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 : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 10K a day who wrote (5986)	2/16/2006 8:13:02 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 9838

France: Iran program 'military' Thursday, February 16, 2006; Posted: 7:46 a.m. EST (12:46 GMT) PARIS, France (AP) -- French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Thursday that Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, in France's most direct attack on Tehran in the escalating international dispute. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator immediately dismissed the charge, insisting that Iran did not "want to have the bomb." Douste-Blazy's bold statement appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities. "No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. "The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us." Europe and the United States fear that Iran is using its nuclear energy program to build nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council is to consider Iran's nuclear activities next month. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week. "Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran," Douste-Blazy said. While U.S. rhetoric toward Iran has been quite firm, European leaders have been more cautious. France, Britain and Germany have led European negotiations that have failed to persuade Iran to suspend parts of its nuclear program. "People are clearly feeling somewhat frustrated that the Iranians have been given lots of opportunities they don't seem to want to take advantage of," said Richard Whitman of the Chatham House think tank in London. He noted that the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was unusually stern in reporting Iran to the Security Council earlier this month. He said the French comments reflect "a sense of exasperation with the Iranian government. All of the doors that were open in terms of negotiations ... are gradually being closed by the Iranians." The French Foreign Ministry insisted that Douste-Blazy's comments were in line with the European position on Iran. "France shares the concerns of its European partners and the international community," spokeswoman Agnes Romatet-Espagne said. "The sensitive nuclear activities conducted now by Iran in terms of conversion and enrichment raise doubt about their peaceful and civilian nature." In response to Douste-Blazy's comments, Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani said: "We want civilian nuclear energy, we don't want to have the bomb." Speaking from Tehran on France-Inter radio, he said, "Concerning nuclear arms, we are a responsible country. ... We want to be in this camp" of countries that have nuclear energy technology, but no nuclear weapons, such as Brazil and Japan, he said. In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United States would "walk a fine line" in seeking punitive international sanctions against Iran's Islamic government over its disputed nuclear program. The next big test comes next week, at talks in Moscow on moving Iran's enrichment program to Russia, which would allay fears that Iran might misuse the technology to make nuclear arms. Tensions over Iran are likely to diminish if Tehran agrees to the Russian proposal -- and to balloon if it does not.

To: 10K a day who wrote (5986)	2/16/2006 8:37:46 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 9838

Secret Tapes Show Saddam's Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception (Partial Transcript) ABC News ^ \| February 15, 2006 \| Brian Ross abcnews.go.com The following is a translation of portions of one pivotal tape-recorded meeting that took place in late April or May of 1995. In it, Saddam Hussein and his senior aides discuss the fact that United Nations inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied. At one point, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N. SADDAM HUSSEIN: Lieutenant General Hussein HUSSEIN KAMEL: Thank you, sir. Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. On the subject of missiles, they can bring up three issues with us now, in one year or in two years' time. They are undeclared — one of them being the location. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. Sir, this is my work and I know it very well. I started it a long time ago, and it is not easy. The issues are more dangerous, a lot more dangerous than what they came to know. I am explaining to your excellency, sir. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, which we assume that they have not raised, and our belief that the sole problem is that of the biological weapons. No, sir. I think they have detailed information about the missiles, and if they want to bring them up, they will as I said because we did not complete. In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. Therefore sir, if they want to create problems, I see that our argument now is that biological is everything. No, sir, I disagree and I have to be candid in front of your Excellency. I substantially disagree on this issue. They want it item by item. For the time being, they are not raising all of them with us and we did not declare. I will come back, sir, to the question of whether is it better for us to declare or to stay? In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. Not the 17 tons, no. We have a disagreement which is essential and known. We know it ourselves.