well

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by Lilly from ? (160.129.27.143) on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 4:25PM :

In Reply to: Re: the IAEA Iraq Action Team posted by panch from host-148-244-221-62.block.alestra.net.mx (148.244.221.62) on Thursday, November 07, 2002 at 2:04PM :

The point of that post was that IAEA inspectors had been to Iraq recently, & the Iraqi gov't allowed them to inspect...

Sounds a bit different from the US media & gov't speculations that the Iraqi gov't won't allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq (there are many groups, under the UN, inspecting weapons in Iraq, apparently), doesn't it? The US media doesn't give out much info on the various weapons inspection teams that visit Iraq under UN mandate... The IAEA inspection team is different from UNSCOM, which Ritter was inspecting under. I'm trying to do a bit of web research to better understand exactly which weapons inspecting teams are visiting Iraq & what exactly their tasks are. I think this will be important if one wants to examine US policy toward Iraq w/ a critical eye, & I'd recommend anyone else visiting this board to research a bit into this subject as well.

According to Ritter (in that video I mentioned yesterday), it's dangerous for the individual inspectors, themselves, to act as spies, b/c they have to stand & give testimony (in the UN Security Council meetings) in front of not only the US & its allies regarding Iraq, but those who are not happy w/ the US policy toward Iraq - China, Russia, & France. If the inspectors are engaged in questionable activity, it can be noticed by reps from those 3 countries (& more).

However, that does not say anything about the exact reasons for which the US gov't was collecting this data & mapping everything out at the sites that were visited... In this case, the individual inspectors weren't necessarily spies themselves (though some may have been), but they were definitely used to collect data that was then used for aggressive & lethal military purposes for which it was *not* supposed to be used.

-- Lilly
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Re: well - panch 6:12PM 11/07/2002 () (4)

think of it this way - Lilly 1:19PM 11/08/2002 () (1)
- clarification - Lilly 1:22PM 11/08/2002 () (0)
true - Lilly 11:21AM 11/08/2002 () (1)
- Re: true - Fred Aprim 6:45PM 11/08/2002 () (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:	( default )
Subject:
Message:	: The point of that post was that IAEA inspectors had been to Iraq recently, & the Iraqi gov't allowed them to inspect... : Sounds a bit different from the US media & gov't speculations that the Iraqi gov't won't allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq (there are many groups, under the UN, inspecting weapons in Iraq, apparently), doesn't it? The US media doesn't give out much info on the various weapons inspection teams that visit Iraq under UN mandate... The IAEA inspection team is different from UNSCOM, which Ritter was inspecting under. I'm trying to do a bit of web research to better understand exactly which weapons inspecting teams are visiting Iraq & what exactly their tasks are. I think this will be important if one wants to examine US policy toward Iraq w/ a critical eye, & I'd recommend anyone else visiting this board to research a bit into this subject as well. : According to Ritter (in that video I mentioned yesterday), it's dangerous for the individual inspectors, themselves, to act as spies, b/c they have to stand & give testimony (in the UN Security Council meetings) in front of not only the US & its allies regarding Iraq, but those who are not happy w/ the US policy toward Iraq - China, Russia, & France. If the inspectors are engaged in questionable activity, it can be noticed by reps from those 3 countries (& more). : However, that does not say anything about the exact reasons for which the US gov't was collecting this data & mapping everything out at the sites that were visited... In this case, the individual inspectors weren't necessarily spies themselves (though some may have been), but they were definitely used to collect data that was then used for aggressive & lethal military purposes for which it was not supposed to be used.

Optional Link ( default )
URL:
Title:
Optional Image Link ( default )
URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com