest of the world, along with an bunch of hooligans who have nothing better to do than to strap a bomb to themselves, it doesn't take much to realize that there's nothing they wouldn't do (include kill themselves), in order to "rid the world" of anyone who's not Muslim.
• 

  Perry

  I predict, when this is all over with, our friends on the left will have done much to piss off the American public. You think they'd have learned a lesson from the last mid-term elections. I guess not.
• 

  JH

  What worries me is that, not only Iraq has or wants WMD, but other countries also. I don't think that we can stop everybody that wants them. And one day terrorists will get them from one of these nations, or even from the Russia.

  Since the US has WMD, then other countries will say, why can't we?

  How do we tell other countries that we can have WMD, France can, Great Britain can, China can, Russia can, Pakistan can, India can, but you Iran or Iraq or North Korea can't?
• 

  Perry

  JH, It's called laws.

  Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
  Nuclear Weapons, 729 U.N.T.S. 161entered into force March 5, 1970

  Brief Background

  The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

  To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.

  The provisions of the Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3, envisage a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

  The 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York from 24 April to 19 May 2000. The Conference was the first to meet following the Treaty's indefinite extension at the 1995 Conference. States parties examined the implementation of the Treaty's provisions since 1995, taking into account the decisions on the principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and the strengthening of the review process for the Treaty as well as the resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 Conference.

  ENTRY INTO FORCE: 5 March 1970*

  DEPOSITARY GOVERNMENTS: Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America

  TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTIES AS OF March 2002: 187 Parties

  ____________

  *On 11 May 1995, in accordance with article X, paragraph 2, the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons decided that the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely (see Decision 3).
• 

  Emiliano

  The US sold WMD to Saddam. The US aided and abbeded. The US is the #1 source of WMD to the World. The Outlawing of WMD should have started with the US. How is the US made to pay for this?
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  Emil,

  Come now this is silly. If you are refering to our release of various chemicals in the 80's to Iraq, you must realize that they had both Miltary+Civilian uses. In reality, Chemical+Biological weapons are not that complex. The only fancy part is the delivery system. Remember WWI when the Germans started using chlorine gas. That was 88 years ago and they knew how to make them! Chemical+Biological weapons are not the MAIN concern, NUKES are. So while Yes, Saddam has some Bio weapons, and Yes, American AND British+French+German companies helped him develop them, it doesnt mean the U.S. is some bad guy with WMD. Our 'Horrible" WMD prevented WWIII.

  Please review the policy of MAD.

  Just pray that your little buddy Saddam doesnt get cute and gas our troops.......
• 

  Xander

  Ah, yes, the famous "Now-that-we've-got-them,-it-seems-like-a-good-idea-to-ban-further-research-on-them-for-everybody-else.--You'd-better-sign,-or-we- might-use-them-on-you.--You-know,-just-saying.-Treaty"

  If you could prove conclusively that Saddam has plans to USE such weapons ON US, then you'd have a case US fighting a war with him. You can't.

  If he had them, might he use them on his own people? Well, it's a little unlikely, given the fallout and all (Iraq is not a big country), but you never know. Might he use them on his neighbors? Oh, it's possible, and that would make a good case for his neighbors to try and invade him. In case you haven't looked at a world map lately, that's not us.

  Now, if our leaders came up with a plan to ASSASSINATE Saddam, that shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure you take out the rest of his family, too.
• 

  dubla

  In case you haven't looked at a world map lately, that's not us.

  i would have to say xander has a point here......perhaps the u.s. should discontinue helping any other nation other than the u.s. itself. why bother fighting other nations wars for them? weve never engaged in that in the past, have we? im not even sure why we make such an effort to curb nuclear conflict between pakistan and india....why not just let them fight it out? in case anyone hasnt looked at a world map lately, we are nowhere near india or pakistan....so why is it our business?

  aa