|
Oglądasz wypowiedzi znalezione dla hasła: Global Security
Temat: USA uzywają bomb fosforowych w Iraku
USA uzywają bomb fosforowych w Iraku
US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
Il Manifesto, 25th September 2005
IRAK: “Kobiety i dzieci zabijamy bombami fosforowymi”
Żołnierz amerykańskiej piechoty morskiej Jimmy Massey: “Tak jak w Wietnamie,
stosujemy przeciw populacji cywilnej chemiczne bronie masowego rażenia”
Rozmowa z J. Masseyem*
Patricia Lombroso
Il Manifesto, 25 września 2005
Oświadczył pan, że jest naocznym świadkiem używania białego fosforu w czasie
amerykańskich bombardowań w Iraku…
- Tak. Stosujemy go do wypełniania głowic rakiet wystrzeliwanych ze
śmigłowców i w pociskach artyleryjskich wystrzeliwanych z ziemi. Dziś jeszcze
nasi przełożeni z Pentagonu ciągle mówią jak “nieludzkie” jest używanie
chemicznych broni masowego rażenia w Iraku, gdyż “giną cywile”. A w
rzeczywistości używaliśmy i ciągle używamy białego fosforu i zubożonego
uranu. Jesteśmy odpowiedzialni za nieprzerwaną masakrę irackich cywilów.
Biały fosfor to substancja chemiczna używana w czasie wojny w Wietnamie, w
bombach z napalmem. Chce pan powiedzieć, że ta sama substancja – zakazana w
latach osiemdziesiątych – jest używana w Iraku?
- Tak. W głowicach rakiet.
Jaką one mają siłę rażenia?
- Broń tego typu może zamienić w popiół cały, opancerzony pojazd wojskowy.
Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops
Czy pan widział efekty działania pocisków z białym fosforem?
- Tak. Widziałem mnóstwo niewinnych cywilów spalonych żywcem: to są sceny
horroru, które zapamiętam do końca życia. W Iraku byłem naocznym świadkiem
użycia napalmu, dokładnie takiego samego jak w Wietnamie.
Pentagon mówi jednak, że to nie napalm, tylko “podobny środek, który nie
zanieczyszcza środowiska”.
- Widziałem wielu spopielonych cywilów.
Ale tych broni używano do niszczenia specyficznych celów?
- Proszę pani, bomby fosforowe stosowano w dzień i w nocy, bezustannie, bez
względu na cel. Widziałem śmierć licznych cywilów, w tym kobiet i dzieci
palonych żywcem. Tego się nie da opowiedzieć.
Czy poinformował pan swoich zwierzchników, że ten rodzaj broni był stosowany
w czasie inwazji?
- Nie. Potem, kiedy zacząłem zadawać pytania moim zwierzchnikom, odpowiedzią
było zwolnienie mnie z piechoty morskiej.
Ale dużo się mówi o “precyzyjnych bombach wysokiej technologii”?
- Tak. Istnieją precyzyjne pociski**, widziałem rakiety z białym fosforem i
zubożonym uranem trafiające w mnóstwo pojazdów, autobusów, samochodów
wypełnionych cywilami. Widziałem wielką liczbę spopielonych cywilów,
zwęglonych, spalonych żywcem za pomocą białego fosforu. To zazwyczaj bomby z
44 funtami żelu polistyrenowego i 63 galonami propergolu.
Eksperci z Global Security Organisation kwalifikują bomby z białym fosforem
jako “bomby z napalmem”, substancją, która służyła w Wietnamie do niszczenia
lasów. Gdzie jej używano w Iraku?
- W Iraku była stosowana nawet przez artylerię, jak w czasie masakry Faludży
wiosną 2004.***
Wróćmy do zubożonego uranu; czy jest używany również w czasie drugiej wojny
przeciw Irakowi?
- Oczywiście. W Iraku zużyto już drugie tyle zubożonego uranu, co w czasie
pierwszej wojny w Zatoce, w 1991. Stosowano go również podczas ostatnich
bombardowań Afganistanu.
Czy wy, żołnierze, wiedzieliście, że stosowanie eksterminacyjnych broni
gwałci nie tylko obowiązujące prawa międzynarodowe, ale i normy wojskowego
kodeksu karnego Stanów Zjednoczonych?
- Wiedziałem, że wszystko co robimy, jeśli chodzi o dziką przemoc i
stosowanie tych broni, stanowi pogwałcenie Konwencji Genewskich, jednak nasi
przełożeni działali na rozkaz prezydenta i jego prawników - np. Alberto
Gonzalesa, aktualnego szefa Departamentu Sprawiedliwości. W Iraku dowództwo
mówiło nam, że walczymy przeciw “terrorystom”, więc Konwencje Genewskie nie
mają zastosowania.
Patricia Lombroso
29/09/2005
* sierżant Jimmy Massey, inwalida wojenny, autor książki “Cowboys From Hell”,
członek Iraq Veterans Against The War; rozmowę przeprowadzono w ostatni
weekend, podczas manifestacji antywojennej w Waszyngtonie;
** w czasie pierwszej wojny w Zatoce Pentagon, zgodnie z konceptem
propagandowym tzw. “czystej wojny”, zapewniał, że stosuje “chirurgiczną
precyzję”. Po wojnie przyznał, że pociski precyzyjnie kierowane stanowiły 6
(sześć) procent zrzuconych wówczas bomb. Aktualnie olbrzymią większość
bombardowań w Iraku (jak w tym tygodniu na zachodzie kraju) realizują
przerzucone z Afganistanu B-52. Bomby lecą z dokładnością niewiele lepszą niż
w czasach drugiej wojny światowej.
*** J. Massey mówi o pierwszym, amerykańskim oblężeniu Faludży
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
Temat: Wolfowitz przyznaje, ze BMR byla tylko pretekstem
No i w zasadzie wszystko jasne. Jedna z najczarniejszych i najpodlejszych
kreatur obecnej administracji z tylko sobie znanych przyczyn zdecydowala sie
powiedziec pol prawdy to znaczy te iz Waszyngton doskonale wiedzial iz Irak
zadnych skladow chemicznej broni nie posiada. Jednoczesnie przedstawil wazny
niemniej nie najwazniejszy powod ataku, obecnosc wojsk USA w ASaudyjskiej
Do powiedzenia pozostala nastepna polowa iz za uderzeniem na Irak stalo lobby
zydowskie ktore rekoma amerykanskich przyglupow zdolalo wyeliminowac swojego
wroga i to byl glowny powod; pewnie bedziemy na to musieli poczekac.
ri May 30,12:19 PM ET
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium - European critics of the Iraq (news - web sites) war
expressed shock Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official playing
down Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the conflict.
In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited "bureaucratic reasons" for focusing on Saddam
Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged arsenal and said a "huge" reason for the
war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,
because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as
saying.
He said one reason for going to war against Iraq that was "almost unnoticed but
huge" was the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as
Saddam was in power.
Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against
Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1991, but their presence in the country
that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including
Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was
removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main
regional command center in Qatar.
However, those goals were not spelled out publicly as the United States sought
to build international support for the war. Instead, the Bush administration
focused on Saddam's failure to dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons programs.
The failure of U.S. forces to locate extensive weapons stocks has raised doubts
in a skeptical Europe whether Iraq represented a global security threat.
Wolfowitz's comments followed a statement by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, who suggested this week that Saddam might have destroyed his banned
weapons before the war began.
On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that
extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that
U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the
outset of the war.
"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told
reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the
Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as
President Bush (news - web sites) left for a European tour in which he hopes to
put aside the bitterness over the war, which threatened the trans-Atlantic
partnership.
In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to
know whether Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about the
extent of Saddam's weapons threat.
"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for
the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said in
response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big problem
explaining it."
Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by
Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: What should we
believe?" he told The Associated Press.
In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is
losing the battle for credibility.
"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.
In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of
the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such
weapons.
"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive
strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting
Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to
hit us in the first place."
During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)
said Friday he has "absolutely no doubt" that concrete evidence will be found
of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
"Have a little patience," Blair told reporters.
Wolfowitz was in Singapore, where he is due to speak Saturday at the Asia
Security Conference of military chiefs and defense ministers from Asian and key
Western powers.
He told reporters at the conference that the United States will reorganize its
forces worldwide to confront the threat of terrorism.
"We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture
worldwide, including in the United States," Wolfowitz said. "We're facing a
very different threat than any one we've faced historically."
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
Temat: Sensacyjne oświadczenie USA nt. wojny w Iraku
bron masowego razenia odplywa w dal..... teraz:
teraz sie koncentrujemy na moralnym prawie obalenia niemoralnego rezimu. co
oczywiscie popieramy coraz to nowymi grobami masowymi szyitow, ktorzy byli na
tyle glupi, ze sie zgodzili na powstanie z poparciem amerykanskim, a potem
zostali bezwstydnie wydani na rzez.
a teraz odkrywamy groby ofiar, za ktore jestesmy wspolodpowiedzialni!!!
moze cale to powstanie bylo wlasnie po to wywolane? nie lubie spiskowych teorii
i ogolnie uwazam, ze sa granice ludzkiego barbarzynstwa. ale po co bylo to
powstanie, skoro potem sie usa po raz kolejny odwrocilo od swoich "sojusznikow"?
In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited "bureaucratic reasons" for focusing on Saddam
Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged arsenal and said a "huge" reason for the
war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,
because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as
saying.
He said one reason for going to war against Iraq that was "almost unnoticed but
huge" was the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as
Saddam was in power.
Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against
Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1991, but their presence in the country
that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including
Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was
removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main
regional command center in Qatar.
However, those goals were not spelled out publicly as the United States sought
to build international support for the war. Instead, the Bush administration
focused on Saddam's failure to dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons programs.
The failure of U.S. forces to locate extensive weapons stocks has raised doubts
in a skeptical Europe whether Iraq represented a global security threat.
Wolfowitz's comments followed a statement by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, who suggested this week that Saddam might have destroyed his banned
weapons before the war began.
On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that
extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that
U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the
outset of the war.
"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told
reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the
Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as
President Bush (news - web sites) left for a European tour in which he hopes to
put aside the bitterness over the war, which threatened the trans-Atlantic
partnership.
In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to
know whether Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about the
extent of Saddam's weapons threat.
"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for
the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said in
response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big problem
explaining it."
Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by
Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: What should we
believe?" he told The Associated Press.
In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is
losing the battle for credibility.
"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.
In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of
the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such
weapons.
"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive
strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting
Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to
hit us in the first place."
During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)
said Friday he has "absolutely no doubt" that concrete evidence will be found
of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
"Have a little patience," Blair told reporters.
Wolfowitz was in Singapore, where he is due to speak Saturday at the Asia
Security Conference of military chiefs and defense ministers from Asian and key
Western powers.
He told reporters at the conference that the United States will reorganize its
forces worldwide to confront the threat of terrorism.
"We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture
worldwide, including in the United States," Wolfowitz said. "We're facing a
very different threat than any one we've faced historically."
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
Temat: Sprzeciw w Europie wobec pouczeń prezydenta Fra...
USA GOVERNMENT, we wlasnych slowach!
Gość portalu: Ania napisał(a):
> Wszyscy ci co
demonstruja
> przeciwko wojnie sa niestety glupcami ,jak stado baranow
ktorych
> pogonia.Tak bylo za Hitlera,Stalina ,Napoleona...Zostal tylko
po
> nich smrod.
No coz, chyba nie doczytala pani do lekcji, gdzie francuscy
przeciwnicy wojny przezywaja, a niemieccy zwolennicy wojny
sa masakrowani, najpierw powyzej 18 lat, potem ci 15-18,
a na koncu jeszcze co w wieku 7-15 lat (bronili Berlina).
Czego wypada zyczyc wszystkim rwacym sie do wojny (agresywnej).
COz, wojna obronna to inna sprawa, ale tez lepiej byc pewnym ze
jest absolutna koniecznoscia.
> Historia dawno wydala na nich
> wyrok.
Tak, a kto to ta "historia"? Ja widzialem wiele ludzi, ktorzy
tak sadza, ale jakos kazdy wyznawal inna wersje.
> Niech sie nikomu nie wydaje ,ze islam zostawi nas w spokoju i
>nie dojdzie do coraz to nowych konfliktow.To wzrastajaca sila
> wroga naszej cywilizacji.Zachod sam tego wroga buduje w sile.
Niechcacy powiedziala pani cos bardzo interesujacego.
(prosze uwanie przeczytac powyzszy akapit, a zrozumie Pani).
A teraz, dla zabawy, pomyslmy o naszych slynnych partyzantach
i powstancach. Byla to rosnaca (okresowo skracana) sila, wroga
tym ktorzy nam siedzieli na karku. Zapewne wielu bylo wtedy
doradcow imperialnych, ktorzy mysleli dokladnie tak samo:
to skandal, trzeba znacznie ostrzej bic tych bandytow, bo
inaczej bedzie zle. A moze tak wziac d w garsc i wyniesc sie
troszeczke dalej? Albo nie okradac?
>gdzie sa Amerykanie nikt nie narzeka.Maja
fantastycznego
> ducha rownosci i sprawiedliwosci.Doceniaja i pomagaja swoim
> przyjaciolom.Brawo Bush!!!!
Ha ha ha. Widze, ze z Pania dyskusja bylaby ciezka, bo
nie wie Pani nic o tym, jak ludzie z krajow "gdzie sa
Amerykanie" (jako kolonialisci) ich lubia. Nie wie Pani, ze
obecnie marzeniem najbardziej optymistycznych Amerykanow jest
aby ich dzieci mogly za 10 lat pojechac bezpiecznie na wakacje
w swiat. To pewnie dlatego, ze maja tego "ducha rownosci i
sprawiedliwosci". W istocie, ludzie w Stanach sa naprawde mili,
chociaz kiedy spotykaja inteligentnego Polaka, to
mowia zaskoczeni "o rany, zupelnie w takim razie nie rozumiem
skad biora sie dowcipy o Polakach", gdzie spelniamy dokladne
role milicjanta z dawnych dowcipow w kraju. Slowo Polish nie
kojarzy sie tam z investor, businessman, czy scientist, tylko
immmigrant lub refugee. OK, moze nie jest tak zle, ale na pewno
troche stereotypy nas dlawia. To pryszcz.
Ale oficjalna polityka nie jest robiona przez tych milych
Amerykanow. Administracja USA jest niebotycznie bezczelna.
Chirac moze chlapnal nie zbyt ladnie na dniach, ale to kwestia
formy. Tu jest odwrotnie.
Prosze zajrzec do NSS (National Security Strategy)
albo do artykulu
www.oriononline.org/pages/om/03-2om/Berry.html
a zrozumie Pani podzial swiata na USA, znajdujace sie PONAD
prawem miedzynarodowym, i reszte. Czysty rasizm, zawoalowany i
zapakowany w stwierdzenia typu
We will take the actions necessary to ensure that
our efforts to meet our global security
commitments and protect Americans are not
impaired by the potential for investigations,
inquiry, or prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not
extend to Americans and which we do not accept.
W calym zreszta dokumencie przyznaje sobie Ameryka znacznie
wiecej praw niz innym. Zakazy broni masowego razenia, inspekcje
miedzynarodowe, prookol Kyoto, potepienie agresji w stosunkach
miedzypanstwowych, ich NIC nie dotyczy. TO jest
oficjalna polityka USA, niwelujaca cale prawo miedzynarodowe.
Mozna np. zrzucac bomby jesli sprzedawca ropy podniesie cene.
("dostep do zrodel energii"). Inny powod to obrona "stylu zycia"
(lifestyle). Fajnie.
Za takie rzeczy (nie za zabicie konkretnych osob), za najwieksze
zlo przeciw ludzkosci jakim jest rozpetywanie wojen pod dowolnym
pretekstem (zalosne, ze nawet pretekstu teraz w Iraku nie moga
od 2 lat znalezc!) - byli skazywani na smierc zbrodniarze
wojenni w Norymberdze.
Prezydenci USA sa, de facto i de jure, zbrodniarzami.
konkretnych przykladow jest tak wiele, ze ni bede sie powtarzac,
czesc wymienilem w innych listingach na tej stronie.
Wiec chyba cos Pani pomylila z tym szczesciem jakiego
doznaja wszyscy w kontakcie z Towarzyszami z Bialego Domu.
(Mowie Towarzyszami, by sprowokowac tych, ktorzy sie tym
epitetem obrzucaja na tej liscie, na ogol bez sensu. Towarzysze
to ludzie ktorzy opetani sa ideologia rewolucji i jej wcielania
w zycie. Towarzysze nigdy nie poprzestaja na swoim kraju,
maja misje propagowania ideologii w swiecie. Nie ma juz
Towarzyszy na wschodzie (nawet w Chinach), ok juz zostaly tylko
glaby z Korei, za to wyrosla nowa kadra Likudnikow,
neokonserwarystow sterujacych jak kukla Bushem, ktory do
tytanow intelektu nie nalezy [jego koledzy republikanie
prowadzili jego kampanie wyborcza wznoszac okrzyki "you don't
have to be smart to be a President!"]
Towarzysze ci beda, zgodnie z dokumentem NSS jak wyzej,
propagowac idealy "wolnego rynku", demokracji (??, juz ja
prawie zniszczyli u siebie, a chca eksportowac?) przy uzyciu
wojen prewencyjnych, tam gdzie to sie spodoba jednej osobie,
imperatorowi, ktory NIE JEST OBECNIE ODPOWIEDZIALNY W CZASIE
SWEJ KADENCJI PRZED NIKIM. (Kongres praktyczne abdykowal,
lamiac Konstytucje, w 2002 r.) W wyniku tego beda pewnie szerzyc
idealy nie Zachodu, tylko Dzikiego Zachodu. A narody-pionki
beda placily czym maja, surowcami, praca, zyciem.
Pawel
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
Temat: Vlad:
But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to
quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May
1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO
army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security
guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?
The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as
souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was
possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the
people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a
sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.
And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these
walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through
our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and
decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and
dismantle these new walls?
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation.
The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to
manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good
reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy
independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly
transformed into nuclear weapons.
This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the
Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international
community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of
interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises
because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this.
We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres
for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres
not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a
legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop
their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct
participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under
strict IAEA supervision.
The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in
conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are
objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is
precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that
must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures.
Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American
friends.
In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political
incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to
establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still
have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy
capabilities.
In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in
more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she
mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create
uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that
energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of
political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.
We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major
energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil
extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of
the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a
similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic
sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such
examples.
I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia
makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious
example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.
Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles.
We are ready to compete fairly.
For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian
economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these
changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia
passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to
use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above
decision.
Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its
final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words
about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but,
for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global
security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually
happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for
programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial
financial resources. But to be honest
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
Temat: Buszek, TY CHOLERNY KŁAMCO!!
główny oszołom Administracji Busza przekonał
...kolegę z Indonezji n/t irackiej broni "ukrytej w piachu".
Zastępca Sekretarza Obrony Paul Wolfowitz jest największym oszołomem jaki
plątał się po Białym Domu od czasów Nixona.
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030530/168/48jbe.html
"By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium - European critics of the Iraq war expressed shock Friday at
published remarks by a senior U.S. official seen as playing down the
importance of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war.
In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam
Hussein's alleged arsenal.
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government
bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which
was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as
saying in a Pentagon (news - web sites) transcript of the interview.
Vanity Fair provided a slightly different version in the article: "For
bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,
because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
In the interview, Wolfowitz cited one outcome of the war that was "almost
unnoticed — but it's huge": it removed the need to maintain American forces in
Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power. Vanity Fair interpreted Wolfowitz
to say that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia was one major
reason for going to war, rather than just an outcome.
Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against
Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1991, but their presence in the country
that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including
Osama bin Laden.
Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was
removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main
regional command center in Qatar.
"Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous
difficulty for a friendly government," he said. "It's been a huge recruiting
device for al-Qaida. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle
grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land,
Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself
going to open the door to other positive things."
As the United States sought to build international support for the war, it did
not publicly spell out as a goal the withdrawal of its troops from Saudi
Arabia. Instead, the Bush administration focused on Saddam's failure to
dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
Wolfowitz was asked about the Vanity Fair interview during a news conference
in Singapore on Friday and referred reporters to the Pentagon transcript.
He said the United States had three concerns about Iraq before the war:
weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and the abuse of Iraqi citizens by
Saddam's regime.
"All three of those have been there, they've always been part of the
rationale, and I think it's been very clear," he said.
Nevertheless, the focus of the debate over the need for war centered on
Saddam's weapons, and the failure of U.S. forces to locate extensive stocks
has raised doubts in a skeptical Europe whether Iraq represented a global
security threat.
Wolfowitz's comments followed a statement by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, who suggested this week that Saddam might have destroyed his banned
weapons before the war began.
On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that
extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that
U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at
the outset of the war.
"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told
reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the
Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as
President Bush left for a European tour in which he hopes to put aside the
bitterness over the war, which threatened the trans-Atlantic partnership.
In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to
know whether Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about the
extent of Saddam's weapons threat.
"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for
the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said
in response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big
problem explaining it."
Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by
Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: What should we
believe?" he told The Associated Press.
In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is
losing the battle for credibility.
"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.
In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of
the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such
weapons.
"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive
strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting
Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to
hit us in the first place."
During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday he
has "absolutely no doubt" that concrete evidence will be found of Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction.
"Have a little patience," Blair told reporters. "
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
Temat: PODPISZ MIĘDZYNARODOWĄ PETYCJĘ P-KO WOJNIE !
US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed
groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/7946
From: Colene Simmons <armusstews@y...>
Date: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:51 am
Subject: US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed
US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed
13:37 19 February 03
NewScientist.com news service
A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the
introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in
conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties.
The document, obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons
watchdog based in the US, describes plans for a gathering of senior military
officials and nuclear scientists at the US Strategic Command in Omaha,
Nebraska, during the week of 4 August.
The meeting would discuss further development, testing and introduction of a
new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons. These weapons, with a destructive
power of less than five kilotons, could be designed to penetrate an underground
bunker before detonating. The Hiroshima bomb dropped by the US in 1945 had a
yield of about 15 kilotons.
The US military believes mini-nukes may provide a stronger deterrent to rogue
states. This is because the US would be more willing to use them than standard
nuclear weapons, which have yields of hundreds of kilotons.
US government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the document, but
say that it covers "very long range planning" and "what-if scenarios".
Enhanced radiation
==================
Also on the agenda for the August meeting would be enhanced radiation weapons,
also known as neutron weapons. These produce a large amount of radiation
without a devastating blast and can be used to decimate weapons stockpiles and
troops without destroying much infrastructure.
Patrick Garrett, an analyst with the military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org,
says the document is alarming. "It's like looking at the cold war all over
again," he told New Scientist.
"The fact that they're actually going to sit down and to talk about reliability
issues and what would need to happen for production, testing and guidance,
means these people are particularly serious about deploying these things
sometime very soon," he says.
Garrett adds that the long-term implications of contaminating a target with
radiation may not be well understood. "I don't think these people understand
that any use of a nuclear weapon is a bad use," he says.
Treaty threat
=============
The Los Alamos Study Group also condemns the plans for threatening
international non-proliferation agreements. Greg Mello, head of LASG, says: "It
is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with
Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the
US."
Recent US interest in the development of smaller, more targeted nuclear weapons
is well documented. New Scientist reported in October 2000 that the US Defense
Appropriations Bill ordered a study of the feasibility of low-yield nuclear
weapons. This overturned a ban on research into the development of battlefield
nuclear weapons imposed in 1993.
In November 2002, New Scientist also reported a further $15m in US government
funding for research into a nuclear "bunker buster", called the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator.
Will Knight
Bunker-busters set to go nuclear
7 November 2002
www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993016
US reconsiders nuclear defence shield
12 April 2002
www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992162
For more related stories
search the print edition Archive
archive.newscientist.com/
Los Alamos Study Group
www.lasg.org/hmpgfrm_b.html
US Strategic Command
www.stratcom.af.mil/
Global Security
www.globalsecurity.org/
Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, FAS
www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Przejrzyj resztę wiadomości
zanotowane.pldoc.pisz.plpdf.pisz.plorientmania.htw.pl
Strona 3 z 3 • Wyszukano 130 wyników • 1, 2, 3
|
|
| Cytat |
Diabeł: wielki, czarny znak zapytania. Napierski Stefan
Debiutuje się do samej śmierci, a i śmierć jest też debiutem. Aleksander Kumor
Dla konserwatysty refleksja nad podstawami własnego światopoglądu jest rodzajem profanacji tak samo jak konieczność udowadniania egzystencji Boga jest estetycznym zgorszeniem dla każdego prawdziwie wierzącego; jest wyprowadzaniem irracjonalnej wartości na poziom racjonalny, desakralizacją boskości, której odebrany zostaje urok tajemniczości, bez której nie można pewnie stawić czoła lewicowym czcicielom diabła na ich polach bitewnych rozumu. Georg Quabbe
Dlaczego tak często ludzie, dla których bardzo dużo zrobiłeś, ciężko się na ciebie obrażają? Może dlatego, że przypominasz im o ich słabościach. Kirk Douglas, Syn śmieciarza, Autobiografia
Aby uwierzyć w drugiego człowieka, należy najpierw uwierzyć w siebie. Żyć w harmonii ze światem widzialnym i niewidzialnym. Odnaleźć prawdziwe oblicze Boga. . . Ale czy miłość jest w stanie uchronić przed samotnością? Nie zapominajmy, że "Bóg ukrył piekło w samym sercu raju". Paulo Coelho
|
|
