0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 05:20 am
P.S. to Walter - your etymology of Exocet sounds right to me! Thanks; have a good week, all <G>
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 07:24 am
Walter is right, as usual. Exocet, the surface-skimming missile, was called after the Latin name of the family of surface-skimming fish Exocoetidae.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 07:47 am
Well, dolphins don't have weapons, armies, tall buildings, or fundamentalist Christians. I guess they're pretty evolved! And they're humorous. In Maine we call them porpoises.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 07:49 am
Whales, porpoises, dolphins, flying fish

Shame HofT is off on holiday, but hope she has a good time. Is there another thread for fishy folk?

Still in a holiday frame of mind. When I was a boy, there were lots of porpoises in the waters of the west coast of Scotland, in the sea lochs around Skye and thereabouts.
There are very few to be seen now. Modern fishing practices are to blame, I think, the creatures get drowned in the nets of seine boats. Monofilament nylon nets are invisible to them.

Also when I was growing up, my favourite book was The Kon-Tiki Expedition, which described conditions in the Pacific Ocean around the late 1940's. This was wonderful stuff, I must have read that book and re-read it ten times. Plenty flying fish there.

Just reminiscing a bit, splashing around, wallowing.

McT
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 08:28 am
Flipper the WMD.

Anyone recall that great flick "Day of the Dolphin" with George C. Scott?

"PA....IS.....NOT!"
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 09:48 am
hi, I'm here, reading..........bookmarking
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 10:09 am
This headline just in from today's NYT:

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?pagewanted=1

Quote:
"WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said..."


Any body hear about this from any other sources? I would like to see some verifying info from some other sources before I put much stock in this.

JM
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 10:11 am
Seems that until now, media around the world are just referring to the NYT article.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 10:13 am
Did I hear this morning that Russia is demanding verification?
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 10:33 am
I know most of you don't want to hear about the things like:

-Saddam has built 50 palaces since the end of Gulf war 1---where did the money come from?

-The truth about the "Oil for food program" administered in secrect by Kofi Anan----what was the money actually spent on?

-Why is the bookkeeping on the above program so secret?

-What will the truth actually be about the depth of the Russian and
French involvement in Iraq since Gulf War 1?

-Why are the atrocities of the Saddam regime not getting more attention?

Just a few questions for you folks who "really want the truth" about Iraq.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 10:49 am
perception
I doubt that the answers to your question will ever be addressed by many of the people on the a2k. There main preoccupation is the vilification of the US. Be they home grown or foreign.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 11:07 am
Tartarin wrote:
Did I hear this morning that Russia is demanding verification?


Only to maintain UN sanctions, in an attempt to extort favorable treatment of Russian and French economic interests.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 11:13 am
Perception,
No-one I know is a supporter of Saddam.
It would come as a surprise to no-one if he was found to have misappropriated UN money
But two wrongs to make a right? Come on.

au, my aim is not to vilify the USA. It is a country and people I love. My fervent wish is for it to climb back up to where it was, the city on the hill. My aim is to see the present administration, and Tony Blair, answer for their actions in a court of law.

McT

I believe they have plenty to answer for.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 11:21 am
Perhaps you ask the one, who told you about the 50 palaces built after Gulf War 1 about hte money?

Either you look up old nespaper archives about the money of the "oil for food program", go to the UN website or ask your UN ambassy about it.
The Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Programme, btw, is Mr. Benon V. Sevan.

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ is the UN website. We can get access from here - no secret at all!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 11:31 am
Arianna's American, just about.
Wake up, smell the coffee.....We have lived through the biggest foreign policy blunder- crime- since 1938.


Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right
Filed April 16, 2003
The Bible tells us that pride goeth before the fall. In Iraq, it cameth right after it.

From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.

What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right.

The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine. The threat was so clear and present that we couldn't even give inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction -- hey, remember those? -- another 30 days, as France had wanted.

Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying Western civilization, Saddam and his 21st century Gestapo couldn't even muster a half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' cakewalk disproves their own dire warnings. They can't have it both ways. The invasion has proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of the world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/041603.html
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 11:31 am
cTag
Regardless of reasons given for the attack upon Iraq it turned out IMO to be a worthy cause. When one looks at the reign of terror practiced by the Saddam regime it would seem there was more than enough reason for his removal. The UN, France, Russia, Germany and the rest were well aware of what was going on and as long as they were able to get a piece of the action gladly turned a blind eye. Where was their moral indignation? I guess in their wallets.
What do Bush and Blair have to answer for, defying the irrelevant UN?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 11:48 am
McTag wrote:
The invasion has proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of the world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.

I would not be so much sure about this. Regimes in such countries as Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia need American support to provide their own survival. No other country is able in case of necesity to protect them against Islamic revolution or aggression from outside.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 12:05 pm
OK Perc, you've chummed me out ...... what is the 'truth' about Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 12:07 pm
McTag, I too read Kon-Tiki more than once. I was young and impressionable when he made that fantastic voyage, and I dreamed of being like him.

I am disturbed by anyone, on A2K or elsewhere, who demonizes dissent. There are as many types of doubters as there are doubts, regarding the war that has been waged. It is foolish and shallow to brand those who did not want to rush into war as peaceniks, radical liberals, nay-sayers, weak-sisters, non-patriots or any of the other derogatory terms I have heard applied to those of us who thought long and hard about where our administration is heading and decided that they could not join in the lock-step. I have never found one among us who is not happy about the downfall of a tyrant.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 12:18 pm
Remember all the speculation here about who why shot at the Palestine Hotel and killed the two journalists?

"Firing was coming in the whole time, from that area as well as others. I returned fire. Without hesitation -- that's the rule."
Tank Captain Unaware of Baghdad Media Hotel


Actually, this is an old news, from Thursday last week:

«C'est moi qui ai donné l'ordre de tirer»
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 03:02:37