Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2499)	1/21/2003 1:51:10 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I wonder if that "fact" from a fictional movie is wholly reliable, but I don't know for certain. I remember reading about it. I would be interested to find out for sure if you have the time to look into it. If you look into the reference to the "six- months", someone associated with the IAEA said it, in the '90s, and it looks like a poor job of staff research, misattributing it to a formal report. This is what IAEA says: ""We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations." washtimes.com Yes, we have veto power, but we desire action, in this case. Sadly, we can't have all we desire in life. There is a reason why the UN is set up the way it is, with no absolute power for any one country. I would rather see that remain the way it is. I think they have shared information with Blix, with reservations, due to the possibility of a leak, and with the stipulation that Blix has to make it appear that he found things independently. Then how come he has not found anything yet?