Syria is next

**U.S. Nuke Find Claim in Iraq Critiqued **
1 hour, 21 minutes ago

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq (news - web sites) unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

Leaders of a U.S. Marine Corps combat engineering unit claimed earlier this week to have found an underground network of laboratories, warehouses and bombproof offices beneath the closely monitored Tuwaitha nuclear research center just south of Baghdad.

The Marines said they discovered 14 buildings at the site which emitted unusually high levels of radiation, and that a search of one building revealed “many, many drums” containing highly radioactive material. If documented, such a discovery could bolster Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was trying to develop nuclear weaponry.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said officials there have not heard anything through military channels about a Marine inspection at Tuwaitha.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment.

But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren’t diverted for weapons use — or end up in the wrong hands.

“What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn’t get diverted,” the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Army Times, meanwhile, reported that troops with the 101st Airborne Division have unearthed 11 shipping containers, filled with sophisticated lab equipment, buried at a chemical plant in Karbala. It said the equipment’s value and evidence that some of it may have been smuggled into Iraq raised suspicions that the facility had been used to manufacture chemical weapons.

U.N. arms inspectors visited a facility in the immediate vicinity of the chemical plant Feb. 23, but did not find the buried equipment. Officials at the U.S. Central Command suggested that no conclusions should be drawn.

Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq’s principle nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment.

Tuwaitha contains 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium.

The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal — at least until early this week, when the Marines seized control of the site.

The U.N. nuclear agency’s inspectors have visited Tuwaitha about two dozen times, including a dozen checks carried out since December, most recently on Feb. 6. It was among the first sites that IAEA inspectors sought out after the resumption of inspections on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year break.

On at least one occasion, inspectors with special mountaineering training went underground there to have a look around, according to IAEA documents.

David Kay, a former IAEA chief nuclear inspector, said Thursday that the teams he oversaw after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) never found an underground site at Tuwaitha despite persistent rumors.

“But underground facilities by definition are very hard to detect,” he said. “When you inspect a place so often, you get overconfident about what you know. It would have been very easy for the inspectors to explain away any excessive radiation at Tuwaitha. The Iraqis could have hidden something clandestine in plain sight.”

American intelligence analysts said before the U.S.-led campaign began that new structures photographed at Tuwaitha might indicate a revival of weapons work. IAEA inspectors checked but found nothing.

The Tuwaitha complex, run by the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission on a bend in the Tigris River about 18 miles south of Baghdad, was the heart of Saddam’s former nuclear program and was involved in the final design of a nuclear bomb before Iraq’s nuclear program was destroyed by U.N. teams after the 1991 Gulf War.

The IAEA, charged with the hunt for evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq, told the Security Council just before the war that it had uncovered no firm evidence that Saddam was renewing efforts to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, clearly wary of any coalition claims, said this week that any alleged discoveries of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would have to be verified by U.N. inspectors “to generate the required credibility.”

ElBaradei said the inspectors should return as soon as possible, subject to Security Council guidance, to resume their search for banned arms.

=====================================
Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More

:slight_smile:
seems like another baloon is deflated :slight_smile:
americans and their cheeky claims :slight_smile:

Wonder if that low grade uranium was declared? And why would weapons inspectors allow Iraq to keep it? Why wasn't it disposed of? And why was it underground?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
Wonder if that low grade uranium was declared? And why would weapons inspectors allow Iraq to keep it? Why wasn't it disposed of?
[/QUOTE]

read this part carefully :-)

**
Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principle nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment.
**

:-)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by EntityParadigm: *

read this part carefully :-)

**
Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principle nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment.
**

:-)
[/QUOTE]

Did Entity,

But why keep it anyway? Unless they wanted to find a way to enrich it?

^
tomorrow you'll ask why iraqi's have water, food, medicine, oxygen and air to breath. all these can be used to create WMD :-)

you can object on anything you want, but there were people who were authorized to take approperitate steps and actions and they did what was right. whatever was supposed to be destroyed, they destroyed it and whatever was not useful, they left it as it is. :-)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by EntityParadigm: *
^
tomorrow you'll ask why iraqi's have water, food, medicine, oxygen and air to breath. all these can be used to create WMD :-)

you can object on anything you want, but there were people who were authorized to take approperitate steps and actions and they did what was right. whatever was supposed to be destroyed, they destroyed it and whatever was not useful, they left it as it is. :-)
[/QUOTE]

Seems odd to me that uranium would be left behind, knowing it was left over from an old nuke program, and knowing that the U.S. had suggested that the regime was a couple years away from learning how to enrich uranium.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *

Seems odd to me that uranium would be left behind, knowing it was left over from an old nuke program, and knowing that the U.S. had suggested that the regime was a couple years away from learning how to enrich uranium.
[/QUOTE]

this explains it all, suggestions, assumptions, i think, we think, i believe and we believe was the base use by USA and Britain to start this war. till now, they yet have to prove that iraq indeed had WMD. now out of desperation, they are announcing rewards for the people to come forward and share any information they have. i say, where is the intelligence they so relied on in those UN sessions and where are those reports that according to Rumsfield, were pointing at the exact locations where WMD are hidden by iraq.

USA can suggest anything it wants, but that necessarily does not mean that its true :-)

:hehe: That cracked me up :hehe: Keep em coming humanrace! :wink:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by EntityParadigm: *

USA can suggest anything it wants, but that necessarily does not mean that its true :-)
[/QUOTE]

So can YOU, so can I, so can ALL free media outlets... isn't freedom and democracy Grand!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by EntityParadigm: *

this explains it all, suggestions, assumptions, i think, we think, i believe and we believe was the base use by USA and Britain to start this war. till now, they yet have to prove that iraq indeed had WMD. now out of desperation, they are announcing rewards for the people to come forward and share any information they have. i say, where is the intelligence they so relied on in those UN sessions and where are those reports that according to Rumsfield, were pointing at the exact locations where WMD are hidden by iraq.

USA can suggest anything it wants, but that necessarily does not mean that its true :-)
[/QUOTE]

Same goes Entity,

Is it fact that those military guys removed markers that were left previously? And why in the heck would U.S. agree to Iraq holding barrels of Uranium knowing that they had in the past tried to make Nukes?

^
or does the above sentence not make sense to you?

................................................................................................

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *

Seems odd to me that uranium would be left behind, knowing it was left over from an old nuke program, and knowing that the U.S. had suggested that the regime was a couple years away from learning how to enrich uranium.
[/QUOTE]

.................................................................................................

Correction. According to the US and Britain, LAST SEPTEMBER, Iraq was only 3 months away from building Nuclear weapons.

I can't believe Christians were lying. Jesus will be so disappointed.

Going back to the original topic, I wonder if anyone has read the work of Imran Hussein??? He pointed out quite interesting comments and one of them was the destruction of Syria which will arise the army of the black flag. I dunno wheither that would be next etc....... it certainly seemed interesting.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *...
Is it fact that those military guys removed markers that were left previously? And why in the heck would U.S. agree to Iraq holding barrels of Uranium knowing that they had in the past tried to make Nukes? ....
[/QUOTE]

Why is it so hard to understand? It was deemed safe to keep those 'dead' uranium barrels. Just like diffused bombs, which are considered harmless. Lets focus on what the claims were made "existing Chemical WMDs", anything there yet?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

Why is it so hard to understand? It was deemed safe to keep those 'dead' uranium barrels. Just like diffused bombs, which are considered harmless. Lets focus on what the claims were made "existing Chemical WMDs", anything there yet?
[/QUOTE]

they couldn't find any SMOKING GUNS so they decided to LIBERATE IRAQIS :-) what a plan :-)

If the US attempts to isolate Syria, it will not have an easy time of it. Damascus maintains good political and economic relations with Russia, China, and key EU members, especially France, with its paternalistic attitude towards its former colony and its young president

The recent allegation by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that Syria is smuggling war materiel into Iraq raises the ominous prospect that America’s attention will turn toward Damascus the moment it is finished with Baghdad.

Rumsfeld’s charge — vehemently denied by Syria — now tops a long list of unresolved issues in Syria’s relations with the US: Syria’s open-ended military intervention in Lebanon and continued support of Hezbollah there; its supposed involvement in the 1982 suicide attack in Beirut that killed 241 US Marines; its continued support of various “outlawed” Palestinian groups; and its allegedly growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Indeed, Syria has long been included on the US State Department’s list of nations that support terrorism.

For these reasons, Syria could well become a potential target for American military adventurism. Even before the onset of the current hostilities, the possibility was raised by certain members of the Bush Administration, such as Richard Perle, and conservative media commentators, all of whom would gladly add Syria to the “Axis of Evil.”

Recognising this possibility, the Syrian regime has made clear its opposition to the American war in Iraq, which has been branded by President Bashir Assad and other senior officials as “a war of aggression”. Top-level thinking about the risks that Syria runs were recently made clear in an interview that President Assad gave to a Lebanese newspaper.

Assad compared the situations in Lebanon and Iraq, insisting that Iraq could achieve what Lebanon had already accomplished two decades before, namely the forced withdrawal by American and British troops in the face of steadfast, bloody resistance. “The US and Britain will not be able to control Iraq,” Assad claimed.

Declaring that “Arab popular resistance” to the American invasion has spread through the region, Assad referred to the increasing numbers of Arab, including Syrian, “volunteers” who have gone to Iraq to fight alongside Saddam’s soldiers. The Arabs, Assad said, would resist American efforts “to rearrange the region as it sees fit” in order to control its oil wealth and accommodate Israeli interests. In response, he called for the enactment of the Arab Mutual Defence Pact.

Recently, the 90-year-old Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheik Ahmad Kiftaro, called on Muslims worldwide to carry out “martyr operations” against American interests, a call that could not have been made without advance government approval. It seems that the Syrian regime is painting itself into a dark and dreary corner, a development that could set the stage for a potential showdown with the US in the not-so-distant future.

This said, however, there is also an unpublicised aspect of Syrian-American relations to consider. Since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, security cooperation between the two countries seems to have intensified. The Syrian intelligence apparatus has provided much valuable information on the activities of Muhammad Atta and others suspected of involvement in those attacks, as well as information about other Al Qaeda activities. There are even indications of some Syrian intelligence-sharing with the Americans regarding Iraqi military readiness in the weeks preceding the attacks.

This should not be surprising, for Syria’s rulers over the last thirty years have proven skilful at hedging their bets. It is even possible that the regime’s loud anti-American stance might be meant to hide some secret arrangement with the Americans, especially regarding the Kurds and Iraqi opposition members living in Syria.

Nonetheless if the Americans win in Iraq, their relations with their new Syrian neighbours will not be easy. Resolving all outstanding issues will not happen quickly. Moreover, the Syrian view of the Arab-Israeli dispute cannot be glossed over because Syrian agreement is necessary for any peaceful settlement.

If the US attempts to isolate Syria, it will not have an easy time of it. Damascus maintains good political and economic relations with Russia, China, and key EU members, especially France, with its paternalistic attitude towards its former colony and its young president. On the other hand, with Americans controlling Iraq, Syria will find itself surrounded by three unfriendly (if not outright hostile) and allied neighbours: the Americans in the East, and the Turks and Israelis in the north and south, both of which occupy Syrian territories.

Nonetheless, outstanding issues between Syria and the US would be better resolved using smart diplomacy than smart bombs. Considering the evidence on display in Iraq, Syrian leaders must be wondering whether the Bush administration is capable of thinking in these terms. At the same time, will Syria’s new rulers prove capable of striking the kind of Machiavellian bargain for which the late Syrian president, Hafiz Al-Assad, was famous? Because the country’s rulers include many members of his team, such a possibility probably exists. But are the Americans willing to see it? —DT-PS

Source

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I vote for The Peoples Republic of California to be next.
[/QUOTE]

:D

Re: Syria is next

Bringing up alive 10 year old thread

dikhata hay aasman rung kaisay kaisay… how the game is played out “talked about 10 years ago”, how it unfolded is just amazing (not so for the people affected).

Re: Syria is next

I must say a very good analysis. Not many of us could even think about this in our wildest dreams 10 years back.

Re: Syria is next

Actually. Wrong! The next in line was Libya, not Syria. :nook:

Re: Syria is next

And all of those who did, were called conspiracists.