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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148372)	10/20/2004 4:38:41 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

I agree that it is improbable, but not implausible. In other words, I think it is a legitimate worry, though I would expect Clinton to feel the pressure for a more committed policy. I wonder if you can appreciate that nuance?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148372)	10/20/2004 4:47:57 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What German intellligence was saying a couple of years ago: Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq had more than 10 tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium. Hamza said that could give Iraq enough weapons-grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons within three years. archives.cnn.com Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) may be able to menace Iraq's neighbors with nuclear weapons in three years and fire a missile as far as Europe by 2005, according to a German intelligence assessment made public on Saturday. The Federal Intelligence Service (BND) has gathered evidence that Baghdad is also stepping up efforts to produce chemical weapons and has increased buying abroad of the inputs needed to make biological weapons. Details of the assessment were published in German newspapers. A spokesman at the BND's headquarters near Munich confirmed that selected correspondents had been briefed on Iraq by intelligence officials on Friday. ``It is clear that we have suspicions about Iraq,'' the spokesman told Reuters. nci.org February 27, 2002 German intelligence and the Iraqi threat By Reuven Pedatzur There is scarcely any new information in the report published this week by the German Federal Intelligence Service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), on Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. An almost identical report was published by the BND precisely a war ago. The difference between the two reports lies not in the content, but in the timing. It is almost certain that the debriefings top BND officials gave to senior journalists in GERMANY were intended, among other things, to prepare German and European public opinion for a possible American offensive against Iraq. If the American administration is looking for a way of justifying an attack on Iraq, the German report supplies it with plenty of good reasons. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, nations arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are perceived as a definite threat to the survival of Western civilization. Thus, if there is clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, despite his denials, is continuing to arm himself with chemical, biological and - in the near future - nuclear weapons, those efforts must be stopped. The information contained in the German report justifies not only the elimination of Iraq's infrastructure for the manufacture of WMD, but also the toppling of Saddam. The most serious of the BND's assessments is the one predicting that Saddam will have nuclear weapons within three years. The Germans stress how little time remains to stop Iraq's nuclear armament program. The question whether Iraq has the capability of completing the process of developing nuclear arms within such a short period of time has become irrelevant. What is really important is Saddam's keen motivation to go nuclear, and no one questions the degree of his motivation. Ever since December 1998, when the last of the United Nations inspectors left Iraq, nobody knows for sure what is going on in Iraq's nuclear development plans. However, the lack of precise intelligence data does not reduce fears that Iraq could succeed with its nuclear project. It should never be forgotten that, before the Gulf War and based on regular visits by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, it was universally believed that Iraq had no intentions of developing nuclear weapons. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iraq was praised to the skies. However, after the war, it emerged that the Iraqis were only six months away from completing development of a nuclear bomb. In a recent interview Khidhir Hamza gave to Newsweek, the senior Iraqi scientist who defected to the West stated: "A minor [uranium] enrichment capability is all that is needed to provide the nuclear core for three weapons." Hamza noted an extensive worldwide network of Iraqi agents who have been successful in obtaining the necessary technology and equipment. "If Russian scientists are employed, Iraq can cut considerably the time needed to produce weapons-grade uranium in large quantities." The German intelligence experts say that by 2005, Iraq will have ballistic missiles capable of striking Western Europe. The knowledge and experience Iraq has acquired in developing missiles with a range of up to 150 kilometers - with the approval of the UN Security Council - will enable it to soon complete work on the development of missiles with a 3,000-km. range. The combination of a long-range missile and a nuclear warhead will turn Iraq into an immediate threat for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's member-states. To complete this grim picture, the report's authors estimate that the pace of producing chemical weapons in Iraq has increased significantly and that the Iraqis have the capacity for quickly resuming their manufacture of biological weapons. In the last few weeks, experts in the American administration are formulating the policy guidelines that the U.S. will rely on in its anticipated move against Iraq. Among the options being considered are an American military invasion of Iraq, support for a local popular uprising and assistance for a insurrection within the Iraqi army. The leak of the German intelligence report is intended to promote the option involving the use of the U.S. Army to topple Saddam, an option that President George W. Bush favors. The report is meant to soften the opposition of some NATO member-states to an American military operation. From Israel's standpoint, it is a good thing that German intelligence experts are the ones who are pointing to the threat from Baghdad and that they are thus backing the warnings that Jerusalem has been issuing on this matter for the past decade. mideasttruth.com

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148372)	10/20/2004 4:55:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Some observations on the French at the time: The French sources said it has French intelligence information saying that Iraq has relaunched its program to produce mass destruction weapons. arabicnews.com Another problem with the idea that Bush was pushing for intelligence findings that went beyond the evidence, is that the UN Security Council including FRANCE and Syria voted unanimously for Resolution 1441 which stated that Hussein was in gross violation of UN previous resolutions, meaning that he was already in possession of chemical and biological stocks. And the Council members didn’t reach these conclusions just by swallowing U.S. intelligence reports. The Security Council and the UN weapons inspectors had had their own years-long experience of dealing with Saddam. Yet when FRANCE and other countries betrayed the U.S. in the aftermath of Resolution 1441, conducting an all-out campaign to bufuddle and isolate the U.S., none of these countries which were so fervidly against the war, including our chief adversary FRANCE, even hinted that the weapons didn’t exist. They just said that inspections would be the more effective way of finding and eliminating them than war. Given that these countries were behaving as virtual enemies of the U.S., if they had had any information that the weapons didn’t exist, a revelation that would have shattered the U.S. position, wouldn’t they have said so at the time? Let us also remember that in 1998 then-President Clinton formally declared that Hussein’s WMDs program represented an ongoing threat, and made it official U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq. Of course, Clinton in the end did nothing to end the Hussein regime but ended the UN inspections regime instead, leaving Hussein at liberty to keep acquiring and improving on his weapons capacities. If, then, you believe the conspiracy theorists, you’d have to believe that Clinton—who had no intention of toppling Hussein—was nevertheless as involved as Bush was in forcing unjustified conclusions about the existence of WMDs. So the theory that Bush was stretching or cooking the evidence is unsustainable. It was not just the president and his advisors, but every involved and knowledgeable party, both pro-war and anti-war, both in America and abroad, who fully believed and stipulated that the weapons were there. amnation.com