pleasure-
i often wondered which planet i was on after reading you government BS
if you have to wonder what planet you are on, its time to get help.
what i said was 'a document like this'. what i should have made clear was a situation like this, which the US were on the wrong side of. so dont put words in my mouth
i wasnt trying to put words in your mouth, but while we are on the subject, dont put words in mine. i will have no problems with any editing of a document like this (a document containing information on specific nuclear programs), no matter who it is doing the editing...just for the record.
yes, wouldnt want groups like al-qaeda using that info would we?
exactly.
i notice your quote above which say 'MIGHT assist'. whats bloody 'might' about it? in other words it doesn't.
how does "might" mean it "doesnt"? interesting spin on the english language you have there. in any event, heres some other comments on it (bold/italic mine):
On Tuesday evening, the non-permanent members, who are elected for two-year terms, got their censored copies — with all information that could be used to promote the spread of weapons of mass destruction removed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73314,00.html
President Alfonso Valdivieso of Columbia held private consultations over the weekend on how the report was to be given to the Security Council. He decided that as soon as copies could be made, unedited versions would be given to the five permanent members of the council -- China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States -- which are also nuclear powers and therefore would have the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation and other sensitive information contained in the files.
Dissemination of the declaration to the remaining council members will occur after any sections that could potentially foster arms proliferation or whose dissemination would contravene arms conventions such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention are edited, the council president and UNMOVIC officials said.
"This is a sensitive issue," Valdivieso told journalists December 9. "We cannot assume risks of proliferation, and the way to avoid that is to provide [copies] to the [council] members that have that expertise."
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02120909.htm
(this next one is an article that is specifically anti-u.s., yet it still backs up what ive been saying about the removed pages....curious)
The IAEA warned that releasing the report to UN member states constituted a grave threat to the non-proliferation treaty, but was ignored.
The chief of the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq, Jacques Baute, has told his IAEA colleagues that if the Iraqi information falls into the wrong hands it could reduce the time needed to build a nuclear bomb from scratch from more than 10 years to two.
"It's an A-Z, so much important material," the official said.
Another IAEA official described the unedited Iraqi information as a "handbook" for developing nuclear weapons.
"It has the information on what worked well and what didn't, how to build centrifuges, how to enrich uranium, information on procurement, weapons design, suppliers. That doesn't leave very much."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,862471,00.html
. you cant prove what you are saying and you keeping banging on about this crap. not only that, you expect everyone to take as gospel everything any politician or governmental agency/worker, when they dont back up what they say.
i certainly dont expect anyone to believe everything the politicians say...in fact, if youd have kept up with this thread, youd see that i have repeatedly said the exact opposite, that we are lied to at every turn. youre right that i cannot prove what was or wasnt in those pages (just as you have no proof to back up your ramblings), but it comes down to a little common sense when deciding what to believe. in this instance, we have two options. one, we can believe what every expert that has read the full report has said, that indeed it was a detailed diagram for building nuclear programs. the other option: we can believe that russia, china, france (the three that were against war), the u.k., the u.s., unmovic, and the iaea have all cooked up a big conspiracy to remove top secret information from the report, even though this information wouldnt have been dangerous in the wrong hands. now, i choose to believe the logical choice one, and you choose to believe the paranoid choice two. i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
very strange sarcasm indeed.
if you cant grasp humor, it would probably seem extremely strange. like i said, i wont make the mistake of overestimating you again.
funny how you think i was making a 'claim' and a 'statement'. did i make a statement or ask a question on that point???? a good example of how you twist what others say.
i apologize, i was not trying to twist your words in any way, shape, or form. to me, it sounded like you were making an assertion, but if you claim you were only asking a question, then i will answer it. the answer is no, the u.s., the u.k., china, russia, france, unmovic, and the iaea did not violate clause 10 of the resolution by editing the report before giving it to the non-permanent members.
oh and by the way, UNMOVIC reports to the security council, not just the permanent members, and it's the security council that makes the final decision by vote. so when you say when you say that the other permanent member were behind the pages removed, thats good observation. howerver the US lead that removal, that themselves did it, and so are the focus for it. i hope thats cleared up for you.
i honestly couldnt make heads or tails of this gibberish, sorry.
aa
