De VS hielden rapport over gasaanval tegen

[Seba]

In Amerika worden Moslims sub-bewust stelselmatig gedemoniseerd.

De eerste voorwaarde voor het volbrengen van een genocide is het ontmenselijken van 'de vijand'

creëer een ras van onmenselijke wilden, zonder enige moraal of intelligentie, en het word al veel makkelijker te doden op bevel!

Dit zal generaties aanslepen en de VS is de laatste twee jaar ro verrechtst dat het me eerlijk gezegd niet meer echt verwondert.. al vind ik het nog shoquerend..

de VS is goed op weg om het schrikwekkendste voorbeeld ooit te worden van hetgene veel Amerikanen denken te bestrijden!

Aangezien u zo zeker (lees: geïndoctrineerd) bent van wat u zelf schrijvft, neem ik aan dat dit gebaseerd is op eigen persoonlijke ervaringen in Amerika zelf en op objectieve bronnen, of ben ik dan naïef?

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grafgraverke

In Amerika worden Moslims sub-bewust stelselmatig gedemoniseerd.

De eerste voorwaarde voor het volbrengen van een genocide is het ontmenselijken van 'de vijand'

creëer een ras van onmenselijke wilden, zonder enige moraal of intelligentie, en het word al veel makkelijker te doden op bevel!

Dit zal generaties aanslepen en de VS is de laatste twee jaar ro verrechtst dat het me eerlijk gezegd niet meer echt verwondert.. al vind ik het nog shoquerend..

de VS is goed op weg om het schrikwekkendste voorbeeld ooit te worden van hetgene veel Amerikanen denken te bestrijden!

Och, het wordt nog beter, er is een master-plan ontwikkeld in Amerika om de moslims aan genocide te onderwerpen.

De enige die hier aan het bijdragen is aan het geweld in de wereld bent u, want ongetwijfeld zijn er weer een paar idioten die in uw boodschap geloven.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

Och, het wordt nog beter, er is een master-plan ontwikkeld in Amerika om de moslims aan genocide te onderwerpen.

De enige die hier aan het bijdragen is aan het geweld in de wereld bent u, want ongetwijfeld zijn er weer een paar idioten die in uw boodschap geloven.

Schrijfster Erica Jong, niet direct iemand die je kan betichten van anti-Amerkanisme, heb ik onlangs nog horen zeggen dat de stichters van de VS zich zouden omdraaien in hun graf mochten ze weten wat er van hun Amerika is geworden.
Grafgraverke slaat de nagel op de kop. Het Amerika van vandaag is zo stilaan het prototype aan 't worden van dat wat ze altijd bestreden hebben. Hun zo befaamde Liberty en Freedom zijn al lang geen "begrippen" meer, maar "dingen" die je kan kopen als je maar genoeg geld hebt.

[Seba]

Hun zo befaamde Liberty en Freedom zijn al lang geen "begrippen" meer, maar "dingen" die je kan kopen als je maar genoeg geld hebt.

Als u toch altijd maar in clichés wil blijven praten, dan haal ik er graag cijfers bij, namenlijk de zogenaamde Gini-cöefficiënt, hoe hoger die is (op een schaal tot 100, hoe ongelijker de inkomensverdeling is.

België:21,5
VS:37,8
Zwitserland:38,9
Hong Kong:41,0
Rusland:49,6
China:41,5
en nu het beloofde land van onze linkse jongens: Brazilië: 63,5

Porbeer is van de clichés af te stappen en echte argumenten te gebruiken aub

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Seba

Als u toch altijd maar in clichés wil blijven praten, dan haal ik er graag cijfers bij, namenlijk de zogenaamde Gini-cöefficiënt, hoe hoger die is (op een schaal tot 100, hoe ongelijker de inkomensverdeling is.

België:21,5
VS:37,8
Zwitserland:38,9
Hong Kong:41,0
Rusland:49,6
China:41,5
en nu het beloofde land van onze linkse jongens: Brazilië: 63,5

Porbeer is van de clichés af te stappen en echte argumenten te gebruiken aub

Echte argumenten???????? Clichés????
Ikzelf kan het land niet meer in!!!!!!
Met 5 bevriende journalisten communiceer ik wekelijks, waar ze hun beklag doen over de vrijheid van meningsuiting.
Tuurlijk, je k�*n je mening uiten. Eénmaal, en dan de gevolgen dragen. Eerst wat dreigementen en indien je niet inboet, je job kwijt.
Kom bij mij niet af met uw gezeur over clichés, hé. Ik heb er namelijk lang genoeg gewerkt als journalist én aan den lijve ondervonden hoe de situatie van journalisten en schrijvers in 't algemeen is verslechtert na 11/9. Of heeft u misschien nog niet gehoord over hun Patriot-act n de directe en indirecte gevolgen daarvan voor schrijvers en journalisten.

[Aangebrande Phönix]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Seba

...en nu het beloofde land van onze linkse jongens: Brazilië: 63,5...

Brazilië? Niet mijn beloofde land, wat jij, Steve?

[Pelgrim]

Beloofde land van de linkse jongens? Da's het eerste dat ik daar van hoor?

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Aangebrande Phönix

Brazilië? Niet mijn beloofde land, wat jij, Steve?

Tja, waar hij dat vandaan haalt, weet ik ook niet.
Ik heb hier nog nooit ook maar één keer iets over Brazilië gezegd.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Schrijfster Erica Jong, niet direct iemand die je kan betichten van anti-Amerkanisme, heb ik onlangs nog horen zeggen dat de stichters van de VS zich zouden omdraaien in hun graf mochten ze weten wat er van hun Amerika is geworden.
Grafgraverke slaat de nagel op de kop. Het Amerika van vandaag is zo stilaan het prototype aan 't worden van dat wat ze altijd bestreden hebben. Hun zo befaamde Liberty en Freedom zijn al lang geen "begrippen" meer, maar "dingen" die je kan kopen als je maar genoeg geld hebt.

Je hebt gelijk over de patriot act en het beperkende effect op de vrijheid van de Amerikaanse bevolking. Dit is een gevaarlijke act en we moeten hard oppassen dat dit niet verder groeit richting totalitariteit.

Om vandaag al de link van hieruit naar een genocidepolitiek te leggen moet je echter serieus paranoide zijn.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Vlaamse Leeuw

Indien dit zo is, dan hoop ik dat er nog meer informatie in de media daarover wordt verspreid en ook dat we eindelijk weten of er al dan niet WMD zijn in Irak.

Indien de VS nu opeens WMD zouden vinden in Irak, dan zou ik hen toch niet meer geloven. Ofwel hadden ze hel al gevonden, maar nu geloof ik er al niet meer in.

Zo de US diensten zo zeker waren dat er wel MDW's te vinden zouden zjn in Irak is dat om de eenvoudige reden dat ze er zélf geleverd hadden, het gebruik tidens de Iraaks-Iraanse oorlog hadden gemonitord , en dat er een verschil in die "boekhouding" bovenkwam.
Dat Irak na en tijdens de Golfoorlog stocks vernietigd zou hebben, zoals H. Blix concludeerde leek hen een militaire ketterij: zij zouden dat niet gedaan hebben, dus Saddam ook niet...
Dat Saddam geslepen genoeg was om hen juist d�*t voorwendsel niet te willen geven om Irak binnen te vallen, d�*�*r kwamen ze niet op...

Dat grootsprakerigheid Saddam niet vreemd is, d�*�*r kwamen ze niet op...
Dat het Iraaksleger slect betaald en uitgerust was, d�*�*r kwamen ze wél op en dus begonnen ze maar een oorlog (er waren toch nieuwe wapens die uitgetest moesten worden en de verkiezingen komen eraan)

[filosoof]

Weapons of Mass Destruction:
www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Seba

Ironisch genoeg is dat embargo een maatregel van onze vredesduiven en heeft de Amerikaanse aanval er een einde aan gemaakt, dus wat wil u nu eigenlijk zeggen?

Lees dit ook eens:
"I THINK THIS IS A VERY HARD CHOICE, BUT THE PRICE - WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT."
http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):
CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.




http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/docAlb.htm


u n c o v e r I r a q . c o m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a l b r i g h t: " w o r t h i t "

The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):


CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.


Yes, she said it. The Albright interview clips
Seeing is believing. This exchange is made available under the terms below in standard Internet multimedia formats. The clips are unedited, save for the addition of titling. Each clip is roughly 20-seconds long, and has been tested on IE4/IE5 and Netscape 4.5 (Windows 95/98/NT/2K, only). You can play these files directly by clicking on the links. To download a copy to your local system, right-click the link and choose "Save target as ..." (IE) or "Save link as ..." (Netscape).
>> Albright.avi: Color video and sound. 1.2MB
>> WorthIt.wav: Audio only. 195KB


Videotapes of the entire segment can be purchased from CBS News (which retains the copyright) at 1-800-848-3256. The report is not for the faint of heart; the child above died minutes after he was filmed.


The interview continues
It's important to note this wasn't an ambush interview. Albright came well-prepared, even showing visual aids at one point. As you'll hear on the recording, Albright utters "... worth it" with a rising inflection. She continues speaking, her voice obscured by Stahl's voiceover. Albright - probably realizing her statement was impolitic - adds the following justification.

Albright attempts to justify her comment
On tape, Albright's rationale was edited to follow the statement of a lawyer specializing in human rights. The lawyer stated that sanctioning Iraq's civilian population to change its leadership was not moral, to which Albright responded:

ALBRIGHT: It is a moral question, but the moral question is even a larger one. Don't we owe to the American people and to the American military and to the other countries in the region that this man (Saddam Hussein) not be a threat?

STAHL: Even with the starvation?

ALBRIGHT: I think, Leslie … it is hard for me to say this because I am a humane person, but my first responsibility is making sure that United States forces do not have to go and re-fight the Gulf War.

The second Stahl/Albright exchange has now been converted to AVI format.

>> Albright2.avi: Color video and sound. 1.8MB
How is war to be fought?
The morality of war concerns not just when to fight, but how. The protection of non-combatants during hostilities has been recognized for over a millenium, since the Council of Le Puy in 975. It is the core of all convention and law governing behavior during war.

Albright turns this on its head. She justifies civilian starvation because it may reduce the risk of military casualties.

Dr. Albright's conversational tone here is striking, verging on a plea for understanding from Leslie Stahl. 'This is not an easy job', she seems to say, 'and I'm not faced with morally unambiguous or easy choices.' This is true, of course. The decision to commit troops to combat is grevious, both morally and (here's the rub) politically.

Albright acknowledges that committing troops to battle presents a moral danger, as does endangering Iraq's civilian population by embargo. What goes unsaid is that the domestic political cost to win support for military action would have been enormous. Not so for the embargo -- especially if the results weren't reported.

To engage Iraq militarily would have been difficult, politically and morally. To contain Iraq by embargo was far, far, far less difficult politically, but morally untenable. Here the course is set: expedience trumps morality; real politik bests military and national honor.

Consider American reaction if Albright's statements had been uttered by, say, Slobodan Milosevic ("Please understand, I had to besiege the Kosovar Albanians to avoid risking our Serbian troops. The 500,000 infant deaths are tragic, but my duty was clear."). One imagines the uproar echoing to The Hague.


An instinctive disavowal
In May 1998, Albright made the following comments before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Note Albright's immediate, instinctive disavowal of her earlier remark:

Q: One very brief question on a related thing in the region. Two years ago, on "60 Minutes," you said that the price of half a million Iraqi children dying as a result of the sanctions, largely, was, quote, "worth it." Do you regret making that statement, which got substantial play in the Arab world, though not much here?
SEC. ALBRIGHT: Let me just say this; I have said -- I do not actually remember saying that specifically --
Q: I've seen it.
SEC. ALBRIGHT: Well then, I guess I said it. Let me just say this: I believe that the fact that Iraqi children are dying is not the fault of the United States, but of Saddam Hussein. And I think it is ridiculous for the United States to be blamed for the dictatorial and cruel, barbaric ways that Saddam Hussein treats his people ... So you can't lay that guilt trip on me. I mean I think it is Saddam --
Q: You don't think the U.S. has any culpability --
Moderator: I think she's addressed that.
SEC. ALBRIGHT: Yeah.


A more recent follow-up was reported by journalist John Pilger in The Guardian (UK), April 3, 2000.

In Washington, I interviewed James Rubin, an under secretary of state who speaks for Madeleine Albright. ... When I questioned Rubin about (Albright's "worth it" comment), he claimed Albright's words were taken out of context. He then questioned the "methodology" of a report by the UN's World Health Organisation (sic), which had estimated half a million deaths. Advising me against being "too idealistic", he said: "In making policy, one has to choose between two bad choices . . . and unfortunately the effect of sanctions has been more than we would have hoped." He referred me to the "real world" where "real choices have to be made". In mitigation, he said, "Our sense is that prior to sanctions, there was serious poverty and health problems in Iraq." The opposite was true, as Unicef's data on Iraq before 1990, makes clear.


Out of context?
If by "out of context" Rubin means there's a deeper background that would add complexity to Albright's comment, then he's right ... but only in the humdrum sense in which this is always true of interviews.
But if Rubin is questioning the report's accuracy, he is utterly disingenuous: the report was not questioned at the time it aired, nor later when it won an Emmy and duPont award. Further, the State Department has always been fully aware of sanctions' civilian impact, as current attempts to re-target sanctions confirm.

Even when talking with Pilger, Rubin didn't press the issue, instead offering "out of context" as the most casual of slurs before veering onto the next defense. Rubin undercuts, rather than challenges; concealment remains the desired outcome.


Blowback
As this is being written, lawyers for a defendent in the embassy bombing trial (Mohamed al-'Owhali) have played Albright's interview in court, seeking to explain their client's motivation (the tragic fulfillment of Chalmers Johnson's Blowback).

Scores of State Department employees were killed and horribly injured by the bombings, and in view of this fact then surely -- if Albright's statement was taken out of context -- surely the State Department would raise an objection here?

But of course, they don't. As the NY Times reported (June 5, 2001):

The ("60 Minutes") program also includes an interview with Secretary of State (sic) Madeleine K. Albright, who is confronted with the estimate that 500,000 children had died since the imposition of sanctions in Iraq, and is asked whether the price was worth it. "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it," she replied. A spokeswoman for the former secretary of state said that "it would be inappropriate for Secretary Albright to comment on this while the trial is still going on."
[Update: The "Blowback" defense carried the day, and the death penalty was not applied. A transcript of the closing argument is available on this site.]


Defamation and sound-bite journalism
At the time she spoke, Albright was not a policy-maker. She was loyally, if ineptly, defending policies made by her superiors, policies which pre-dated the administration in which she served. Would it have been personally unfair to Albright to further publicize these remarks?

The answer, of course, is "no". To even raise this question is to confuse protecting a bureaucrat's career with the security and reputation of the country they serve, while ignoring millions affected by the policies. Hints of this confusion -- conflating private political ambitions with national interests -- swirl frequently through America's Iraq policies and media coverage.

In her "60 Minutes" interview, Albright not only defended the civilian cost of the embargo, but justified this course because it lessened the risk of military involvement (and by extension, lessened the political cost to her administration). Albright made these comments in an interview for which she prepared, at a time when she was mere months from becoming chief foreign policy officer for the most powerful country on earth.

Publicizing these comments and the discussion thereby provoked would have been in the noblest traditions of American journalism.

This is being written five years after Albright's interview. The policies Albright defended are now discredited, and understanding is growing of America's role in hundreds of thousands of senseless deaths. It's a tragedy Albright's remark wasn't reported in 1996, and this story pursued.

- Commentary by Drew Hamre
June, 2001

Photos and multimedia material on this page Copyright CBS News, 1996.
The Pilger material is Copyright by The Guardian, 2000
The bombing trial report is Copyright The New York Times, 2001



http://www.irvinereview.org/guest1.htm

Irvine Review
The voice of reason at UC Irvine

Return to Irvinereview.org Homepage.

ALBRIGHT'S BLUNDER
By Douglas E. Hill

Critics of UN sanctions against Iraq often claim that the sanctions have killed half a million Iraqi children, and offer as evidence Madeleine Albright's admission of this on “60 Minutes.” Yet Albright’s response proved nothing other than her incompetence as a diplomat by answering, rather than challenging, a loaded question. Diverse speakers and writers at UCI, including Najeeb Kahn in the New University (1999), Dr. Mark LeVine (Cross Cultural Center, October 24, 2002), and a speaker introducing a video on Iraq sanctions (in the Crystal Cove auditorium) have all cited her remarks. Given the frequency that opponents of sanctions cite her remarks, she has gotten surprisingly little criticism from sanctions supporters and others who suspect that Iraqi government policies have something to do with child mortality there. Here's the quote, from when Leslie Stahl interviewed then US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" on 12 May 1996:

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"



Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

Stahl said, "we have heard." She did not say, "we have data," or even better, offer an outline of the data that allegedly shows this. It should not be surprising that in a totalitarian society like Iraq, learning the rate of mortality of its children, and the causes of that rate, is quite difficult. (Determining such causes is a difficult job for epidemiologists even in a free society.) In fact, this is a topic of no small controversy. David Cortright wrote in The Nation last year:

... [T]he 1999 report "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children," by Columbia University's Richard Garfield, ... estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000. Garfield's analysis showed child mortality rates double those of the previous decade.

(These numbers indicate a longer period with less than half of the numbers that Stahl cited.) Thus no one argues that there is problem of excess child mortality in Iraq, but the numbers and cause are a matter of controversy. But note what Stahl did: she did not ask Albright how many children had died, or what the cause was. She used an old interrogation trick: she asked a loaded question. This is a question, which like “do you use a club when you beat your wife?” incriminates you whether you answer yes or no. She asked if the price was worth it.

And Albright walked right into this trap. She did not dispute the numbers, or the cause. She just said, essentially, "yes" to a loaded question. If a lawyer is representing you, he had better not answer a loaded question in such an incriminating matter (and he had better not let you answer one either). But as an Ambassador, Albright was representing all Americans. A diplomat worth her salt would have known this. But apparently Albright did not.

It is a scandal that her response did not prevent Albright from becoming Secretary of State, and thus in charge of American diplomacy. It showed incompetent diplomacy for her to answer in the manner she did, even if the numbers and cause implied by the data in the loaded question were true. But while the numbers are in question, the facts do not support the sanctions as a primary cause. When Albright was Secretary, her own State Department refuted that UN imposed sanctions could be a cause of these casualties, when it wrote in a document released 13 September 1999 (and updated 24 March 2000):

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

Thus a stupid reply from Albright cannot be used to claim that the sanctions are the cause when a careful study from her department disputes this. A later report from the State department, of 26 January 2001, also supports the claim that it is Iraqi government behavior that is so hurting its citizens:

During this period [June to December, 2000], US$7.8 billion were available to Iraq for purchases during this period, yet Iraq submitted purchase applications worth only US$4.26 billion - barely 54 percent of the amount available for purchases to help the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. In key sectors of the Iraqi economy, Saddam's regime's disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi people is made plain.

As to what could be causing the increase in mortality, Cortright in The Nation cites a UNICEF study by Mohamed Ali and Iqbal Shah that seem to show that it is not in fact the sanctions that are primarily responsible for the increase in child mortality:

In south-central Iraq [under Iraqi government control], child mortality rates rose from 56 per 1,000 births for the period 1984-89 to 131 per 1,000 for the period 1994-99. In the autonomous Kurdish region in the north [subject to the same sanctions] … child mortality rates actually fell during the same period, from 80 per 1,000 births to 72 per 1,000.

Thus despite the sanctions, the mortality rate is higher only in the areas under Iraqi government control, suggesting that it is that government, rather than the sanctions, which bears primary responsibility. If the numbers are as grave has a quarter- to a half-a-million dead children, then there is a strong humanitarian argument to liberate Iraq from the tyranny holding Iraqi children hostage like this. And it is unfortunate that an American diplomat who was to become U.S. Secretary of State would aid those who wish to blame the U.S. by conceding that UN sanctions are responsible when the evidence does not support this.

Douglas E. Hill is a graduate student at UCI in Logic & Philosophy of Science, is vice-president of Students for Science & Skepticism, and hosts "Campus Talk UCI" Mondays 4-5 pm on KUCI 88.9 fm. This article is copyright © 2002 by Douglas E. Hill.

Return to Irvinereview.org.
Copyright © 2002 The Irvine Review Foundation

[Seba]

Dus ik mlag aannemen dat u blij bent dat Bush en Blair een einde aan dat embargo hebben gemaakt?

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Seba

Dus ik mag aannemen dat u blij bent dat Bush en Blair een einde aan dat embargo hebben gemaakt?

1) was dat embargo nodig?
2) moest het zo strict zijn (kindergeneesmiddelen inbegrepen!!) dat er hondderduizenden mensen aan stierven???
3) moest er een oorlog voor gevoerd worden om het te beëindigen?
4) Is het vervangen van een embargo door een militaire bezetting de oplossing?

[Bolter]

Hoe dan ook was en is Saddam een sluwe vos...

Ganse gevechtsvliegtuigen werden verstopt onder woestijnzand..

Door een te felle woestijnwind kwamen de staartvinnen uiteindelijk aan de oppervlakte waardoor de Amerikanen dit aan de weet kwamen..

Ze waren er al meerdere weken gewoonweg overheen gestapt..

Het zou me niet verwonderen dat er andere zaken die het daglicht niet mag zien verborgen zijn in het woestijnzand....

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bolter

Hoe dan ook was en is Saddam een sluwe vos...

Ganse gevechtsvliegtuigen werden verstopt onder woestijnzand..

Door een te felle woestijnwind kwamen de staartvinnen uiteindelijk aan de oppervlakte waardoor de Amerikanen dit aan de weet kwamen..

Ze waren er al meerdere weken gewoonweg overheen gestapt..

Het zou me niet verwonderen dat er andere zaken die het daglicht niet mag zien verborgen zijn in het woestijnzand....

Mogelijk, maar niet zo zeker:

In Time Magazine ( 6oktober 2003) p 28 staat er een volledig artikel (the missing weapons by Mark Thompson en Timothy J. Burger)dat de iraakse versie over deverdwijning van de MDW's weergeeft, zonder ze in vraag te stellen: vernietigd tijdens de jaren 90... zonder paparasserie, fabrieken gebruikt voor burgerdoeleinden.
ze citeren Blix:
"you can put a sign on your door "beware of the dog", without having a dog".
Het republikeinse weekblad stelt de iraakse uitleg nergens in vraag. De amerikaanse publieke opinie wordt erop voorbereid dat er geen MDW zullen bovenkomen...

[Stefanie]

1) was dat embargo nodig?

En Koeweit? Irak is Koeweit toch binnengevallen? Waarom zou een Amerikaanse invasie in Irak ERGER zijn dan een Iraakse invasie in Koeweit? Hypocriet gelul, dus. Bovendien zou Sadam geld en wapens gegeven hebben aan Palestijnse terroristen.

[Seba]

In Time Magazine ( 6oktober 2003) p 28 staat er een volledig artikel (the missing weapons by Mark Thompson en Timothy J. Burger)dat de iraakse versie over deverdwijning van de MDW's weergeeft, zonder ze in vraag te stellen: vernietigd tijdens de jaren 90... zonder paparasserie, fabrieken gebruikt voor burgerdoeleinden.
ze citeren Blix:
"you can put a sign on your door "beware of the dog", without having a dog".
Het republikeinse weekblad stelt de iraakse uitleg nergens in vraag. De amerikaanse publieke opinie wordt erop voorbereid dat er geen MDW zullen bovenkomen...

En toch worden er nu nog wapenprogramma's en massa's conventionele wapens gevonden

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Seba

En toch worden er nu nog wapenprogramma's en massa's conventionele wapens gevonden

met een wapenprogramma doe je niet veel, als je er noch het geld, noch de technologie, noch de productie-eenheden voor hebt, en de conventionele wapens, wie twijfelde d�*�*r ooit aan? Maar meer dan een helicopter of een tank afschieten doe je daar toch niet mee. De 3° wereld puilt uit van de conventionele wapens: RPG7, Stingers(die zijn al gevorderder), Milans, Kalashnikovs, M-16s, allemaal geschonken door de grootmachten: waarom zou Irak daar een uitzondering op zijn?