An editing job for the ages

——=_NextPart_001_0029_01C2A896.9B1E2500
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankHi Wally,

Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of trying=
to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.

Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing? No, oth=
er systems have to be put in place to create the right climate for physical=
action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized that, that pr=
ocess started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think that you do =
not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won you over. Ther=
e is something that you are not being honest about.

stopping people declaring their views will not create a better planet to li=
ve on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic, you are =
very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am interested in=
the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth, to do something ho=
norable for a change. And stop funding despots that come back to haunt them=
and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is simplistic, basi=
c in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a lot other people as w=
ell. Contrary to what the American government & the Uk's are government sho=
ving down everyone's throat.

It's soulless and you know it…





Hi Wally,
Are you glad that there is a war happening?

A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO,=
I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening. W=
hen did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make out, i=
t is still in the "rattling sabres" stage.

Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…

The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the record – =
I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless=
propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you asserted=
your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.


"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated hyp=
erbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be publi=
shed tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP repo=
rt of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.
—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis

As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "edi=
ting" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their=
weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans clai=
m, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instructions=
before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Securi=
ty Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was a=
record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilit=
ies.
Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following messa=
ge on to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily), he=
re is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq w=
ith nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. T=
he list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Cou=
ncil.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the Uni=
ted States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein n=
eeded to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its n=
uclear program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually=
identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to =
U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear kn=
ow-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of c=
ompanies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to make=
nuclear weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only =
difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page sectio=
n in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface tha=
t stretches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of=
them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the =
most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more th=
an 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a h=
andful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It=
says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and=
contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonatio=
n, implosion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 199=
0 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recov=
ered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated =
extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousands of=
connected, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its for=
mer nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope s=
eparation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an at=
omic explosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said=
Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based thin=
k tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any=
knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq wou=
ld have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sol=
d it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their gover=
nment's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. According=
to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could=
be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Cor=
p. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, howev=
er.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical=
fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipmen=
t. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaratio=
n.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a=
thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. It=
could not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but=
company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support =
the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portf=
olio."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of g=
overnments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed=
$1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential milita=
ry uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, wh=
ich at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-ric=
h Gulf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtai=
ned supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products'=
intended use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to g=
o to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for t=
he U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of i=
mportant information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into =
the real extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sal=
es or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exi=
st.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from gettin=
g involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know th=
e true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclear =
expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German expe=
rts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis old =
designs for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to render=
technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote =
in its nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violating =
export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working with =
Iraq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's form=
er weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die =
Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Pr=
eussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the=
deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts fr=
om DaimlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N=
. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But rec=
onnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicate =
the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear developme=
nt. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by=
2010.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing al=
uminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administ=
ration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium en=
richment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the proper=
size and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicion=
s "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors we=
re on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a =
disappointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency=
, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 re=
port and covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996 de=
claration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United N=
ations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in substanc=
e.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports sin=
ce Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction sin=
ce the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted =
that claim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, inves=
tigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa Edd=
y contributed to this report.



——=_NextPart_001_0029_01C2A896.9B1E2500
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:002701c2a896$9b196a10$0100a8c0@FURTHERFIELD>
<DIV><STRONG>Hi Wally,</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equival=
ent
of trying to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.<BR><BR>Do you=

really think that war is just about the function of killing? No, other syst=
ems
have to be put in place to create the right climate for physical action, an=

invasion of another culture. You must of realized that, that process starte=
d
before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think that you do not care
(personally) …if you did, compassion would of won you over. There is some=
thing
that you are not being honest about.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>stopping people declaring their views will not create a better=

planet to live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplist=
ic,
you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am inter=
ested
in the governments of this shaky, muddy&nbsp;ball called earth, to do somet=
hing
honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come back to haunt th=
em
and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is simplistic, basic=
in
fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a lot other people as well.=

Contrary to what&nbsp;the American government &amp; the Uk's are&nbsp;gover=
nment
shoving down&nbsp;everyone's throat.<BR><BR>It's soulless and you know
it…<BR></STRONG><BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Hi Wally,</DIV>
<DIV>Are you glad that there is a war happening? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><EM><STRONG>A ludicrous qu=
estion,
all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO, I am not glad about i=
t. In
any event, I am unaware that it is happening. When did it start? I just=

checked the news, and as far as I can&nbsp; make out, it is still in th=
e
"rattling sabres" stage. </STRONG></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG><EM>The matter was=
not
about justifying death. (And just for the record – I am against capita=
l
punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless propaganda. You =
might
get better results for your concerns if you asserted your case without=

resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.</EM></STRONG></FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the ages…"&=
nbsp;
What a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – makes for great National=

Inquirer tabloid propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian friend who=

breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but for tho=
se
who can hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of December 18 la=
st
which reports the issue as a known story line. </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BOR=
DER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">=
<B>From:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DI=
V>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided t=
he
Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>As a professional editor, I was particularly=

curious about the "editing" the administration was doing on the 12,=
000
page Iraqi report on their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have=
been
swirling. The Americans claim, of course, that they were vetting th=
e
report for WMD-making instructions before passing it on to the roil=
ing
mass of non-veto nations in the Security Council. Others have sugge=
sted
that part of what was being excised was a record of the corporation=
s
that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities. </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following me=
ssage
on to me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin=

daily), here is a list of US and European corporations that alleg=
edly
supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile
technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, from the ori=
ginal
Iraqi report to the Security Council. <BR><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pi=
d=233">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233</=
A></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/dv1031=
21711.html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in Europe</STRONG>=
, the
United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Sadda=
m
Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996
accounting of its nuclear program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtua=
lly
identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, accord=
ing
to U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent=

nuclear know-how from falling into the wrong hands and <STRONG>also=
to
protect the names of companies that wittingly or unwittingly suppli=
ed
Iraq</STRONG> with the means to make nuclear weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the on=
ly
difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-pag=
e
section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly large=
r
typeface that stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some=
of
them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up =
to
the most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more=
than
<STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American companies, 11 Bri=
tish
companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedis=
h and
Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclea=
r
program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War =
and
contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment,
detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September =
1990
- one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of=

recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a=

complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale=

requires thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its=

former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagneti=
c
isotope separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key
ingredient for an atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, s=
aid
Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-bas=
ed
think tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any compo=
nents
or any knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a m=
atter
of time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq =
would
have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers wh=
o
sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with =
their
government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpo=
se.
According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furn=
aces,
which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, ca=
me
from Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items wer=
e
never delivered, however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of opti=
cal
fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical=

equipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed i=
n the
declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier o=
f a
thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipm=
ent.
It could not immediately verify the sale of the item.</P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, =
but
company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to=

support the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola=
's
current portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge o=
f
governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example,=

licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with=

potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for =
its
war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat=
to
stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often
obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about =
the
products' intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future t=
o go
to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman=
for
the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a=
lot
of important information, the companies can often give inspectors=

insight into the real extent of Iraq's programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to =
sales
or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longe=
r
exist.</P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from get=
ting
involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really k=
now
the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an America=
n
nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German=

experts and companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, which sold=
the
Iraqis old designs for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called upon to=

render technical assistance and consultations in various activities=
,"
Iraq wrote in its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty of
violating export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison=
for
working with Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's f=
ormer
weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily=
Die
Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemen=
s and
Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons
programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said =
the
deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto p=
arts
from DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous =
U.N.
inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. B=
ut
reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in Octobe=
r
indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for=

nuclear development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq ma=
y
have nuclear weapons by 2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing=

aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bus=
h
administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuge=
s for
uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes=
are
of the proper size and material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.</=
P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspic=
ions
"that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspect=
ors
were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declarati=
on
such a disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Age=
ncy,
said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1=
996
report and covers "material we already had before."</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996=

declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by th=
e
United Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but=
not
in substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports =
since
Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destructio=
n
since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have
contradicted that claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt corresponden=
t
Melissa Eddy contributed to this report.</P></FONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLO=
CKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_0029_01C2A896.9B1E2500–

——=_NextPart_001_030C_01C2A872.7C8F2810
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank
From: marc.garrett

Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of tryi=
ng to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.
So I see you enlarged your own. Get a clue – I enlarged it just to diff=
erentiate my response from yours. It is a crock assumption to assert that=
the motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down." You're still whining a=
ren't you?

Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing?

Did I really think that? Get a grip. I made no such assertion. You feed o=
n assumptions and presumptions – and you're wrong for the most part. You a=
re not a very good master of creating strawmen.

No, other systems have to be put in place to create the right climate for=
physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized that=
, that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think tha=
t you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won you o=
ver. There is something that you are not being honest about.

Prove it – or remove your peurile kangeroo kourt to a more appropoetic f=
orum: listserv; fiction not facts.

stopping people declaring their views will not create a better planet to =
live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic,

I didn't say it at all. I described your initial missive as a breathless =
bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloidism. But then again, National Inq=
uiorer style is to make up assertions that have no basis in fact – just as=
y ou are doing in this exchange.

you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am int=
erested in the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth, to do so=
mething honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come back to =
haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is simpli=
stic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a lot other p=
eople as well. Contrary to what the American government & the Uk's are gove=
rnment shoving down everyone's throat.
There's other government's also shoving shit down throats – you might be=
nefit by spreading your cause instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes all o=
ther nations' governments bad. Get real.

It's soulless and you know it…

Much like your breathless bloated National Inquirer-like report.



Hi Wally,
Are you glad that there is a war happening?

A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is N=
O, I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening.=
When did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make out,=
it is still in the "rattling sabres" stage.

Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…

The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the record -=
- I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathle=
ss propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you assert=
ed your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.


"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated h=
yperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be pub=
lished tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP re=
port of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.
—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis

As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "e=
diting" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on the=
ir weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans cl=
aim, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instructio=
ns before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Secu=
rity Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was=
a record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabil=
ities.
Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following mes=
sage on to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily), =
here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq=
with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991.=
The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security C=
ouncil.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the U=
nited States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein=
needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its=
nuclear program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtual=
ly identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according t=
o U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear =
know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of=
companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to ma=
ke nuclear weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the onl=
y difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page sect=
ion in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface t=
hat stretches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some =
of them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to th=
e most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more =
than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a=
handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. =
It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War a=
nd contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonat=
ion, implosion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1=
990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of rec=
overed uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicate=
d extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousands =
of connected, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its f=
ormer nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope=
separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an =
atomic explosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, sa=
id Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based th=
ink tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or a=
ny knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of tim=
e."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq w=
ould have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who s=
old it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their gov=
ernment's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. Accordi=
ng to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which cou=
ld be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc C=
orp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, how=
ever.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optic=
al fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipm=
ent. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declarat=
ion.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of=
a thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. =
It could not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, b=
ut company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to suppor=
t the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current por=
tfolio."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of=
governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licens=
ed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential mili=
tary uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, =
which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-r=
ich Gulf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obt=
ained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the product=
s' intended use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to=
go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for=
the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of=
important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight int=
o the real extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to s=
ales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer e=
xist.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from gett=
ing involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know =
the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclea=
r expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German ex=
perts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis ol=
d designs for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to rend=
er technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrot=
e in its nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violatin=
g export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working wit=
h Iraq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's fo=
rmer weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Di=
e Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and =
Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said t=
he deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts =
from DaimlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U=
.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But r=
econnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicat=
e the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear develop=
ment. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons =
by 2010.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing =
aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush admini=
stration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium =
enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the prop=
er size and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspici=
ons "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors =
were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such =
a disappointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agen=
cy, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 =
report and covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996 =
declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United=
Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in substa=
nce.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports s=
ince Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction s=
ince the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicte=
d that claim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, inv=
estigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa E=
ddy contributed to this report.




——=_NextPart_001_030C_01C2A872.7C8F2810
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:030a01c2a89c$656222d0$3ce6fea9@wallyx848tqinf>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
[email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equiv=
alent
of trying to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel
proud.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">So I see you enlarged your own. Get a=
clue
– I enlarged it&nbsp; just to differentiate my&nbsp; response from
yours.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is a crock assumption&nbsp;to assert that the motiva=
tion
was to "shout genuine dissent down."&nbsp;You're still whining aren't
you?</FONT><BR><STRONG></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Do you really think that war is just about the function of=

killing? </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Did I really think that? Get a grip. =
I made
no such assertion. You feed on assumptions and presumptions – and you're=

wrong for the most part. You are not a very&nbsp; good master of creating=

strawmen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>No, other systems have to be put in place to create the righ=
t
climate for physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of=

realized that, that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I=
also
think that you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would o=
f won
you over. There is something that you are not being honest
about.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Prove it – or remove your peurile ka=
ngeroo
kourt to a more appropoetic forum: listserv; fiction not facts.</FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>stopping people declaring their views will not create a bett=
er
planet to live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simpli=
stic,
</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I didn't say it at all. I described y=
our
initial missive as a breathless bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloi=
dism.
But then again, National Inquiorer style is to make up assertions that ha=
ve no
basis in fact – just as y ou are doing in this exchange.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong wor=
ds);
I am interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy&nbsp;ball called=

earth, to do something honorable for a change. And stop funding despots t=
hat
come back to haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now=
that
is simplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a =
lot
other people as well. Contrary to what&nbsp;the American government &amp;=
the
Uk's are&nbsp;government shoving down&nbsp;everyone's
throat.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">There's other government's also shovi=
ng
shit&nbsp;down throats – you might benefit by spreading your cause inste=
ad of
the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes all other nations' governments bad. Get
real.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><BR>It's soulless and you know it…<BR></STRONG><BR><FONT=

face="Times New Roman">Much like your breathless bloated National
Inquirer-like report.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Hi Wally,</DIV>
<DIV>Are you glad that there is a war happening? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><EM><STRONG>A ludicrous =
question,
all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO, I am not glad about=
it.
In any event, I am unaware that it is happening. When did it start? I=
just
checked the news, and as far as I can&nbsp; make out, it is still in =
the
"rattling sabres" stage. </STRONG></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</D=
IV>
<DIV>Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG><EM>The matter w=
as not
about justifying death. (And just for the record – I am against capi=
tal
punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless propaganda. Yo=
u
might get better results for your concerns if you asserted your case=

without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid
tactics.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BOR=
DER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the ages…=
"&nbsp;
What a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – makes for great Nation=
al
Inquirer tabloid propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian friend wh=
o
breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but for t=
hose
who can hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of December 18 =
last
which reports the issue as a known story line. </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; B=
ORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DI=
V>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black=
"><B>From:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </=
DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided=
the
Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>As a professional editor, I was particular=
ly
curious about the "editing" the administration was doing on the 1=
2,000
page Iraqi report on their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors ha=
ve
been swirling. The Americans claim, of course, that they were vet=
ting
the report for WMD-making instructions before passing it on to th=
e
roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Security Council. Others =
have
suggested that part of what was being excised was a record of the=

corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities.=

</DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following=

message on to me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berli=
n
daily), here is a list of US and European corporations that
allegedly supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and=

missile technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, fr=
om
the original Iraqi report to the Security Council. <BR><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml
pid=233">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233=
</A></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/dv10=
3121711.html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in Europe</STRON=
G>,
the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how=

Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq'=
s
1996 accounting of its nuclear program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virt=
ually
identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, acco=
rding
to U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to preve=
nt
nuclear know-how from falling into the wrong hands and <STRONG>al=
so to
protect the names of companies that wittingly or unwittingly supp=
lied
Iraq</STRONG> with the means to make nuclear weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the =
only
difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-p=
age
section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly lar=
ger
typeface that stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and so=
me of
them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds u=
p to
the most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by mo=
re
than <STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American companies,=
11
British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, Fren=
ch,
Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries suppl=
ied
its nuclear program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf Wa=
r and
contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment,=

detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in Septembe=
r
1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrich=
ment
of recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process=
is a
complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale=

requires thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of it=
s
former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagne=
tic
isotope separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key=

ingredient for an atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons,=
said
Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-b=
ased
think tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any
components or any knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It w=
as
simply a matter of time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Ira=
q
would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of supp=
liers
who sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often=
with
their government's approval and without being aware of the ultima=
te
purpose. According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electro=
n
beam furnaces, which could be used in shaping uranium parts for a=
n
atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The compan=
y
says the items were never delivered, however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of op=
tical
fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical=

equipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed=
in
the declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier=
of a
thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging
equipment. It could not immediately verify the sale of the item.<=
/P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors=
, but
company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to=

support the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motoro=
la's
current portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge=
of
governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for exampl=
e,
licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology wit=
h
potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support fo=
r its
war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main thre=
at to
stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often=

obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies abou=
t the
products' intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future=
to
go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spok=
esman
for the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration prov=
ides
a lot of important information, the companies can often give
inspectors insight into the real extent of Iraq's programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted t=
o
sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several =
no
longer exist.</P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from=

getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don'=
t
really know the true end-use of your products," said David Albrig=
ht,
an American nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German=

experts and companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, which so=
ld
the Iraqis old designs for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called upon =
to
render technical assistance and consultations in various activiti=
es,"
Iraq wrote in its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty of=

violating export law and sentenced them to over two years in pris=
on
for working with Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's=

former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the Ger=
man
daily Die Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChry=
sler,
Siemens and Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to th=
e
weapons programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or sai=
d the
deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto=

parts from DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previou=
s
U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much o=
f it.
But reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in=

October indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously=
used
for nuclear development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says I=
raq
may have nuclear weapons by 2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importi=
ng
aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The B=
ush
administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifu=
ges
for uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the=

tubes are of the proper size and material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.=
</P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running
suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even =
while
inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the lat=
est
declaration such a disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy=

Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehas=
h of
the 1996 report and covers "material we already had before."</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 19=
96
declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by =
the
United Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, b=
ut
not in substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old report=
s
since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass
destruction since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new=

would have contradicted that claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,=

investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspond=
ent
Melissa Eddy contributed to this report.</P></FONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></B=
LOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_030C_01C2A872.7C8F2810–

——=_NextPart_001_0010_01C2A89E.1FF738F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankProve it - er Wally - it's happening before your very eyes. It is just=
that you do not wish to see…

end of transmission - bed time.

thanx for your responses, i will think about them.

marc

From: marc.garrett

Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of tr=
ying to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.
So I see you enlarged your own. Get a clue – I enlarged it just to di=
fferentiate my response from yours. It is a crock assumption to assert th=
at the motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down." You're still whining=
aren't you?

Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing?

Did I really think that? Get a grip. I made no such assertion. You feed=
on assumptions and presumptions – and you're wrong for the most part. You=
are not a very good master of creating strawmen.

No, other systems have to be put in place to create the right climate f=
or physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized th=
at, that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think t=
hat you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won you=
over. There is something that you are not being honest about.

Prove it – or remove your peurile kangeroo kourt to a more appropoetic=
forum: listserv; fiction not facts.

stopping people declaring their views will not create a better planet t=
o live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic,

I didn't say it at all. I described your initial missive as a breathles=
s bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloidism. But then again, National I=
nquiorer style is to make up assertions that have no basis in fact – just =
as y ou are doing in this exchange.

you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am i=
nterested in the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth, to do =
something honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come back t=
o haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is simp=
listic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a lot other=
people as well. Contrary to what the American government & the Uk's are go=
vernment shoving down everyone's throat.
There's other government's also shoving shit down throats – you might =
benefit by spreading your cause instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes all=
other nations' governments bad. Get real.

It's soulless and you know it…

Much like your breathless bloated National Inquirer-like report.



Hi Wally,
Are you glad that there is a war happening?

A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is=
NO, I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happenin=
g. When did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make ou=
t, it is still in the "rattling sabres" stage.

Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…

The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the record=
– I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and breath=
less propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you asse=
rted your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.


"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated=
hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be p=
ublished tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP =
report of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.=

—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis

As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the =
"editing" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on t=
heir weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans =
claim, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instruct=
ions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Se=
curity Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised w=
as a record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capab=
ilities.
Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following m=
essage on to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily)=
, here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Ir=
aq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 199=
1. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security=
Council.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid==
233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the=
United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Husse=
in needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of i=
ts nuclear program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtu=
ally identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according=
to U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclea=
r know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names =
of companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to =
make nuclear weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the o=
nly difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page se=
ction in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface=
that stretches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and som=
e of them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to =
the most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by mor=
e than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and=
a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms=
. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War=
and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, deton=
ation, implosion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September=
1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of r=
ecovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complica=
ted extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousand=
s of connected, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its=
former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isoto=
pe separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for a=
n atomic explosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, =
said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based =
think tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or=
any knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of t=
ime."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq=
would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who=
sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their g=
overnment's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. Accor=
ding to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which c=
ould be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc=
Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, h=
owever.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of opt=
ical fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equi=
pment. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declar=
ation.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier =
of a thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment=
. It could not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors,=
but company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to supp=
ort the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current p=
ortfolio."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge =
of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, lice=
nsed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential mi=
litary uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran=
, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil=
-rich Gulf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often o=
btained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the produ=
cts' intended use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future =
to go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman f=
or the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot =
of important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight i=
nto the real extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to=
sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer=
exist.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from ge=
tting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really kno=
w the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nucl=
ear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German =
experts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis =
old designs for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to re=
nder technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wr=
ote in its nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violat=
ing export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working w=
ith Iraq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's =
former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily =
Die Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens an=
d Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said=
the deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto part=
s from DaimlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous=
U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But=
reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indic=
ate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear devel=
opment. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapon=
s by 2010.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importin=
g aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush admi=
nistration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uraniu=
m enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the pr=
oper size and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspi=
cions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspector=
s were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration suc=
h a disappointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Ag=
ency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 199=
6 report and covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 199=
6 declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the Unit=
ed Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in subs=
tance.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports=
since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction=
since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradic=
ted that claim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, i=
nvestigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa=
Eddy contributed to this report.



——=_NextPart_001_0010_01C2A89E.1FF738F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:000e01c2a89e$1feb5210$0100a8c0@FURTHERFIELD>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Prove it - er Wally - it's happening be=
fore
your very eyes. It is just that you do not wish to see…<BR><BR>end of
transmission - bed time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">thanx for your responses, i will think =
about
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">marc</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
[email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale
equivalent of trying to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel
proud.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">So I see you enlarged your own. Get=
a clue
– I enlarged it&nbsp; just to differentiate my&nbsp; response from
yours.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is a crock assumption&nbsp;to assert that the
motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down."&nbsp;You're still whini=
ng
aren't you?</FONT><BR><STRONG></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Do you really think that war is just about the function of=

killing? </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Did I really think that? Get a grip=
. I
made no such assertion. You feed on assumptions and presumptions – and=

you're wrong for the most part. You are not a very&nbsp; good master of=

creating strawmen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>No, other systems have to be put in place to create the ri=
ght
climate for physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must o=
f
realized that, that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do,=
I
also think that you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion =
would
of won you over. There is something that you are not being honest
about.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Prove it – or remove your peurile=

kangeroo kourt to a more appropoetic forum: listserv; fiction not
facts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>stopping people declaring their views will not create a be=
tter
planet to live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is
simplistic, </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I didn't say it at all. I described=
your
initial missive as a breathless bloated clone of National Inquirer
tabloidism. But then again, National Inquiorer style is to make up
assertions that have no basis in fact – just as y ou are doing in this=

exchange.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong=

words); I am interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy&nbsp;ba=
ll
called earth, to do something honorable for a change. And stop funding=

despots that come back to haunt them and the civilians of this world (d=
on't
you?), now that is simplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screw=
y to
me, and to a lot other people as well. Contrary to what&nbsp;the Americ=
an
government &amp; the Uk's are&nbsp;government shoving down&nbsp;everyon=
e's
throat.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">There's other government's also sho=
ving
shit&nbsp;down throats – you might benefit by spreading your cause ins=
tead
of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes all other nations' governments bad. Get=

real.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><BR>It's soulless and you know it…<BR></STRONG><BR><FONT=

face="Times New Roman">Much like your breathless bloated National
Inquirer-like report.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BOR=
DER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Hi Wally,</DIV>
<DIV>Are you glad that there is a war happening? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><EM><STRONG>A ludicrou=
s
question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO, I am no=
t
glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening. Whe=
n did
it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can&nbsp; make o=
ut,
it is still in the "rattling sabres" stage. </STRONG></EM></FONT></=
DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;<=
/DIV>
<DIV>Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG><EM>The matter=
was not
about justifying death. (And just for the record – I am against ca=
pital
punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless propaganda. =
You
might get better results for your concerns if you asserted your cas=
e
without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid
tactics.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; B=
ORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the
ages…"&nbsp; What a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – makes=
for
great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian friend =
who
breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but for=

those who can hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of Dece=
mber
18 last which reports the issue as a known story line. </FONT></D=
IV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;=
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </=
DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: bla=
ck"><B>From:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that aid=
ed
the Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>As a professional editor, I was
particularly curious about the "editing" the administration was=

doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their weapons of mass=

destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans claim, of=

course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making
instructions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-ve=
to
nations in the Security Council. Others have suggested that par=
t of
what was being excised was a record of the corporations that on=
ce
aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities. </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the followin=
g
message on to me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Ber=
lin
daily), here is a list of US and European corporations that=

allegedly supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, a=
nd
missile technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, =
from
the original Iraqi report to the Security Council. <BR><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtm=
l?pid=233">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=2=
33</A></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/dv=
103121711.html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in Europe</STR=
ONG>,
the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-h=
ow
Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Ira=
q's
1996 accounting of its nuclear program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is
virtually identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on =
Dec.
7, according to U.N. officials. The reports have not been made=

public to prevent nuclear know-how from falling into the wrong =
hands
and <STRONG>also to protect the names of companies that witting=
ly or
unwittingly supplied Iraq</STRONG> with the means to make nucle=
ar
weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said th=
e
only difference between the two reports is that the latest has =
a
300-page section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a=

slightly larger typeface that stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and =
some
of them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting a=
dds
up to the most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by =
more
than <STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American companie=
s, 11
British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, Fr=
ench,
Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries sup=
plied
its nuclear program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf =
War
and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrich=
ment,
detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in Septem=
ber
1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the
enrichment of recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges=
. The
process is a complicated extraction and purification method tha=
t at
full scale requires thousands of connected, high speed
centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of =
its
former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromag=
netic
isotope separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key=

ingredient for an atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapon=
s,
said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a
Washington-based think tank on nuclear arms control. "They were=
n't
missing any components or any knowledge," he said in a phone
interview. "It was simply a matter of time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, I=
raq
would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of
suppliers who sold it an impressive array of equipment and
expertise, often with their government's approval and without b=
eing
aware of the ultimate purpose. According to the Iraqi accountin=
g,
induction and electron beam furnaces, which could be used in sh=
aping
uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp. of
Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered,=

however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of=

optical fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications =
to
medical equipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the mo=
del
listed in the declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a suppli=
er of
a thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging=

equipment. It could not immediately verify the sale of the item=
.</P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetecto=
rs,
but company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no rec=
ord
to support the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of=

Motorola's current portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowled=
ge of
governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for exam=
ple,
licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology w=
ith
potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support =
for
its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the mai=
n
threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq ofte=
n
obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies ab=
out
the products' intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the futu=
re to
go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan,
spokesman for the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi
declaration provides a lot of important information, the compan=
ies
can often give inspectors insight into the real extent of Iraq'=
s
programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted=
to
sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Severa=
l no
longer exist.</P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from=

getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you do=
n't
really know the true end-use of your products," said David Albr=
ight,
an American nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from Germ=
an
experts and companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, which =
sold
the Iraqis old designs for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called upo=
n to
render technical assistance and consultations in various
activities," Iraq wrote in its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty of=

violating export law and sentenced them to over two years in pr=
ison
for working with Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq=
's
former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the G=
erman
daily Die Tag. The report also said companies such as
DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Preussag sold items to Iraq which =
were
diverted to the weapons programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or s=
aid
the deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks o=
r
auto parts from DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previ=
ous
U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much=
of
it. But reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administrati=
on in
October indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previous=
ly
used for nuclear development. A recent U.S. intelligence report=
says
Iraq may have nuclear weapons by 2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was impor=
ting
aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The=
Bush
administration said the tubes could be used to construct centri=
fuges
for uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether t=
he
tubes are of the proper size and material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start
again.</P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running
suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program eve=
n
while inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes=
the
latest declaration such a disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy=

Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a reh=
ash
of the 1996 report and covers "material we already had before."=
</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the =
1996
declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week b=
y the
United Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation,=
but
not in substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old repo=
rts
since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass=

destruction since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything n=
ew
would have contradicted that claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson=
,
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspo=
ndent
Melissa Eddy contributed to this report.</P></FONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE=
></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_0010_01C2A89E.1FF738F0–

——=_NextPart_001_027E_01C2A864.106D9C10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated hype=
rbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be published t=
omorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP report of =
December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.
—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: An editing job for the ages


An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis


As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "editing" =
the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their weapo=
ns of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans claim, of =
course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instructions befor=
e passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Security Cou=
ncil. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was a recor=
d of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities.=


Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following message on =
to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily), here is =
a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq with nu=
clear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The lis=
t comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council.=


http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United St=
ates and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed =
to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nuclear=
program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually ident=
ical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to U.N. o=
fficials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear know-how=
from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of compani=
es that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to make nucle=
ar weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only differ=
ence between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page section in A=
rabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface that stre=
tches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of them =
have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the most e=
xhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 30 =
German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handful=
of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says =
more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and conta=
ins diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, imp=
losion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1990 - on=
e month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recovered u=
ranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated extrac=
tion and purification method that at full scale requires thousands of conne=
cted, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its former nu=
clear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope separat=
ion as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic e=
xplosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said Gary =
Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think tank=
on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any knowl=
edge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq would hav=
e had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sold it a=
n impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their government'=
s approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. According to th=
e Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could be us=
ed in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp. of =
Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, however.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical fiber=
, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipment. But=
the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaration.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a thyra=
tron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. It could=
not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but compa=
ny spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support the cl=
aim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portfolio."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governm=
ents. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 =
billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military use=
s. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at=
the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf=
region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained su=
pplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' inten=
ded use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to go to c=
ompanies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N=
. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of importa=
nt information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into the re=
al extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sales or =
were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exist.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getting invo=
lved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know the true=
end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclear expert=
and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German experts an=
d companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis old design=
s for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to render techn=
ical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote in its=
nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violating export=
law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working with Iraq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's former wea=
pons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die Tag. T=
he report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Preussag=
sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the deliv=
eries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts from Dai=
mlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N. insp=
ections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But reconnais=
sance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicate the Ir=
aqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear development. A =
recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by 2010.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing aluminum=
tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administration=
said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium enrichme=
nt. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the proper size =
and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicions "tha=
t Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors were on =
the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a disapp=
ointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said=
last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 report a=
nd covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996 declarat=
ion and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United Nations=
finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in substance.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports since Bag=
hdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction since the=
1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted that c=
laim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, investigati=
ve researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa Eddy cont=
ributed to this report.




——=_NextPart_001_027E_01C2A864.106D9C10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:027c01c2a88d$f93d8990$3ce6fea9@wallyx848tqinf>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the ages…"&nbsp; =
What a
fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tab=
loid
propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian friend who
breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but for those who=
can
hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of December 18 last which repor=
ts
the issue as a known story line. </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>Fro=
m:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 20, 2002 1:=
45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RHIZOME_RAW: An editing j=
ob for
the ages</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the
Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>
<P>As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "editin=
g"
the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their wea=
pons
of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans claim, of=

course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instructions bef=
ore
passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Security Cou=
ncil.
Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was a record of=
the
corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities. </P>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following message =
on to
me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily)=
,
here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied =
Iraq
with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 19=
91.
The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Securit=
y
Council. <BR><BR><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=23=
3">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233</A></BL=
OCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/dv103121711.=
html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in Europe</STRONG>, the=

United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Huss=
ein
needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of it=
s
nuclear program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually
identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to=
U.N.
officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear know-=
how
from falling into the wrong hands and <STRONG>also to protect the names o=
f
companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq</STRONG> with the m=
eans
to make nuclear weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only
difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page sect=
ion
in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface tha=
t
stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of th=
em
have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the most=

exhaustive list so far of companies involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than=

<STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American companies, 11 British=

companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and=

Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear
program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and
contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonati=
on,
implosion testing and warhead construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1990 -=
one
month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recovered=

uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated
extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousands =
of
connected, high speed centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its former=

nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope
separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an=

atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said Ga=
ry
Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think ta=
nk on
nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any knowled=
ge,"
he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq would =
have
had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sold it a=
n
impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their government'=
s
approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. According to th=
e
Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could be us=
ed in
shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp. of Ranc=
ocas,
N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical fi=
ber,
a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipment. But=
the
company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a
thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. I=
t
could not immediately verify the sale of the item.</P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but co=
mpany
spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support the cla=
im.
"A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of
governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licen=
sed
$1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential milit=
ary
uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, whi=
ch at
the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gul=
f
region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained=

supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products'=

intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to go t=
o
companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the =
U.N.
weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of importa=
nt
information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into the rea=
l
extent of Iraq's programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sales =
or
were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exist.<=
/P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getting=

involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know th=
e
true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclear=

expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German experts=
and
companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis old de=
signs
for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called upon to rende=
r
technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote=
in
its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty of violating=

export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working wit=
h
Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's former=

weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die T=
ag.
The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Preus=
sag
sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the
deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts f=
rom
DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N.=

inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But
reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indi=
cate
the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear develop=
ment.
A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by=

2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing alumi=
num
tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administratio=
n
said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium enrichm=
ent.
But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the proper size an=
d
material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.</P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicions "=
that
Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors were on =
the
ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a
disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, s=
aid
last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 report =
and
covers "material we already had before."</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996
declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the Unit=
ed
Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in
substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports since=

Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction sinc=
e the
1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted that=

claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, investig=
ative
researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa Eddy
contributed to this report.</P></FONT>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></=
HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_027E_01C2A864.106D9C10–

——=_NextPart_001_0017_01C2A88F.6CDABF20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankHi Wally,

Are you glad that there is a war happening? Cuz death is what's going to ha=
ppen, justify that…

marc


"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbo=
le – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be published=
tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP report o=
f December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.
—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: An editing job for the ages


An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis


As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "editing=
" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their wea=
pons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans claim, o=
f course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instructions bef=
ore passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Security C=
ouncil. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was a rec=
ord of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities.=


Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following message o=
n to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily), here i=
s a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq with =
nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The l=
ist comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council=
.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United =
States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein neede=
d to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nucle=
ar program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually ide=
ntical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to U.N.=
officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear know-h=
ow from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of compa=
nies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to make nuc=
lear weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only diff=
erence between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page section in=
Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface that st=
retches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of the=
m have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the most=
exhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 3=
0 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handf=
ul of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It say=
s more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and con=
tains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, i=
mplosion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1990 - =
one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recovered=
uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated extr=
action and purification method that at full scale requires thousands of con=
nected, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its former =
nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope separ=
ation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic=
explosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said Gar=
y Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think ta=
nk on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any kno=
wledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq would h=
ave had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sold it=
an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their governmen=
t's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. According to =
the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could be =
used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp. o=
f Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, however.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical fib=
er, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipment. B=
ut the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaration.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a thy=
ratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. It cou=
ld not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but com=
pany spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support the =
claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portfolio=
."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of gover=
nments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.=
5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military u=
ses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which =
at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gu=
lf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained =
supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' int=
ended use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to go to=
companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U=
.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of impor=
tant information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into the =
real extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sales o=
r were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exist.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getting in=
volved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know the tr=
ue end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclear expe=
rt and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German experts =
and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis old desi=
gns for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to render tec=
hnical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote in i=
ts nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violating expo=
rt law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working with Iraq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's former w=
eapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die Tag.=
The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Preuss=
ag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the del=
iveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts from D=
aimlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N. in=
spections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But reconna=
issance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicate the =
Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear development. =
A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by 201=
0.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing alumin=
um tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administrati=
on said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium enrich=
ment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the proper siz=
e and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicions "t=
hat Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors were o=
n the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a disa=
ppointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, sa=
id last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 report=
and covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996 declar=
ation and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United Natio=
ns finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in substance.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports since B=
aghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction since t=
he 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted that=
claim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, investiga=
tive researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa Eddy co=
ntributed to this report.



——=_NextPart_001_0017_01C2A88F.6CDABF20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:001501c2a88f$6cd60430$0100a8c0@FURTHERFIELD>
<DIV>Hi Wally,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Are you glad that there is a war happening? Cuz death is what's going =
to
happen, justify that…</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>marc</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the ages…"&nbsp=
; What
a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer=

tabloid propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian friend who
breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but for those w=
ho
can hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of December 18 last which=

reports the issue as a known story line. </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>F=
rom:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A [email protected]=

href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 20, 2002 =
1:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RHIZOME_RAW: An editing=
job
for the ages</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the=

Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>
<P>As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "edit=
ing"
the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their=

weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans c=
laim,
of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instruction=
s
before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Sec=
urity
Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was =
a
record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD
capabilities. </P>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following messag=
e on
to me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin dail=
y),
here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplie=
d
Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prio=
r to
1991. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the=

Security Council. <BR><BR><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid==
233">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233</A></=
BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/dv10312171=
1.html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in Europe</STRONG>, th=
e
United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hu=
ssein
needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of =
its
nuclear program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually=

identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according =
to
U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclea=
r
know-how from falling into the wrong hands and <STRONG>also to protect =
the
names of companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq</STRONG>=
with
the means to make nuclear weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only=

difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page se=
ction
in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface t=
hat
stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of =
them
have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the mo=
st
exhaustive list so far of companies involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more tha=
n
<STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American companies, 11 British=

companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish an=
d
Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear
program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and=

contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detona=
tion,
implosion testing and warhead construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1990=
-
one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recov=
ered
uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated=

extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousand=
s of
connected, high speed centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its form=
er
nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope=

separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for =
an
atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said =
Gary
Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think =
tank
on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any
knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of
time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq woul=
d
have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who so=
ld it
an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their
government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose.=

According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces=
,
which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came f=
rom
Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never=

delivered, however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical=

fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equip=
ment.
But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the
declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a=

thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment.=
It
could not immediately verify the sale of the item.</P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but=

company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to suppo=
rt
the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current=

portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of
governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, lic=
ensed
$1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential mil=
itary
uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, w=
hich
at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-ric=
h
Gulf region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtain=
ed
supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products'=

intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to go=
to
companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for th=
e
U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of=

important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight =
into
the real extent of Iraq's programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sale=
s or
were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exist=
.</P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getting=

involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know =
the
true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclea=
r
expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German exper=
ts
and companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis =
old
designs for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called upon to ren=
der
technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wro=
te in
its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty of violati=
ng
export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working w=
ith
Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's forme=
r
weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die=
Tag.
The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Pre=
ussag
sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the=

deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts=
from
DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N.=

inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But=

reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October
indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nucl=
ear
development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nucle=
ar
weapons by 2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing alu=
minum
tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administrat=
ion
said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium
enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the=

proper size and material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.</P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicions=

"that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors =
were
on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a=

disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency,=
said
last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 repor=
t and
covers "material we already had before."</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996
declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the Un=
ited
Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in
substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports sinc=
e
Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction si=
nce
the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted=
that
claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Me=
lissa
Eddy contributed to this report.</P></FONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>=
</HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_0017_01C2A88F.6CDABF20–

——=_NextPart_001_02CB_01C2A868.42F0D5E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank

Hi Wally,
Are you glad that there is a war happening?

A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO, I=
am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening. Whe=
n did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make out, it =
is still in the "rattling sabres" stage.

Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…

The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the record – I =
am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless p=
ropaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you asserted y=
our case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.


"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated hyper=
bole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be publish=
ed tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP report=
of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.
—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis

As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the "editi=
ng" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their w=
eapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans claim,=
of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instructions b=
efore passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the Security=
Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised was a r=
ecord of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilitie=
s.
Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following message=
on to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily), here=
is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq wit=
h nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The=
list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Counc=
il.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the Unite=
d States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein nee=
ded to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nuc=
lear program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually i=
dentical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to U.=
N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear know=
-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of com=
panies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to make n=
uclear weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only di=
fference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page section =
in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface that =
stretches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of t=
hem have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the mo=
st exhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than=
30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a han=
dful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It s=
ays more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and c=
ontains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation,=
implosion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1990 =
- one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recover=
ed uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated ex=
traction and purification method that at full scale requires thousands of c=
onnected, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its forme=
r nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope sep=
aration as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an atom=
ic explosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said G=
ary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think =
tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any k=
nowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq would=
have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sold =
it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their governm=
ent's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. According t=
o the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could b=
e used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp.=
of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, however.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical f=
iber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipment.=
But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaration.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a t=
hyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. It c=
ould not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but c=
ompany spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support th=
e claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portfol=
io."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of gov=
ernments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $=
1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military=
uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, whic=
h at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich =
Gulf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtaine=
d supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' i=
ntended use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to go =
to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the=
U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of imp=
ortant information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into th=
e real extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sales=
or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exist.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getting =
involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know the =
true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclear ex=
pert and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German expert=
s and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis old de=
signs for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to render t=
echnical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote in=
its nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violating ex=
port law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working with Ir=
aq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's former=
weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die Ta=
g. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Preu=
ssag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the d=
eliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts from=
DaimlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N. =
inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But recon=
naissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicate th=
e Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear development=
. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by 2=
010.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing alum=
inum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administra=
tion said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium enri=
chment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the proper s=
ize and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicions =
"that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors were=
on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a di=
sappointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, =
said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 repo=
rt and covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996 decl=
aration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United Nat=
ions finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in substance.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports since=
Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction since=
the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted th=
at claim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, investi=
gative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa Eddy =
contributed to this report.




——=_NextPart_001_02CB_01C2A868.42F0D5E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:02c901c2a892$2bc3d0a0$3ce6fea9@wallyx848tqinf>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nb=
sp;</DIV>
<DIV>Hi Wally,</DIV>
<DIV>Are you glad that there is a war happening? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><EM><STRONG>A ludicrous ques=
tion, all
too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO, I am not glad about it. In =
any
event, I am unaware that it is happening. When did it start? I just check=
ed
the news, and as far as I can&nbsp; make out, it is still in the "rattlin=
g
sabres" stage. </STRONG></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG><EM>The matter was n=
ot about
justifying death. (And just for the record – I am against capital punish=
ment)
The matter was your bloated and breathless propaganda. You might get bett=
er
results for your concerns if you asserted your case without resorting to=

National Inquirer tabloid tactics.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the ages…"&nb=
sp;
What a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – makes for great National=

Inquirer tabloid propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian friend who
breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but for those=
who
can hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of December 18 last whi=
ch
reports the issue as a known story line. </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B=
>From:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the=

Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>As a professional editor, I was particularly=

curious about the "editing" the administration was doing on the 12,00=
0
page Iraqi report on their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have b=
een
swirling. The Americans claim, of course, that they were vetting the=

report for WMD-making instructions before passing it on to the roilin=
g
mass of non-veto nations in the Security Council. Others have suggest=
ed
that part of what was being excised was a record of the corporations =
that
once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities. </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following mess=
age
on to me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin
daily), here is a list of US and European corporations that alleged=
ly
supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile
technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, from the origi=
nal
Iraqi report to the Security Council. <BR><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=
=233">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=233</A=
></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/dv103121=
711.html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in Europe</STRONG>, =
the
United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam=

Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996
accounting of its nuclear program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtuall=
y
identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, accordin=
g to
U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nucl=
ear
know-how from falling into the wrong hands and <STRONG>also to protec=
t the
names of companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq</STRON=
G>
with the means to make nuclear weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only=

difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page=

section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger=

typeface that stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some o=
f
them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to=
the
most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more t=
han
<STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American companies, 11 Briti=
sh
companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish =
and
Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear=

program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War an=
d
contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment,
detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 19=
90 -
one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of
recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a=

complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale req=
uires
thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its fo=
rmer
nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope=

separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient fo=
r an
atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, sai=
d
Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based=

think tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any compone=
nts
or any knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a mat=
ter
of time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq wo=
uld
have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who =
sold
it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their=

government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose=
.
According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnac=
es,
which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came=
from
Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never=

delivered, however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optica=
l
fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical
equipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in =
the
declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of =
a
thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipmen=
t. It
could not immediately verify the sale of the item.</P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, bu=
t
company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to sup=
port
the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current=

portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of=

governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example,=

licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with
potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for it=
s war
against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to
stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obta=
ined
supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the product=
s'
intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to =
go to
companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for =
the
U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot o=
f
important information, the companies can often give inspectors insigh=
t
into the real extent of Iraq's programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sa=
les
or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer=

exist.</P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getti=
ng
involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really kno=
w the
true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nucl=
ear
expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German exp=
erts
and companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, which sold the Iraqi=
s old
designs for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called upon to r=
ender
technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq w=
rote
in its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty of viola=
ting
export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working=
with
Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's for=
mer
weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily D=
ie
Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens =
and
Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons
programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said th=
e
deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto par=
ts
from DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.=
N.
inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But=

reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October=

indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nu=
clear
development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuc=
lear
weapons by 2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing=

aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush=

administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges =
for
uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes a=
re of
the proper size and material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.</P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicio=
ns
"that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspector=
s
were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration=
such
a disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agenc=
y,
said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 199=
6
report and covers "material we already had before."</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996=

declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the=

United Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but n=
ot in
substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports si=
nce
Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction =
since
the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradict=
ed
that claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent=

Melissa Eddy contributed to this report.</P></FONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCK=
QUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_02CB_01C2A868.42F0D5E0–

Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:

> Absolutely NOT. This is simply imaginary on your part. I certainly respond
> to viewpoints, and my comments are critical of those particular viewpoints.
> I also consider it constructive to point out that the emporer has no
> clothes. That includes the dissident pointing out that Mugabe has no
> clothes, that Bush has his fly open, that peace activist hurt their own
> cause. That i s constructive.

Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with someone
else's position. However, it is much more constructive to understand the
objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a mutually
beneficial outcome.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

Hi Joseph,

best sense i've heard on here for a while…
(Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with
someone
else's position. However, it is much more constructive to understand the
objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a
mutually
beneficial outcome)

I am not going to respond to all of Wally's mails cuz they distract me from
what I am best at, creativity & collaboration/imagination/fluidity via
subjective reason - non reason…

As far as I know, no one has seen Wally's creative output, we do not know if
he is dealing with contemporary issues in his work as well as contempoary
political issues - this might give us all an insight informing us all where
he coming from as an artist.

Everyone knows where I am coming from, and also they know that I am willing
to admit personal wrongs when challenged in a way that is revelatory; but
when one is thrown into a storm of flames, that do not actually mutually
explore the issues already mentioned, and attacked viciously, one just gets
fed up with it all. Which, I suspect is the whole point of it all.

So I will continue to place my mails & art on the list, for this is my
freedom (at the moment). If Anyone wishes to challenge my view around
politics, they are welcome to; but please do not be so thuggish; it just
makes things worse. Be creative with it, like Andrej himself was, even he
was plunged upon (uncreatively I might add), with a barrage of offensive
shouts by a certain individual (I wonder who that was erm).

People whom hide are not to be trusted…or believed.

marc






> Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:
>
> > Absolutely NOT. This is simply imaginary on your part. I certainly
respond
> > to viewpoints, and my comments are critical of those particular
viewpoints.
> > I also consider it constructive to point out that the emporer has no
> > clothes. That includes the dissident pointing out that Mugabe has no
> > clothes, that Bush has his fly open, that peace activist hurt their own
> > cause. That i s constructive.
>
> Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with
someone
> else's position. However, it is much more constructive to understand the
> objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a
mutually
> beneficial outcome.
>
>
> joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
>
>

It's soulless and you know it…

tiz true - excitement happens - but death is a good reason for such emotion,
don't you think?

> I have absolutely no disagreement that more information should be
available
> to the US public. I would go further. I would ensure that it should be
> available to the entire public of Earth, in all major languages, and also
> include the names and addresses of non-Western collaborators as well.
> Likewise, how much information does everyone have concerning the
information
-I agree…

Although, I am offended by you calling me shallow - I can forgive quicker
than most…you obviously do not know me that well.

marc



> > while marc's original post was a little on the excited side (I had read
> this
> > information before), his point is valid that the US government/press
> either
> > through plan or accident (what sells?) edit much information that should
> be
> > available to the US public.
>
> I have absolutely no disagreement that more information should be
available
> to the US public. I would go further. I would ensure that it should be
> available to the entire public of Earth, in all major languages, and also
> include the names and addresses of non-Western collaborators as well.
> Likewise, how much information does everyone have concerning the
information
> published in the press of the Middle East on a daily b asis, what is
taught
> in the schools there. During the 1980's I used to travel in and out of the
> Warsaw Pact countries, to deliver and receive information from peace
> activists who suffered oppression under their respective communist
> dictatorshits far in excess of what Western peace activists whine about
> concerning themselves in the West. The saddest p art was that there should
h
> ave been a great alliance between these two groups of peace activists, but
> there wasn't. The Western peace activists, with a proportionally small
> exception, couldn;t bring themselves to be overtly critical of the
communist
> dictatorshits for fear of appearing to take sides. Simply dumb.
>
> Incidently, it appears that I am the ONLY dissident voice in this forum on
> this topic, and if there is any desire to quash opposing viewpoints in
this
> forum. it is not cominmg from me.
>
> And marc's original post was more than a little excited.
>
> > It seems convenient that the info lost often would
> > be unattractive to the Bush agenda. I sit here hearing the same
argument
> on
> > NPR as I write.
> >
> > Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more
> determined to
> > quash opposing viewpoints
>
> Absolutely NOT. This is simply imaginary on your part. I certainly respond
> to viewpoints, and my comments are critical of those particular
viewpoints.
> I also consider it constructive to point out that the emporer has no
> clothes. That includes the dissident pointing out that Mugabe has no
> clothes, that Bush has his fly open, that peace activist hurt their own
> cause. That i s constructive.
>
> > than in constructive dialog. Multiple worldviews are
> > GOOD and impossible to quash without a lot of death happening.
> >
> >
> > joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> > frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
> >
> > go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> > call me 646 279 2309
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:
> >
> > > Blank
> > > From: marc.garrett
> > >
> > > Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of
> trying
> > > to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.
> > > So I see you enlarged your own. Get a clue – I enlarged it just to
> > > differentiate my response from yours. It is a crock assumption to
> assert
> > > that the motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down." You're still
> whining
> > > aren't you?
> > >
> > > Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing?
> > >
> > > Did I really think that? Get a grip. I made no such assertion. You
> feed on
> > > assumptions and presumptions – and you're wrong for the most part.
You
> are
> > > not a very good master of creating strawmen.
> > >
> > > No, other systems have to be put in place to create the right
climate
> for
> > > physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized
> that,
> > > that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think
> that
> > > you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won
you
> over.
> > > There is something that you are not being honest about.
> > >
> > > Prove it – or remove your peurile kangeroo kourt to a more
> appropoetic
> > > forum: listserv; fiction not facts.
> > >
> > > stopping people declaring their views will not create a better
planet
> to
> > > live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic,
> > >
> > > I didn't say it at all. I described your initial missive as a
> breathless
> > > bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloidism. But then again,
National
> > > Inquiorer style is to make up assertions that have no basis in fact –
> just
> > > as y ou are doing in this exchange.
> > >
> > > you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I
am
> > > interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth,
to
> do
> > > something honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come
> back to
> > > haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is
> > > simplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a
> lot
> > > other people as well. Contrary to what the American government & the
> Uk's are
> > > government shoving down everyone's throat.
> > > There's other government's also shoving shit down throats – you
might
> > > benefit by spreading your cause instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK
makes
> all
> > > other nations' governments bad. Get real.
> > >
> > > It's soulless and you know it…
> > >
> > > Much like your breathless bloated National Inquirer-like report.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Wally,
> > > Are you glad that there is a war happening?
> > >
> > > A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer
> is NO,
> > > I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is
happening.
> When
> > > did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make out,
it
> is
> > > still in the "rattling sabres" stage.
> > >
> > > Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…
> > >
> > > The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the
> record –
> > > I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and
> breathless
> > > propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you
> asserted
> > > your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.
> > >
> > >
> > > "An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of
> bloated
> > > hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.
> > >
> > > And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will
be
> > > published tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce
an
> AP
> > > report of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story
> line.
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: marc.garrett
> > > An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the
> Iraqis
> > >
> > > As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about
the
> > > "editing" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report
> on
> > > their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The
> Americans
> > > claim, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making
> > > instructions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto
> nations in
> > > the Security Council. Others have suggested that part of what was
being
> > > excised was a record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in
> achieving
> > > WMD capabilities.
> > > Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the
following
> > > message on to me:
> > >
> > >
> > > "To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin
> daily),
> > > here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied
> Iraq
> > > with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to
> 1991.
> > > The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the
Security
> > > Council.
> > >
> http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid#3
> > > Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
> > > By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
> > >
> > > UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe,
> the
> > > United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam
> Hussein
> > > needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of
> its
> > > nuclear program.
> > >
> > > The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is
> virtually
> > > identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according
> to
> > > U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent
nuclear
> > > know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the
names
> of
> > > companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means
to
> make
> > > nuclear weapons.
> > >
> > > U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said
the
> only
> > > difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page
> section
> > > in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface
> that
> > > stretches it to 2,100 pages.
> > >
> > > That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and
> some of
> > > them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to
> the
> > > most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.
> > >
> > > Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by
> more
> > > than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies
> and a
> > > handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian
> firms. It
> > > says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.
> > >
> > > It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf
> War and
> > > contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment,
> detonation,
> > > implosion testing and warhead construction.
> > >
> > > In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in
> September
> > > 1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment
of
> > > recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a
> > > complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale
> requires
> > > thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges.
> > >
> > > According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of
> its
> > > former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic
> isotope
> > > separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for
> an
> > > atomic explosion.
> > >
> > > The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear
weapons,
> said
> > > Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based
> think
> > > tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or
> any
> > > knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of
> time."
> > >
> > > Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War,
> Iraq
> > > would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers
> who
> > > sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with
their
> > > government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose.
> > > According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam
furnaces,
> > > which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came
> from
> > > Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never
> > > delivered, however.
> > >
> > > Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of
> optical
> > > fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical
> equipment.
> > > But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the
> declaration.
> > >
> > > EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a
supplier
> of a
> > > thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging
equipment.
> It
> > > could not immediately verify the sale of the item.
> > >
> > > Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast
> photodetectors, but
> > > company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to
> support the
> > > claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current
> portfolio."
> > >
> > > Most of the sales were legal and often made with the
knowledge
> of
> > > governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example,
> licensed
> > > $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential
> military
> > > uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran,
> which
> > > at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the
oil-rich
> Gulf
> > > region.
> > >
> > > But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq
often
> > > obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the
> > > products' intended use.
> > >
> > > "It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the
future
> to
> > > go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman
> for
> > > the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a
lot
> of
> > > important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight
> into
> > > the real extent of Iraq's programs.
> > >
> > > Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted
> to
> > > sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no
> longer
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > "Revealing company names can discourage other companies from
> > > getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't
> really
> > > know the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an
> American
> > > nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.
> > >
> > > According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from
German
> > > experts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the
> Iraqis
> > > old designs for centrifuges.
> > >
> > > Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to
> render
> > > technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq
> wrote in
> > > its nuclear declaration.
> > >
> > > In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of
> violating
> > > export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working
> with
> > > Iraq.
> > >
> > > German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of
Iraq's
> > > former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German
> daily
> > > Die Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler,
Siemens
> and
> > > Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons
programs.
> > >
> > > The companies either declined to comment on the report, or
> said the
> > > deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto
parts
> from
> > > DaimlerChrysler.
> > >
> > > Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during
> previous
> > > U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it.
> But
> > > reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October
> indicate
> > > the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear
> > > development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have
> nuclear
> > > weapons by 2010.
> > >
> > > Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was
> importing
> > > aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush
> > > administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges
for
> > > uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes
are
> of
> > > the proper size and material.
> > >
> > > What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start
again.
> > >
> > > Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running
> > > suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while
> > > inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest
> > > declaration such a disappointment.
> > >
> > > Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy
> > > Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of
> the
> > > 1996 report and covers "material we already had before."
> > >
> > > A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the
> 1996
> > > declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the
> United
> > > Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in
> > > substance.
> > >
> > > Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old
> reports
> > > since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass
> destruction
> > > since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have
> contradicted
> > > that claim.
> > >
> > > —
> > >
> > > EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt
Crenson,
> > > investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent
> Melissa
> > > Eddy contributed to this report.
> >
>
>

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Two people can engage in a dialog at which they just throw insults at each
> other

Nobody has insulted you babycheeks. The reality of what you are is
simply not our responsibility. If you don't like it, change it.
Be creative.

> an insist upon the "truth" of their position (such as you do),

No dearest. We do not. Keeo your dictatorial impulses
to yourself. The only one "insisting" on the "truth" of their
position is YOU. You are attempting to DICTATE your
wishful projection of what our behavior is as the TRUTH.

We are not speaking of "our position".
We do not have "opinions" We do not have "points of view".
There is_ truth. It ain't all relative.

And try and imagine, and chew, and swallow on this:
There is OBJECTIVE TRUTH (even if you don't get
what it is) and it is ACCESSIBLE.


> or they can engage in a dialog

No dearest. the nature of dialogue is destructive.
Your inability to UNDERSTAND the above as a FACT is your own ILLITERACY.

> in which they realize they have opposing positions,

We do not have a "position".
We are not speaking ftom a "point of view".
What we say and what you drivel is NOT EQUAL.
What's more, we are not even trying to force
truth on you: we have indicated that you're unable
to converse and we desire no contact with you.

If you want to look at a dictatorial "right' ape
look at yourself. The entireity of your "dialogue"
has been attempts to FORCE YOUR OPINION that what WE
DO is a RELATIVE OPINION.

Guess what babycheeks. It is NOT.

> are willing to discuss alternatives that might bring about mutually acceptable
> outcomes.

There ain't nothing MUTUAL babycheeks.
You are not WANTED. There is no compromise in
which your delusions are somehow VALID.


> In business parlance, this is called win-win negotiating.

And in REALITY parlance it's called two sheep fucking each other
in the arse. This is not busuness.


>From my
> observations of you, you either "win" or run away.

No babycheeks. You are not cabapble of OBSERVING anything besides your
own ego. We neither "win" nor "run away".

Keep your wisful projections to yourself.

And if you want to see one RUNNING AWAY, look at yourself.

Every time you're demonstrate an infantile idiot
you respind with infantile "creative" meaninglessness.


Tell us again how the basic universal truth if buddhism are
just like your christian aunt polly?

But would you admit being wrong? No.

That ain't the only example.

You are NOT a shaman. You attempt to dress yourself as one
in order to explit it. It's a FACT.

You're self-destructive, ignorant and irresponsible.

It's a FACT.

This is NOt a compromisable situation.

There is no "negotiation".

As long as you stick your nose in our face you will be treated
as WHAT YOU ARE.

You were givena chance, very politely, to go away.

> Worldview - the mental construct that people use to understand and participate
> in their environment, usually encompassing as much of the world of which they
> are aware.

Meaningless drivel. The above is NONSENSE.

> Any world view is incomplete as no person has a complete awareness
> of the world.

Absolute DRIVEL. You do not have any knowledge of awareness.

> Thus, recognizing and accepting/participating with other world
> views creates a more complete construct…this is GOOD.

There is NO THUS. You peddled a delusion as a fact and "thus"..

> Forcing everybody to accept your personal worldview is BAD

We are not FORCINg anyone to accept anything baycheeks. YOU ARE.
It is YOUR PERSONAL WORLDVIEW that WORLDVIEWS EXIST. Bleat.
They don't.

We are NOT presenting a personal worldview. Wea re IMPERSONAL.
Nor are we FORCING IT ON ANYONE.

Funny how what we do will either be relegated to YOUR game (it's an
opinion) (that is it falls) or it will be false (it falls).
We suppose that's win-win. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Dictatorial brain obsessed ape.

> - it creates a less complete construct.

No it doesn't. There are no constructs.
Reality is nota CONSTRUCT. Blind idiot.

> So we should all march and jump off a cliff?

That is entirely up to you. You are already ALL marching towards a
cliff. BLINDLY. And that'sa FACT.



> The reason we get togethor in little groups

Burble burble. There is no "reason". You're not capable of reason.

> is help each other survive as long as possible.

Yes that's exactly the "reason" to get together in little groups.

A healthy singular individual in a healthy environment
condition is capable of surviving on its own quite nicely.

Animalistic survival instincts produce HERDS.
Communities are based on other things.
Communities are based on CONSCIOUSNESS.

> Then rules develop to help the groups exist.

No they don't, idiotic dictatorial ape.

There are only one "set of rules" : those of Reality.
And hence you have MALE YANG LEADERS who can perceive
Reality and create LAWS which REFLECT Reality.

And a properly functioning community is one
in which you have proper leaders.

And if you want to see why humanity is in a shithole
it is because all proper MALE (energetic config, not gender)
are *leaving*–that is why you have breakdown of religious
lines, monarchies etc. Instead you have increased
MECHANICAL DICTATORIAL BRAIN DRIVEN FORCE, which expresses
itself in technology.

That is why you have schizophrenia, and alzheimer's and AIDS
and all sorts of idiocy, among which the push to keep
each human UNINITED and FFRAGMENTED (yin imbalanced).
How's that candy bar by the way? Your "optimistic"
"yin" is ignorant junkie shite. All is fine "bleat".
Allow us to be crass and tell you one thing: mommy nature
does not luv you. She raises you like animalz.
And she slaughters you when she wants your skin. Bleeeat.

And no "little groups" are gonna help you "survive"
if she wants you dead. Humans of course are damn nice
that way that they can 'avoid" the trap mommy sets up for them
by developing CONSCIOUSNESS. That is the ONLY WAY.
CONSCIOUSNESS entails developing AWARENESS of the OBJECTIVE
LAWS AND TRUTHS of the UNIVERSE. And that is WHY you have
those *awful, awful* yang males who set up religions.
That is WHY communities were founded. TO FOSTER CONSCIOUSNESS.

Your actions foster bleating blathering idiocy.

They DENY the human ACCESS to OBJECTIVE REALITY.

This amounts to MURDER.

There is no THREE opinions, not even TWO about it.

Oh and by the way babycheeks, the original MALE YANG
LEADERS were of the FEMALE GENDER.



> So - an individual's (premature) death represents a failure of the group.

Babycheeks you know NOTHINg about death besides infantile fantasies,
delusions, and drivel. You in fact CAUSE premature death with your
behavior.


> Waving around DEATH is confronting a group with the possibility of its failure.

Bleat, bleat. Good to know. Thanks for admitting to being
a death obsessed freak. Funny how when WE_ introduced death you accused
us of being "death obsessed". Your hypocrisy is neverending.

Secondly. DEATH is "introduced" PROPERLY by those who know how to.
You're simply USING death to INCITE FEAR (possibility of its failure).
The CORRECT (and there is CORRECT) introduction of death does
the OPPOSITE. It pushes humans to act self-responsibly, trim idiocies
out of their lives and quit fearing failure.

Because actual_ awareness_ of death causes the human to act WITHOUT
MISTAKES (be always right) (and that doesn't mean right over others)
(we are perfectly capable and have stared so of existing among
an infinite number of self-autonomous, 1001% always.right, AUTHORITIES)
(and that's in fact what awaits humans after death). And because
out there (after earth) there is no time for mistakes.
Surely it is no sin for humans to make mistakes in the materia,
but the "idea" is to evolve to a state in which you act
in AWARENESS AND ACCORDANCE with natural laws.

YOU want to keep humans always on the level of "opinionating"
"pointing of view' infantilism and obsessed with their brains.
Give it up. Open your window. It's a a vast intelligent universe.
Doesn't give a shit about your penis or your brain. Neither
are going to be of any use to you, nor will your emotions.

Art is a result of communities, of that process for
striving for consciousness. It's not a biz. It's
not about your brain or your emotions. Nobody cares.




> The "liberal left" considers its
> group to be much broader than the "conservative right",

There ain't no lefta nd right here babycheeks.
We arwe not political. We are not business.

> and the DEATH of 'innocents'

The only innocents babycheeks are ENERGETIC YANG MALES.
All others are in breach of universal laws :>
Nevertheless, you won't find us trying to murder anyone
for "causing problems" even though they DO.

The only one involved in death of innocents is Y O U.

> on either side of conflict are seen as a failure of the "liberal
> left" group, while the "conservative right" view it as necessary to protect
> the survival of members of its narrowly defined group.

Ooo. That was SO MEANINGFUL.

Too bad it's ignorant infantile meaningless burble.

There is OBJECTIVE TRUTH (even if you don't get
what it is) and it is ACCESSIBLE.

tiz true - but you are not worthy of it & do not know it & that is also
true…

marc


> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Two people can engage in a dialog at which they just throw insults at
each
> > other
>
> Nobody has insulted you babycheeks. The reality of what you are is
> simply not our responsibility. If you don't like it, change it.
> Be creative.
>
> > an insist upon the "truth" of their position (such as you do),
>
> No dearest. We do not. Keeo your dictatorial impulses
> to yourself. The only one "insisting" on the "truth" of their
> position is YOU. You are attempting to DICTATE your
> wishful projection of what our behavior is as the TRUTH.
>
> We are not speaking of "our position".
> We do not have "opinions" We do not have "points of view".
> There is_ truth. It ain't all relative.
>
> And try and imagine, and chew, and swallow on this:
> There is OBJECTIVE TRUTH (even if you don't get
> what it is) and it is ACCESSIBLE.
>
>
> > or they can engage in a dialog
>
> No dearest. the nature of dialogue is destructive.
> Your inability to UNDERSTAND the above as a FACT is your own ILLITERACY.
>
> > in which they realize they have opposing positions,
>
> We do not have a "position".
> We are not speaking ftom a "point of view".
> What we say and what you drivel is NOT EQUAL.
> What's more, we are not even trying to force
> truth on you: we have indicated that you're unable
> to converse and we desire no contact with you.
>
> If you want to look at a dictatorial "right' ape
> look at yourself. The entireity of your "dialogue"
> has been attempts to FORCE YOUR OPINION that what WE
> DO is a RELATIVE OPINION.
>
> Guess what babycheeks. It is NOT.
>
> > are willing to discuss alternatives that might bring about mutually
acceptable
> > outcomes.
>
> There ain't nothing MUTUAL babycheeks.
> You are not WANTED. There is no compromise in
> which your delusions are somehow VALID.
>
>
> > In business parlance, this is called win-win negotiating.
>
> And in REALITY parlance it's called two sheep fucking each other
> in the arse. This is not busuness.
>
>
> >From my
> > observations of you, you either "win" or run away.
>
> No babycheeks. You are not cabapble of OBSERVING anything besides your
> own ego. We neither "win" nor "run away".
>
> Keep your wisful projections to yourself.
>
> And if you want to see one RUNNING AWAY, look at yourself.
>
> Every time you're demonstrate an infantile idiot
> you respind with infantile "creative" meaninglessness.
>
>
> Tell us again how the basic universal truth if buddhism are
> just like your christian aunt polly?
>
> But would you admit being wrong? No.
>
> That ain't the only example.
>
> You are NOT a shaman. You attempt to dress yourself as one
> in order to explit it. It's a FACT.
>
> You're self-destructive, ignorant and irresponsible.
>
> It's a FACT.
>
> This is NOt a compromisable situation.
>
> There is no "negotiation".
>
> As long as you stick your nose in our face you will be treated
> as WHAT YOU ARE.
>
> You were givena chance, very politely, to go away.
>
> > Worldview - the mental construct that people use to understand and
participate
> > in their environment, usually encompassing as much of the world of which
they
> > are aware.
>
> Meaningless drivel. The above is NONSENSE.
>
> > Any world view is incomplete as no person has a complete awareness
> > of the world.
>
> Absolute DRIVEL. You do not have any knowledge of awareness.
>
> > Thus, recognizing and accepting/participating with other world
> > views creates a more complete construct…this is GOOD.
>
> There is NO THUS. You peddled a delusion as a fact and "thus"..
>
> > Forcing everybody to accept your personal worldview is BAD
>
> We are not FORCINg anyone to accept anything baycheeks. YOU ARE.
> It is YOUR PERSONAL WORLDVIEW that WORLDVIEWS EXIST. Bleat.
> They don't.
>
> We are NOT presenting a personal worldview. Wea re IMPERSONAL.
> Nor are we FORCING IT ON ANYONE.
>
> Funny how what we do will either be relegated to YOUR game (it's an
> opinion) (that is it falls) or it will be false (it falls).
> We suppose that's win-win. Heads I win, tails you lose.
> Dictatorial brain obsessed ape.
>
> > - it creates a less complete construct.
>
> No it doesn't. There are no constructs.
> Reality is nota CONSTRUCT. Blind idiot.
>
> > So we should all march and jump off a cliff?
>
> That is entirely up to you. You are already ALL marching towards a
> cliff. BLINDLY. And that'sa FACT.
>
>
>
> > The reason we get togethor in little groups
>
> Burble burble. There is no "reason". You're not capable of reason.
>
> > is help each other survive as long as possible.
>
> Yes that's exactly the "reason" to get together in little groups.
>
> A healthy singular individual in a healthy environment
> condition is capable of surviving on its own quite nicely.
>
> Animalistic survival instincts produce HERDS.
> Communities are based on other things.
> Communities are based on CONSCIOUSNESS.
>
> > Then rules develop to help the groups exist.
>
> No they don't, idiotic dictatorial ape.
>
> There are only one "set of rules" : those of Reality.
> And hence you have MALE YANG LEADERS who can perceive
> Reality and create LAWS which REFLECT Reality.
>
> And a properly functioning community is one
> in which you have proper leaders.
>
> And if you want to see why humanity is in a shithole
> it is because all proper MALE (energetic config, not gender)
> are *leaving*–that is why you have breakdown of religious
> lines, monarchies etc. Instead you have increased
> MECHANICAL DICTATORIAL BRAIN DRIVEN FORCE, which expresses
> itself in technology.
>
> That is why you have schizophrenia, and alzheimer's and AIDS
> and all sorts of idiocy, among which the push to keep
> each human UNINITED and FFRAGMENTED (yin imbalanced).
> How's that candy bar by the way? Your "optimistic"
> "yin" is ignorant junkie shite. All is fine "bleat".
> Allow us to be crass and tell you one thing: mommy nature
> does not luv you. She raises you like animalz.
> And she slaughters you when she wants your skin. Bleeeat.
>
> And no "little groups" are gonna help you "survive"
> if she wants you dead. Humans of course are damn nice
> that way that they can 'avoid" the trap mommy sets up for them
> by developing CONSCIOUSNESS. That is the ONLY WAY.
> CONSCIOUSNESS entails developing AWARENESS of the OBJECTIVE
> LAWS AND TRUTHS of the UNIVERSE. And that is WHY you have
> those *awful, awful* yang males who set up religions.
> That is WHY communities were founded. TO FOSTER CONSCIOUSNESS.
>
> Your actions foster bleating blathering idiocy.
>
> They DENY the human ACCESS to OBJECTIVE REALITY.
>
> This amounts to MURDER.
>
> There is no THREE opinions, not even TWO about it.
>
> Oh and by the way babycheeks, the original MALE YANG
> LEADERS were of the FEMALE GENDER.
>
>
>
> > So - an individual's (premature) death represents a failure of the
group.
>
> Babycheeks you know NOTHINg about death besides infantile fantasies,
> delusions, and drivel. You in fact CAUSE premature death with your
> behavior.
>
>
> > Waving around DEATH is confronting a group with the possibility of its
failure.
>
> Bleat, bleat. Good to know. Thanks for admitting to being
> a death obsessed freak. Funny how when WE_ introduced death you accused
> us of being "death obsessed". Your hypocrisy is neverending.
>
> Secondly. DEATH is "introduced" PROPERLY by those who know how to.
> You're simply USING death to INCITE FEAR (possibility of its failure).
> The CORRECT (and there is CORRECT) introduction of death does
> the OPPOSITE. It pushes humans to act self-responsibly, trim idiocies
> out of their lives and quit fearing failure.
>
> Because actual_ awareness_ of death causes the human to act WITHOUT
> MISTAKES (be always right) (and that doesn't mean right over others)
> (we are perfectly capable and have stared so of existing among
> an infinite number of self-autonomous, 1001% always.right, AUTHORITIES)
> (and that's in fact what awaits humans after death). And because
> out there (after earth) there is no time for mistakes.
> Surely it is no sin for humans to make mistakes in the materia,
> but the "idea" is to evolve to a state in which you act
> in AWARENESS AND ACCORDANCE with natural laws.
>
> YOU want to keep humans always on the level of "opinionating"
> "pointing of view' infantilism and obsessed with their brains.
> Give it up. Open your window. It's a a vast intelligent universe.
> Doesn't give a shit about your penis or your brain. Neither
> are going to be of any use to you, nor will your emotions.
>
> Art is a result of communities, of that process for
> striving for consciousness. It's not a biz. It's
> not about your brain or your emotions. Nobody cares.
>
>
>
>
> > The "liberal left" considers its
> > group to be much broader than the "conservative right",
>
> There ain't no lefta nd right here babycheeks.
> We arwe not political. We are not business.
>
> > and the DEATH of 'innocents'
>
> The only innocents babycheeks are ENERGETIC YANG MALES.
> All others are in breach of universal laws :>
> Nevertheless, you won't find us trying to murder anyone
> for "causing problems" even though they DO.
>
> The only one involved in death of innocents is Y O U.
>
> > on either side of conflict are seen as a failure of the "liberal
> > left" group, while the "conservative right" view it as necessary to
protect
> > the survival of members of its narrowly defined group.
>
> Ooo. That was SO MEANINGFUL.
>
> Too bad it's ignorant infantile meaningless burble.
>
>

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with someone
> else's position.

Of course it is. After all, could you admit that you are WRONG?
That possibly all "positions" are delusions of the ego?
That maybe there is something else? Maybe like 93484787
individualities which are not "just opinions" are "self-authorities"
and perfectly capable of co-existing without debasing each other to
"mere opinions."

Could you capitulate that? No.

You couldn't. Because you're so entangled in CONTENDING
you're probably going to spit another mass of "metaphorical"
'drivel" or "YANG MALE LEADER" boogey man drivel,
or something or other about how all religious leaders suck
(like you've ever met any, been near any, havea clue what they do?)

Instead you're going to go "building Constructs".
Building rules. Building bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat "communities."
You're going to erect huge dictatorial edificies.
You want a statue on the market square for "saving humanity"?
Constructing more and more delusions and enforcing them in
materia to keep the "weak" down.

That's nice. They all live long, bleat long, and produce lotsa energy
for unconscious vampiric yin "constructs" as yourself.

Bleat. If humans want to be "seductively" and "charmingly"
"optimistically" and "collaboratively" fucked in the arse
we suggesssst Hollywood. Or the pornographic industry.
Or Britney Spears.

And it's one thing to make mistakes in public
as an artist, another to have an idiotic, not-even-a grunt-
idiot who hasn't done an ounce of WORK on himself
parading about attempting to play AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS
which is what you're trying to PLAY babycheeks.

We can't wait till you starta ttempting to peddle your "business"
and "rules" for the "good of humanity".

No wait, you're doing that.

And of course you wouldn't like the idea of an OBJECTIVE TRUTH
would ya? Cuz if all is RELATIVe, the biggest "brain-muscle"
idiot can brutalize all the others.

Guess what babycheeks. Reality aint relative. Aint subjective.
Aint a point of view. And objectively_ you are not capable of
perceiving ANYTHING about ANYBODY besides yourself.

Not until you deal or start dealing with your ego, you cannot.
It's not an opinion, and it's not a position.

It's a FACT just like it's a FACT that you have two arms.
You ain't a mountain dearest, abnd you do have two arms.

So far all of your "dialogue" is an attempt to
enforce your ego. Objectively "dialogue" is
dictatorial and fascist. "Mutual" "linguistic" arrangements"
are one brain impeding on another body.

And in your case you're spastic and idiotic and completely
ego driven.


> However, it is much more constructive to understand the
> objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a mutually
> beneficial outcome.

No such thing babycheeks. The only BENEFICIAL outcome has already been
constructed. It's called Universal laws.
Everything else breaks humans and destroys their chances of
surviving death.

You personally are kaput.

Shove your "rules" and your "community".

> Nobody has insulted you babycheeks. The reality of what you are is
> simply not our responsibility. If you don't like it, change it.
> Be creative.

You are always insulting people on this list - & you are talking nonsense;
as usual. Pretentious verbalizations for effect, but sharing no essense as
usual…

marc


> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Two people can engage in a dialog at which they just throw insults at
each
> > other
>
> Nobody has insulted you babycheeks. The reality of what you are is
> simply not our responsibility. If you don't like it, change it.
> Be creative.
>
> > an insist upon the "truth" of their position (such as you do),
>
> No dearest. We do not. Keeo your dictatorial impulses
> to yourself. The only one "insisting" on the "truth" of their
> position is YOU. You are attempting to DICTATE your
> wishful projection of what our behavior is as the TRUTH.
>
> We are not speaking of "our position".
> We do not have "opinions" We do not have "points of view".
> There is_ truth. It ain't all relative.
>
> And try and imagine, and chew, and swallow on this:
> There is OBJECTIVE TRUTH (even if you don't get
> what it is) and it is ACCESSIBLE.
>
>
> > or they can engage in a dialog
>
> No dearest. the nature of dialogue is destructive.
> Your inability to UNDERSTAND the above as a FACT is your own ILLITERACY.
>
> > in which they realize they have opposing positions,
>
> We do not have a "position".
> We are not speaking ftom a "point of view".
> What we say and what you drivel is NOT EQUAL.
> What's more, we are not even trying to force
> truth on you: we have indicated that you're unable
> to converse and we desire no contact with you.
>
> If you want to look at a dictatorial "right' ape
> look at yourself. The entireity of your "dialogue"
> has been attempts to FORCE YOUR OPINION that what WE
> DO is a RELATIVE OPINION.
>
> Guess what babycheeks. It is NOT.
>
> > are willing to discuss alternatives that might bring about mutually
acceptable
> > outcomes.
>
> There ain't nothing MUTUAL babycheeks.
> You are not WANTED. There is no compromise in
> which your delusions are somehow VALID.
>
>
> > In business parlance, this is called win-win negotiating.
>
> And in REALITY parlance it's called two sheep fucking each other
> in the arse. This is not busuness.
>
>
> >From my
> > observations of you, you either "win" or run away.
>
> No babycheeks. You are not cabapble of OBSERVING anything besides your
> own ego. We neither "win" nor "run away".
>
> Keep your wisful projections to yourself.
>
> And if you want to see one RUNNING AWAY, look at yourself.
>
> Every time you're demonstrate an infantile idiot
> you respind with infantile "creative" meaninglessness.
>
>
> Tell us again how the basic universal truth if buddhism are
> just like your christian aunt polly?
>
> But would you admit being wrong? No.
>
> That ain't the only example.
>
> You are NOT a shaman. You attempt to dress yourself as one
> in order to explit it. It's a FACT.
>
> You're self-destructive, ignorant and irresponsible.
>
> It's a FACT.
>
> This is NOt a compromisable situation.
>
> There is no "negotiation".
>
> As long as you stick your nose in our face you will be treated
> as WHAT YOU ARE.
>
> You were givena chance, very politely, to go away.
>
> > Worldview - the mental construct that people use to understand and
participate
> > in their environment, usually encompassing as much of the world of which
they
> > are aware.
>
> Meaningless drivel. The above is NONSENSE.
>
> > Any world view is incomplete as no person has a complete awareness
> > of the world.
>
> Absolute DRIVEL. You do not have any knowledge of awareness.
>
> > Thus, recognizing and accepting/participating with other world
> > views creates a more complete construct…this is GOOD.
>
> There is NO THUS. You peddled a delusion as a fact and "thus"..
>
> > Forcing everybody to accept your personal worldview is BAD
>
> We are not FORCINg anyone to accept anything baycheeks. YOU ARE.
> It is YOUR PERSONAL WORLDVIEW that WORLDVIEWS EXIST. Bleat.
> They don't.
>
> We are NOT presenting a personal worldview. Wea re IMPERSONAL.
> Nor are we FORCING IT ON ANYONE.
>
> Funny how what we do will either be relegated to YOUR game (it's an
> opinion) (that is it falls) or it will be false (it falls).
> We suppose that's win-win. Heads I win, tails you lose.
> Dictatorial brain obsessed ape.
>
> > - it creates a less complete construct.
>
> No it doesn't. There are no constructs.
> Reality is nota CONSTRUCT. Blind idiot.
>
> > So we should all march and jump off a cliff?
>
> That is entirely up to you. You are already ALL marching towards a
> cliff. BLINDLY. And that'sa FACT.
>
>
>
> > The reason we get togethor in little groups
>
> Burble burble. There is no "reason". You're not capable of reason.
>
> > is help each other survive as long as possible.
>
> Yes that's exactly the "reason" to get together in little groups.
>
> A healthy singular individual in a healthy environment
> condition is capable of surviving on its own quite nicely.
>
> Animalistic survival instincts produce HERDS.
> Communities are based on other things.
> Communities are based on CONSCIOUSNESS.
>
> > Then rules develop to help the groups exist.
>
> No they don't, idiotic dictatorial ape.
>
> There are only one "set of rules" : those of Reality.
> And hence you have MALE YANG LEADERS who can perceive
> Reality and create LAWS which REFLECT Reality.
>
> And a properly functioning community is one
> in which you have proper leaders.
>
> And if you want to see why humanity is in a shithole
> it is because all proper MALE (energetic config, not gender)
> are *leaving*–that is why you have breakdown of religious
> lines, monarchies etc. Instead you have increased
> MECHANICAL DICTATORIAL BRAIN DRIVEN FORCE, which expresses
> itself in technology.
>
> That is why you have schizophrenia, and alzheimer's and AIDS
> and all sorts of idiocy, among which the push to keep
> each human UNINITED and FFRAGMENTED (yin imbalanced).
> How's that candy bar by the way? Your "optimistic"
> "yin" is ignorant junkie shite. All is fine "bleat".
> Allow us to be crass and tell you one thing: mommy nature
> does not luv you. She raises you like animalz.
> And she slaughters you when she wants your skin. Bleeeat.
>
> And no "little groups" are gonna help you "survive"
> if she wants you dead. Humans of course are damn nice
> that way that they can 'avoid" the trap mommy sets up for them
> by developing CONSCIOUSNESS. That is the ONLY WAY.
> CONSCIOUSNESS entails developing AWARENESS of the OBJECTIVE
> LAWS AND TRUTHS of the UNIVERSE. And that is WHY you have
> those *awful, awful* yang males who set up religions.
> That is WHY communities were founded. TO FOSTER CONSCIOUSNESS.
>
> Your actions foster bleating blathering idiocy.
>
> They DENY the human ACCESS to OBJECTIVE REALITY.
>
> This amounts to MURDER.
>
> There is no THREE opinions, not even TWO about it.
>
> Oh and by the way babycheeks, the original MALE YANG
> LEADERS were of the FEMALE GENDER.
>
>
>
> > So - an individual's (premature) death represents a failure of the
group.
>
> Babycheeks you know NOTHINg about death besides infantile fantasies,
> delusions, and drivel. You in fact CAUSE premature death with your
> behavior.
>
>
> > Waving around DEATH is confronting a group with the possibility of its
failure.
>
> Bleat, bleat. Good to know. Thanks for admitting to being
> a death obsessed freak. Funny how when WE_ introduced death you accused
> us of being "death obsessed". Your hypocrisy is neverending.
>
> Secondly. DEATH is "introduced" PROPERLY by those who know how to.
> You're simply USING death to INCITE FEAR (possibility of its failure).
> The CORRECT (and there is CORRECT) introduction of death does
> the OPPOSITE. It pushes humans to act self-responsibly, trim idiocies
> out of their lives and quit fearing failure.
>
> Because actual_ awareness_ of death causes the human to act WITHOUT
> MISTAKES (be always right) (and that doesn't mean right over others)
> (we are perfectly capable and have stared so of existing among
> an infinite number of self-autonomous, 1001% always.right, AUTHORITIES)
> (and that's in fact what awaits humans after death). And because
> out there (after earth) there is no time for mistakes.
> Surely it is no sin for humans to make mistakes in the materia,
> but the "idea" is to evolve to a state in which you act
> in AWARENESS AND ACCORDANCE with natural laws.
>
> YOU want to keep humans always on the level of "opinionating"
> "pointing of view' infantilism and obsessed with their brains.
> Give it up. Open your window. It's a a vast intelligent universe.
> Doesn't give a shit about your penis or your brain. Neither
> are going to be of any use to you, nor will your emotions.
>
> Art is a result of communities, of that process for
> striving for consciousness. It's not a biz. It's
> not about your brain or your emotions. Nobody cares.
>
>
>
>
> > The "liberal left" considers its
> > group to be much broader than the "conservative right",
>
> There ain't no lefta nd right here babycheeks.
> We arwe not political. We are not business.
>
> > and the DEATH of 'innocents'
>
> The only innocents babycheeks are ENERGETIC YANG MALES.
> All others are in breach of universal laws :>
> Nevertheless, you won't find us trying to murder anyone
> for "causing problems" even though they DO.
>
> The only one involved in death of innocents is Y O U.
>
> > on either side of conflict are seen as a failure of the "liberal
> > left" group, while the "conservative right" view it as necessary to
protect
> > the survival of members of its narrowly defined group.
>
> Ooo. That was SO MEANINGFUL.
>
> Too bad it's ignorant infantile meaningless burble.
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, marc.garrett wrote:

> It's soulless and you know it…

Aie! Soul-less! Hey look, it's a preacher.
An expert on souls!

Let us see:

1. country bumpkin
2. attempting to trigger humans cheaply on emotional levels
3. tossing about kitsch religiosity
4. a penchant for charismatic leaders

Wow. You don't have a thing for Hitler by any chance, do you?

> tiz true - excitement happens - but death is a good reason for such emotion,
> don't you think?

Sure is. The ape loves spastic masturbation.

Halleluja!

Does NN have a monopoly on selling cheap Russian Icons?

Or is it ok to start a good business selling such?

Together with some alchy to soothe the soul? Ach!

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> Aie! Soul-less! Hey look, it's a preacher.
> An expert on souls!

I would accept marc's position on souls before yours. Your ridicule
demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]





Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, marc.garrett wrote:
>
> > It's soulless and you know it…
>
> Aie! Soul-less! Hey look, it's a preacher.
> An expert on souls!
>
> Let us see:
>
> 1. country bumpkin
> 2. attempting to trigger humans cheaply on emotional levels
> 3. tossing about kitsch religiosity
> 4. a penchant for charismatic leaders
>
> Wow. You don't have a thing for Hitler by any chance, do you?
>
> > tiz true - excitement happens - but death is a good reason for such
> emotion,
> > don't you think?
>
> Sure is. The ape loves spastic masturbation.
>
> Halleluja!
>
> Does NN have a monopoly on selling cheap Russian Icons?
>
> Or is it ok to start a good business selling such?
>
> Together with some alchy to soothe the soul? Ach!

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, marc.garrett wrote:

> tiz true - but you are not worthy of it

Oh but we are love.
And you are not qualified to judge it.

> & do not know it

Oh but we DO babycheeks. WE DO.

>& that is also true…

No babycheeks. You're not capable of perceiving objective truth.
Not until you deal with your delusions.

No amount of "tis true, pseudo-poetical posturing"
and frothing at the mouth will make it true.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, marc.garrett wrote:

> erect huge dictatorial edificies - that seems like your ego(s).

No it doesn't babycheeks. We have no ego.
And no matter how much you froth at the mouth and project
we won't get one.

Nor are you caoable of judging this before you get rid of yoour own.
With regards to me–or others.

A master poet you are not.. 'tis true… idiot ape.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, marc.garrett wrote:

> You are always insulting people on this list

No babycheeks. We haven't insulted anyone :)

> - & you are talking nonsense;

No babycheeks. What we are talking is very clear, very accurate,
and very precise. Your illiteracy is your own problem, though
in this case it's murder driven willfully blind frenzy.

> as usual. Pretentious verbalizations for effect,

There is not an ounce of pretentiousness in our words babycheeks.
Nor do we care for "effects". Keep your wishful projections
to yourself. And you, babycheeks, are not capable of perceiving
anything outside yourself. Bzzt.

> but sharing no essense as usual…

That's right. Break your teeth, babycheeks.
Essence is not to be "shared".
It is to be cultivated.

You are given your own essence.
You don't need to feed on anyone else's.

We are sorry if you find the lack of
ability to feed "frustrating"
but that is your problem.

Psst. If you knew anything about "truth"
you'd have no problem with our words.. ahh :)

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> I would accept marc's position on souls before yours.

But of course. After all he sniffs your arse.
And vice versa. marc garret is an initiate,
an enlightened being.

> Your ridicule

We are not ridiculing anyone.

> demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.

There is no "weakness" in us babycheeks.
Nor is therea ny "weakness in our arguments"

We are NOT ARGUING.

ARGUING isa DELUSIONAl activity of the infantile brain-obsessed ape
who actually fancies that arguing is a meaningful acttivity,
cantouch reality and in fact can be "weak"or "strong".

Bleat. said Joseph the ape.
Hell hath no fury like a narcissusa rejected.

:))

erect huge dictatorial edificies - that seems like your ego(s).

marc




> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with
someone
> > else's position.
>
> Of course it is. After all, could you admit that you are WRONG?
> That possibly all "positions" are delusions of the ego?
> That maybe there is something else? Maybe like 93484787
> individualities which are not "just opinions" are "self-authorities"
> and perfectly capable of co-existing without debasing each other to
> "mere opinions."
>
> Could you capitulate that? No.
>
> You couldn't. Because you're so entangled in CONTENDING
> you're probably going to spit another mass of "metaphorical"
> 'drivel" or "YANG MALE LEADER" boogey man drivel,
> or something or other about how all religious leaders suck
> (like you've ever met any, been near any, havea clue what they do?)
>
> Instead you're going to go "building Constructs".
> Building rules. Building bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat "communities."
> You're going to erect huge dictatorial edificies.
> You want a statue on the market square for "saving humanity"?
> Constructing more and more delusions and enforcing them in
> materia to keep the "weak" down.
>
> That's nice. They all live long, bleat long, and produce lotsa energy
> for unconscious vampiric yin "constructs" as yourself.
>
> Bleat. If humans want to be "seductively" and "charmingly"
> "optimistically" and "collaboratively" fucked in the arse
> we suggesssst Hollywood. Or the pornographic industry.
> Or Britney Spears.
>
> And it's one thing to make mistakes in public
> as an artist, another to have an idiotic, not-even-a grunt-
> idiot who hasn't done an ounce of WORK on himself
> parading about attempting to play AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS
> which is what you're trying to PLAY babycheeks.
>
> We can't wait till you starta ttempting to peddle your "business"
> and "rules" for the "good of humanity".
>
> No wait, you're doing that.
>
> And of course you wouldn't like the idea of an OBJECTIVE TRUTH
> would ya? Cuz if all is RELATIVe, the biggest "brain-muscle"
> idiot can brutalize all the others.
>
> Guess what babycheeks. Reality aint relative. Aint subjective.
> Aint a point of view. And objectively_ you are not capable of
> perceiving ANYTHING about ANYBODY besides yourself.
>
> Not until you deal or start dealing with your ego, you cannot.
> It's not an opinion, and it's not a position.
>
> It's a FACT just like it's a FACT that you have two arms.
> You ain't a mountain dearest, abnd you do have two arms.
>
> So far all of your "dialogue" is an attempt to
> enforce your ego. Objectively "dialogue" is
> dictatorial and fascist. "Mutual" "linguistic" arrangements"
> are one brain impeding on another body.
>
> And in your case you're spastic and idiotic and completely
> ego driven.
>
>
> > However, it is much more constructive to understand the
> > objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a
mutually
> > beneficial outcome.
>
> No such thing babycheeks. The only BENEFICIAL outcome has already been
> constructed. It's called Universal laws.
> Everything else breaks humans and destroys their chances of
> surviving death.
>
> You personally are kaput.
>
> Shove your "rules" and your "community".
>
>
>

——=_NextPart_001_035E_01C2A88A.BEBCE980
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank
—– Original Message —–
Prove it - er Wally - it's happening before your very eyes.

What's happening? War? Your historian friend has just advised you that =
the bombs are dropping on Bagdad?

It is just that you do not wish to see…
I see sabre-rattling. I see the UK and USA taking out military sites in t=
he no-fly zones, which has been going on for years and years. But, of co=
urse, this is a departure from your initial bloated breathless National Inq=
uirer propaganda-style posturing that you got the scoop on some inside info=
.

end of transmission - bed time.
thanx for your responses, i will think about them.
marc

From: marc.garrett

Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of =
trying to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.
So I see you enlarged your own. Get a clue – I enlarged it just to =
differentiate my response from yours. It is a crock assumption to assert =
that the motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down." You're still whini=
ng aren't you?

Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing


Did I really think that? Get a grip. I made no such assertion. You fe=
ed on assumptions and presumptions – and you're wrong for the most part. Y=
ou are not a very good master of creating strawmen.

No, other systems have to be put in place to create the right climate=
for physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized =
that, that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think=
that you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won y=
ou over. There is something that you are not being honest about.

Prove it – or remove your peurile kangeroo kourt to a more appropoet=
ic forum: listserv; fiction not facts.

stopping people declaring their views will not create a better planet=
to live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic,

I didn't say it at all. I described your initial missive as a breathl=
ess bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloidism. But then again, National=
Inquiorer style is to make up assertions that have no basis in fact – jus=
t as y ou are doing in this exchange.

you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am=
interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth, to d=
o something honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come back=
to haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is si=
mplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a lot oth=
er people as well. Contrary to what the American government & the Uk's are =
government shoving down everyone's throat.
There's other government's also shoving shit down throats – you migh=
t benefit by spreading your cause instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes a=
ll other nations' governments bad. Get real.

It's soulless and you know it…

Much like your breathless bloated National Inquirer-like report.



Hi Wally,
Are you glad that there is a war happening?

A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer =
is NO, I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happen=
ing. When did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make =
out, it is still in the "rattling sabres" stage.

Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…

The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the reco=
rd – I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and brea=
thless propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you as=
serted your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.


"An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloat=
ed hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.

And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be=
published tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an A=
P report of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.=

—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraq=
is

As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about th=
e "editing" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on=
their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The American=
s claim, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making instru=
ctions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in the =
Security Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being excised=
was a record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving WMD cap=
abilities.
Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following=
message on to me:


"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin dail=
y), here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied =
Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1=
991. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Securi=
ty Council.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=
=233
Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, t=
he United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hus=
sein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of=
its nuclear program.

The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is vir=
tually identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, accordi=
ng to U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nucl=
ear know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the name=
s of companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means t=
o make nuclear weapons.

U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the=
only difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page =
section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typefa=
ce that stretches it to 2,100 pages.

That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and s=
ome of them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up t=
o the most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by m=
ore than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies a=
nd a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian fir=
ms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf W=
ar and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, det=
onation, implosion testing and warhead construction.

In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in Septemb=
er 1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of=
recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a compli=
cated extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousa=
nds of connected, high speed centrifuges.

According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of i=
ts former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic iso=
tope separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for=
an atomic explosion.

The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons=
, said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-base=
d think tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components =
or any knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of=
time."

Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Ir=
aq would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers w=
ho sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their=
government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. Acc=
ording to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which=
could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consa=
rc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered,=
however.

Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of o=
ptical fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical eq=
uipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the decl=
aration.

EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplie=
r of a thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipme=
nt. It could not immediately verify the sale of the item.

Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetector=
s, but company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to su=
pport the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current=
portfolio."

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledg=
e of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, li=
censed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential =
military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Ir=
an, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the o=
il-rich Gulf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often=
obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the pro=
ducts' intended use.

"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the futur=
e to go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman=
for the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lo=
t of important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight=
into the real extent of Iraq's programs.

Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted =
to sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no long=
er exist.

"Revealing company names can discourage other companies from =
getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really k=
now the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nu=
clear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.

According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from Germa=
n experts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqi=
s old designs for centrifuges.

Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to =
render technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq =
wrote in its nuclear declaration.

In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of viol=
ating export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working=
with Iraq.

German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq'=
s former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German dail=
y Die Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens =
and Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.

The companies either declined to comment on the report, or sa=
id the deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto pa=
rts from DaimlerChrysler.

Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previo=
us U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. B=
ut reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October ind=
icate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear dev=
elopment. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weap=
ons by 2010.

Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was import=
ing aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush ad=
ministration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uran=
ium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the =
proper size and material.

What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.

Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running sus=
picions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspect=
ors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration s=
uch a disappointment.

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy =
Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1=
996 report and covers "material we already had before."

A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1=
996 declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the Un=
ited Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in su=
bstance.

Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old repor=
ts since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destructi=
on since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contrad=
icted that claim.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,=
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melis=
sa Eddy contributed to this report.




——=_NextPart_001_035E_01C2A88A.BEBCE980
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:035c01c2a8b4$a78e5da0$3ce6fea9@wallyx848tqinf>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Prove it - er Wally - it's happening =
before
your very eyes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><STRONG>What's happening?&nb=
sp; War?
Your historian friend&nbsp; has just advised you that the bombs are dropp=
ing
on Bagdad? </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">It is just that you do not wish to
see…</FONT></DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG>I see sabre-rattling. I see t=
he UK
and USA taking out military sites in the no-fly zones,&nbsp; which&nbsp; =
has
been going on for years and years.&nbsp; But, of course, this is a depart=
ure
from your initial bloated breathless National Inquirer propaganda-style=

posturing that you got the scoop on some inside info. </STRONG></FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><BR>end of transmission - bed
time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">thanx for your responses, i will thin=
k about
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">marc</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A
[email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale=

equivalent of trying to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel
proud.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">So I see you enlarged your own. G=
et a
clue – I enlarged it&nbsp; just to differentiate my&nbsp; response f=
rom
yours.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is a crock assumption&nbsp;to assert that the
motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down."&nbsp;You're still whi=
ning
aren't you?</FONT><BR><STRONG></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Do you really think that war is just about the function =
of
killing? </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Did I really think that? Get a gr=
ip. I
made no such assertion. You feed on assumptions and presumptions – a=
nd
you're wrong for the most part. You are not a very&nbsp; good master =
of
creating strawmen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>No, other systems have to be put in place to create the =
right
climate for physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must=
of
realized that, that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you d=
o, I
also think that you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassio=
n
would of won you over. There is something that you are not being hone=
st
about.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Prove it – or remove your peuril=
e
kangeroo kourt to a more appropoetic forum: listserv; fiction not
facts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>stopping people declaring their views will not create a=

better planet to live on, stopping killing people might do. You say i=
t is
simplistic, </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I didn't say it at all. I describ=
ed your
initial missive as a breathless bloated clone of National Inquirer
tabloidism. But then again, National Inquiorer style is to make up
assertions that have no basis in fact – just as y ou are doing in th=
is
exchange.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong=

words); I am interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy&nbsp;=
ball
called earth, to do something honorable for a change. And stop fundin=
g
despots that come back to haunt them and the civilians of this world=

(don't you?), now that is simplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sou=
nds
screwy to me, and to a lot other people as well. Contrary to what&nbs=
p;the
American government &amp; the Uk's are&nbsp;government shoving
down&nbsp;everyone's throat.</STRONG></DIV><STRONG></STRONG></BLOCKQU=
OTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">There's other government's also s=
hoving
shit&nbsp;down throats – you might benefit by spreading your cause=

instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes all other nations' government=
s
bad. Get real.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><BR>It's soulless and you know it…<BR></STRONG><BR><FO=
NT
face="Times New Roman">Much like your breathless bloated National=

Inquirer-like report.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BOR=
DER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; B=
ORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Hi Wally,</DIV>
<DIV>Are you glad that there is a war happening? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><EM><STRONG>A ludicr=
ous
question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO, I am =
not
glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening. W=
hen
did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can&nbsp; =
make
out, it is still in the "rattling sabres" stage.
</STRONG></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp=
;</DIV>
<DIV>Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><STRONG><EM>The matt=
er was
not about justifying death. (And just for the record – I am agai=
nst
capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless
propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you=

asserted your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid=

tactics.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;=
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">"An editing job for the
ages…"&nbsp; What a fantastic bit of bloated hyperbole – mak=
es
for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And, wow, a historian frien=
d who
breathlessly&nbsp;claims it will be published tomorrow – but f=
or
those who can hardly wait, I reproduce&nbsp; an AP report of
December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.=

</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5p=
x; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– =
</DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: b=
lack"><B>From:</B>
<A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]">marc.garrett</A=
>
</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>An editing job for the ages: corporations that a=
ided
the Iraqis</STRONG><BR><BR>As a professional editor, I was
particularly curious about the "editing" the administration w=
as
doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on their weapons of mas=
s
destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans claim, =
of
course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making
instructions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-=
veto
nations in the Security Council. Others have suggested that p=
art
of what was being excised was a record of the corporations th=
at
once aided Iraq in achieving WMD capabilities. </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the follow=
ing
message on to me: </P>
<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung
(Berlin daily), here is a list of US and European corporati=
ons
that allegedly supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biolog=
ical,
and missile technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it s=
eems,
from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council. <BR=
><A
href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mh=
tml?pid=233">http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=
=233</A></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<H3>Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program</H3>
<P>By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
<P><BLOCK><!– STRY: –><A
href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/images/12-17-2002/=
dv103121711.html"></A>&nbsp;UNITED
NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, <STRONG>most in
Europe</STRONG>, the United States and Japan, provided the
components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an ato=
mic
bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nuclear
program.</P>
<P>The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is=

virtually identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors o=
n
Dec. 7, according to U.N. officials. The reports have not bee=
n
made public to prevent nuclear know-how from falling into the=

wrong hands and <STRONG>also to protect the names of companie=
s
that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq</STRONG> with the=

means to make nuclear weapons.</P>
<P>U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said =
the
only difference between the two reports is that the latest ha=
s a
300-page section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a=

slightly larger typeface that stretches it to 2,100 pages.</P>
<P>That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, an=
d
some of them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accou=
nting
adds up to the most exhaustive list so far of companies
involved.</P>
<P>Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made b=
y
more than <STRONG>30 German companies</STRONG>, 10 American=

companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japan=
ese,
Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more th=
an 30
countries supplied its nuclear program.</P>
<P>It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gul=
f War
and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium
enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and warhead
construction.</P>
<P>In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in Sept=
ember
1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the
enrichment of recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifug=
es.
The process is a complicated extraction and purification meth=
od
that at full scale requires thousands of connected, high spee=
d
centrifuges.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting o=
f its
former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing
electromagnetic isotope separation as another method to enric=
h
uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic explosion.</P>
<P>The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weap=
ons,
said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a
Washington-based think tank on nuclear arms control. "They we=
ren't
missing any components or any knowledge," he said in a phone=

interview. "It was simply a matter of time."</P>
<P>Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War,=
Iraq
would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of=

suppliers who sold it an impressive array of equipment and
expertise, often with their government's approval and without=

being aware of the ultimate purpose. According to the Iraqi=

accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could=
be
used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from=

Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items we=
re
never delivered, however.</P>
<P>Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier o=
f
optical fiber, a product with uses ranging from communication=
s to
medical equipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the =
model
listed in the declaration.</P>
<P>EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supp=
lier
of a thyratron, which the company says is used in medical ima=
ging
equipment. It could not immediately verify the sale of the
item.</P>
<P>Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetec=
tors,
but company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no r=
ecord
to support the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of=

Motorola's current portfolio."</P>
<P>Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowl=
edge
of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for=

example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American=

technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then gettin=
g
Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time w=
as
regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf=

region.</P>
<P>But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq of=
ten
obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies =
about
the products' intended use.</P>
<P>"It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the fu=
ture
to go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchana=
n,
spokesman for the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi
declaration provides a lot of important information, the comp=
anies
can often give inspectors insight into the real extent of Ira=
q's
programs.</P>
<P>Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitt=
ed to
sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Seve=
ral
no longer exist.</P>
<P>"Revealing company names can discourage other companies fr=
om
getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you =
don't
really know the true end-use of your products," said David
Albright, an American nuclear expert and a weapons inspector =
in
1996.</P>
<P>According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from Ge=
rman
experts and companies, in particular H&amp;H Metallform, whic=
h
sold the Iraqis old designs for centrifuges.</P>
<P>Cooperation with H&amp;H "was fruitful and it was called u=
pon
to render technical assistance and consultations in various=

activities," Iraq wrote in its nuclear declaration.</P>
<P>In 1993, German courts found two H&amp;H employees guilty =
of
violating export law and sentenced them to over two years in=

prison for working with Iraq.</P>
<P>German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Ir=
aq's
former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the=

German daily Die Tag. The report also said companies such as=

DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Preussag sold items to Iraq whic=
h
were diverted to the weapons programs.</P>
<P>The companies either declined to comment on the report, or=
said
the deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks=
or
auto parts from DaimlerChrysler.</P>
<P>Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during pre=
vious
U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing mu=
ch of
it. But reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administra=
tion
in October indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites
previously used for nuclear development. A recent U.S.
intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by
2010.</P>
<P>Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was
importing aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional=

weapons. The Bush administration said the tubes could be used=
to
construct centrifuges for uranium enrichment. But nuclear exp=
erts
differ on whether the tubes are of the proper size and
material.</P>
<P>What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start
again.</P>
<P>Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running=

suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program e=
ven
while inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what mak=
es
the latest declaration such a disappointment.</P>
<P>Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Ener=
gy
Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a r=
ehash
of the 1996 report and covers "material we already had
before."</P>
<P>A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from th=
e
1996 declaration and the 2002 version which was released last=
week
by the United Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in
translation, but not in substance.</P>
<P>Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old re=
ports
since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mas=
s
destruction since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything=
new
would have contradicted that claim.</P>
<P>—</P>
<P>EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crens=
on,
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt
correspondent Melissa Eddy contributed to this report.</P></F=
ONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUO=
TE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>=
</HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_035E_01C2A88A.BEBCE980–

while marc's original post was a little on the excited side (I had read this
information before), his point is valid that the US government/press either
through plan or accident (what sells?) edit much information that should be
available to the US public. It seems convenient that the info lost often would
be unattractive to the Bush agenda. I sit here hearing the same argument on
NPR as I write.

Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more determined to
quash opposing viewpoints than in constructive dialog. Multiple worldviews are
GOOD and impossible to quash without a lot of death happening.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]





Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:

> Blank
> From: marc.garrett
>
> Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of trying
> to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.
> So I see you enlarged your own. Get a clue – I enlarged it just to
> differentiate my response from yours. It is a crock assumption to assert
> that the motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down." You're still whining
> aren't you?
>
> Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing?
>
> Did I really think that? Get a grip. I made no such assertion. You feed on
> assumptions and presumptions – and you're wrong for the most part. You are
> not a very good master of creating strawmen.
>
> No, other systems have to be put in place to create the right climate for
> physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized that,
> that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think that
> you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won you over.
> There is something that you are not being honest about.
>
> Prove it – or remove your peurile kangeroo kourt to a more appropoetic
> forum: listserv; fiction not facts.
>
> stopping people declaring their views will not create a better planet to
> live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic,
>
> I didn't say it at all. I described your initial missive as a breathless
> bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloidism. But then again, National
> Inquiorer style is to make up assertions that have no basis in fact – just
> as y ou are doing in this exchange.
>
> you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am
> interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth, to do
> something honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come back to
> haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is
> simplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a lot
> other people as well. Contrary to what the American government & the Uk's are
> government shoving down everyone's throat.
> There's other government's also shoving shit down throats – you might
> benefit by spreading your cause instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes all
> other nations' governments bad. Get real.
>
> It's soulless and you know it…
>
> Much like your breathless bloated National Inquirer-like report.
>
>
>
> Hi Wally,
> Are you glad that there is a war happening?
>
> A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer is NO,
> I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening. When
> did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make out, it is
> still in the "rattling sabres" stage.
>
> Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…
>
> The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the record –
> I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and breathless
> propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you asserted
> your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.
>
>
> "An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of bloated
> hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.
>
> And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be
> published tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an AP
> report of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story line.
> —– Original Message —–
> From: marc.garrett
> An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the Iraqis
>
> As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the
> "editing" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report on
> their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The Americans
> claim, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making
> instructions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto nations in
> the Security Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being
> excised was a record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in achieving
> WMD capabilities.
> Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following
> message on to me:
>
>
> "To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily),
> here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq
> with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991.
> The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security
> Council.
> http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid#3
> Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
> By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
>
> UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the
> United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein
> needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its
> nuclear program.
>
> The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually
> identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to
> U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear
> know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of
> companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to make
> nuclear weapons.
>
> U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only
> difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page section
> in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface that
> stretches it to 2,100 pages.
>
> That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of
> them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the
> most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.
>
> Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more
> than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a
> handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It
> says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.
>
> It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and
> contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation,
> implosion testing and warhead construction.
>
> In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September
> 1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of
> recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a
> complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale requires
> thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges.
>
> According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its
> former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope
> separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an
> atomic explosion.
>
> The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said
> Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think
> tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any
> knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time."
>
> Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq
> would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who
> sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their
> government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose.
> According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces,
> which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from
> Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never
> delivered, however.
>
> Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical
> fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipment.
> But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaration.
>
> EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a
> thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. It
> could not immediately verify the sale of the item.
>
> Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but
> company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support the
> claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portfolio."
>
> Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of
> governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed
> $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military
> uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which
> at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf
> region.
>
> But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often
> obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the
> products' intended use.
>
> "It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to
> go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for
> the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of
> important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into
> the real extent of Iraq's programs.
>
> Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to
> sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer
> exist.
>
> "Revealing company names can discourage other companies from
> getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really
> know the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American
> nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.
>
> According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German
> experts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis
> old designs for centrifuges.
>
> Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to render
> technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote in
> its nuclear declaration.
>
> In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of violating
> export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working with
> Iraq.
>
> German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's
> former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily
> Die Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and
> Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.
>
> The companies either declined to comment on the report, or said the
> deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts from
> DaimlerChrysler.
>
> Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous
> U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But
> reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicate
> the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear
> development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear
> weapons by 2010.
>
> Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing
> aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush
> administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for
> uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of
> the proper size and material.
>
> What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.
>
> Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running
> suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while
> inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest
> declaration such a disappointment.
>
> Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy
> Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the
> 1996 report and covers "material we already had before."
>
> A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996
> declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United
> Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in
> substance.
>
> Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports
> since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction
> since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted
> that claim.
>
> —
>
> EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,
> investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa
> Eddy contributed to this report.

> while marc's original post was a little on the excited side (I had read
this
> information before), his point is valid that the US government/press
either
> through plan or accident (what sells?) edit much information that should
be
> available to the US public.

I have absolutely no disagreement that more information should be available
to the US public. I would go further. I would ensure that it should be
available to the entire public of Earth, in all major languages, and also
include the names and addresses of non-Western collaborators as well.
Likewise, how much information does everyone have concerning the information
published in the press of the Middle East on a daily b asis, what is taught
in the schools there. During the 1980's I used to travel in and out of the
Warsaw Pact countries, to deliver and receive information from peace
activists who suffered oppression under their respective communist
dictatorshits far in excess of what Western peace activists whine about
concerning themselves in the West. The saddest p art was that there should h
ave been a great alliance between these two groups of peace activists, but
there wasn't. The Western peace activists, with a proportionally small
exception, couldn;t bring themselves to be overtly critical of the communist
dictatorshits for fear of appearing to take sides. Simply dumb.

Incidently, it appears that I am the ONLY dissident voice in this forum on
this topic, and if there is any desire to quash opposing viewpoints in this
forum. it is not cominmg from me.

And marc's original post was more than a little excited.

> It seems convenient that the info lost often would
> be unattractive to the Bush agenda. I sit here hearing the same argument
on
> NPR as I write.
>
> Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more
determined to
> quash opposing viewpoints

Absolutely NOT. This is simply imaginary on your part. I certainly respond
to viewpoints, and my comments are critical of those particular viewpoints.
I also consider it constructive to point out that the emporer has no
clothes. That includes the dissident pointing out that Mugabe has no
clothes, that Bush has his fly open, that peace activist hurt their own
cause. That i s constructive.

> than in constructive dialog. Multiple worldviews are
> GOOD and impossible to quash without a lot of death happening.
>
>
> joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:
>
> > Blank
> > From: marc.garrett
> >
> > Thanks for enlarging the text (extra big) to the scale equivalent of
trying
> > to shout genuine dissent down - you can feel proud.
> > So I see you enlarged your own. Get a clue – I enlarged it just to
> > differentiate my response from yours. It is a crock assumption to
assert
> > that the motivation was to "shout genuine dissent down." You're still
whining
> > aren't you?
> >
> > Do you really think that war is just about the function of killing?
> >
> > Did I really think that? Get a grip. I made no such assertion. You
feed on
> > assumptions and presumptions – and you're wrong for the most part. You
are
> > not a very good master of creating strawmen.
> >
> > No, other systems have to be put in place to create the right climate
for
> > physical action, an invasion of another culture. You must of realized
that,
> > that process started before 9-11 surely. I think you do, I also think
that
> > you do not care (personally) …if you did, compassion would of won you
over.
> > There is something that you are not being honest about.
> >
> > Prove it – or remove your peurile kangeroo kourt to a more
appropoetic
> > forum: listserv; fiction not facts.
> >
> > stopping people declaring their views will not create a better planet
to
> > live on, stopping killing people might do. You say it is simplistic,
> >
> > I didn't say it at all. I described your initial missive as a
breathless
> > bloated clone of National Inquirer tabloidism. But then again, National
> > Inquiorer style is to make up assertions that have no basis in fact –
just
> > as y ou are doing in this exchange.
> >
> > you are very wrong. It is obvious, not simplistic (wrong words); I am
> > interested in the governments of this shaky, muddy ball called earth, to
do
> > something honorable for a change. And stop funding despots that come
back to
> > haunt them and the civilians of this world (don't you?), now that is
> > simplistic, basic in fact, even stupid, sounds screwy to me, and to a
lot
> > other people as well. Contrary to what the American government & the
Uk's are
> > government shoving down everyone's throat.
> > There's other government's also shoving shit down throats – you might
> > benefit by spreading your cause instead of the dime-a-dozen US-UK makes
all
> > other nations' governments bad. Get real.
> >
> > It's soulless and you know it…
> >
> > Much like your breathless bloated National Inquirer-like report.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Wally,
> > Are you glad that there is a war happening?
> >
> > A ludicrous question, all too typical of shallowness. The answer
is NO,
> > I am not glad about it. In any event, I am unaware that it is happening.
When
> > did it start? I just checked the news, and as far as I can make out, it
is
> > still in the "rattling sabres" stage.
> >
> > Cuz death is what's going to happen, justify that…
> >
> > The matter was not about justifying death. (And just for the
record –
> > I am against capital punishment) The matter was your bloated and
breathless
> > propaganda. You might get better results for your concerns if you
asserted
> > your case without resorting to National Inquirer tabloid tactics.
> >
> >
> > "An editing job for the ages…" What a fantastic bit of
bloated
> > hyperbole – makes for great National Inquirer tabloid propaganda.
> >
> > And, wow, a historian friend who breathlessly claims it will be
> > published tomorrow – but for those who can hardly wait, I reproduce an
AP
> > report of December 18 last which reports the issue as a known story
line.
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: marc.garrett
> > An editing job for the ages: corporations that aided the
Iraqis
> >
> > As a professional editor, I was particularly curious about the
> > "editing" the administration was doing on the 12,000 page Iraqi report
on
> > their weapons of mass destruction. Rumors have been swirling. The
Americans
> > claim, of course, that they were vetting the report for WMD-making
> > instructions before passing it on to the roiling mass of non-veto
nations in
> > the Security Council. Others have suggested that part of what was being
> > excised was a record of the corporations that once aided Iraq in
achieving
> > WMD capabilities.
> > Now, a historian friend whom I trust has passed the following
> > message on to me:
> >
> >
> > "To be reported in tomorrow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin
daily),
> > here is a list of US and European corporations that allegedly supplied
Iraq
> > with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to
1991.
> > The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security
> > Council.
> >
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid#3
> > Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program
> > By DAFNA LINZER Associated Press Writer
> >
> > UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe,
the
> > United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam
Hussein
> > needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of
its
> > nuclear program.
> >
> > The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is
virtually
> > identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according
to
> > U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear
> > know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names
of
> > companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to
make
> > nuclear weapons.
> >
> > U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the
only
> > difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page
section
> > in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface
that
> > stretches it to 2,100 pages.
> >
> > That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and
some of
> > them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to
the
> > most exhaustive list so far of companies involved.
> >
> > Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by
more
> > than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies
and a
> > handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian
firms. It
> > says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.
> >
> > It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf
War and
> > contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment,
detonation,
> > implosion testing and warhead construction.
> >
> > In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in
September
> > 1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of
> > recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a
> > complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale
requires
> > thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges.
> >
> > According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of
its
> > former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic
isotope
> > separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for
an
> > atomic explosion.
> >
> > The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons,
said
> > Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based
think
> > tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or
any
> > knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of
time."
> >
> > Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War,
Iraq
> > would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers
who
> > sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their
> > government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose.
> > According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces,
> > which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came
from
> > Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never
> > delivered, however.
> >
> > Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of
optical
> > fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical
equipment.
> > But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the
declaration.
> >
> > EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier
of a
> > thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment.
It
> > could not immediately verify the sale of the item.
> >
> > Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast
photodetectors, but
> > company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to
support the
> > claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current
portfolio."
> >
> > Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge
of
> > governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example,
licensed
> > $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential
military
> > uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran,
which
> > at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich
Gulf
> > region.
> >
> > But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often
> > obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the
> > products' intended use.
> >
> > "It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future
to
> > go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman
for
> > the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot
of
> > important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight
into
> > the real extent of Iraq's programs.
> >
> > Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted
to
> > sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no
longer
> > exist.
> >
> > "Revealing company names can discourage other companies from
> > getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't
really
> > know the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an
American
> > nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996.
> >
> > According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German
> > experts and companies, in particular H&H Metallform, which sold the
Iraqis
> > old designs for centrifuges.
> >
> > Cooperation with H&H "was fruitful and it was called upon to
render
> > technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq
wrote in
> > its nuclear declaration.
> >
> > In 1993, German courts found two H&H employees guilty of
violating
> > export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working
with
> > Iraq.
> >
> > German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's
> > former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German
daily
> > Die Tag. The report also said companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Siemens
and
> > Preussag sold items to Iraq which were diverted to the weapons programs.
> >
> > The companies either declined to comment on the report, or
said the
> > deliveries had nothing to do with weapons, such as trucks or auto parts
from
> > DaimlerChrysler.
> >
> > Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during
previous
> > U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it.
But
> > reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October
indicate
> > the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear
> > development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have
nuclear
> > weapons by 2010.
> >
> > Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was
importing
> > aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush
> > administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for
> > uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are
of
> > the proper size and material.
> >
> > What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again.
> >
> > Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running
> > suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while
> > inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest
> > declaration such a disappointment.
> >
> > Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy
> > Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of
the
> > 1996 report and covers "material we already had before."
> >
> > A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the
1996
> > declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the
United
> > Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in
> > substance.
> >
> > Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old
reports
> > since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass
destruction
> > since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have
contradicted
> > that claim.
> >
> > —
> >
> > EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson,
> > investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent
Melissa
> > Eddy contributed to this report.
>

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more determined to
> quash opposing viewpoints than in constructive dialog.

There is no such thing as "constructive dialog".
The nature of Babylon is death.

> Multiple worldviews are GOOD

GOOD? As in MORAL? As in JESUS?
There are no "multiple worldviews".
This is a meaningless phrase.

> and impossible to quash without a lot of death happening.

A lot of death is happening because of "multiple worldviews".

Besides, when will you stop waving DEATH around like
some boogeyman? Everyone DIES. Humans are born to DIE.

The "problem" lies elsewhere.

Non-withstanding with bloatedly massively ignorant patronizing
idiots like yourselves who BLEAT about "multiple worldviews"
as long as they ALL jingle to your delusions.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
>
> > Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more
> determined to
> > quash opposing viewpoints than in constructive dialog.
>
> There is no such thing as "constructive dialog".
> The nature of Babylon is death.

Two people can engage in a dialog at which they just throw insults at each
other an insist upon the "truth" of their position (such as you do), or they
can engage in a dialog in which they realize they have opposing positions, yet
are willing to discuss alternatives that might bring about mutually acceptable
outcomes. In business parlance, this is called win-win negotiating. From my
observations of you, you either "win" or run away.

>
> > Multiple worldviews are GOOD
>
> GOOD? As in MORAL? As in JESUS?
> There are no "multiple worldviews".
> This is a meaningless phrase.

Worldview - the mental construct that people use to understand and participate
in their environment, usually encompassing as much of the world of which they
are aware. Any world view is incomplete as no person has a complete awareness
of the world. Thus, recognizing and accepting/participating with other world
views creates a more complete construct…this is GOOD. Forcing everybody to
accept your personal worldview is BAD - it creates a less complete construct.

>
> Besides, when will you stop waving DEATH around like
> some boogeyman? Everyone DIES. Humans are born to DIE.
>

So we should all march and jump off a cliff? The reason we get togethor in
little groups is help each other survive as long as possible. Then rules
develop to help the groups exist. So - an individual's (premature) death
represents a failure of the group. Waving around DEATH is confronting a
group with the possibility of its failure. The "liberal left" considers its
group to be much broader than the "conservative right", and the DEATH of
'innocents' on either side of conflict are seen as a failure of the "liberal
left" group, while the "conservative right" view it as necessary to protect
the survival of members of its narrowly defined group.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]





Q

And this implies entering each others multiverses without opening flys.
Is it that hard, Wally Keeler [email protected].



—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of joseph (yes)
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:44 PM
To: Wally Keeler
Cc: marc.garrett; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: An editing job for the ages

Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:

> Absolutely NOT. This is simply imaginary on your part. I certainly
respond
> to viewpoints, and my comments are critical of those particular
viewpoints.
> I also consider it constructive to point out that the emporer has no
> clothes. That includes the dissident pointing out that Mugabe has no
> clothes, that Bush has his fly open, that peace activist hurt their
own
> cause. That i s constructive.

Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with
someone
else's position. However, it is much more constructive to understand
the
objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a
mutually
beneficial outcome.


joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Quit the argument/s. I thought you [guys, people …] were talking about
iraq :

The US is trying to make the Russians quit iraq as arms suppliers and
consultants and advisers and contract negotiators for drilling-for-oil
partnerships and marketing and shipping, in iraq. This is what is
happening in iraq. The Russian army (not under control of Putin,
challenging him) is having its heyday in Chechnya, and in trying to
push/prop up saddam…. in effect using Brezinski 'blowback' delivered
to the Russians in iraq can now (turned around) be returned to the US.

This Cold War is not stopping !

[another set of stupidities]




—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of -IID42 Kandinskij @27+
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:39 PM
To: joseph (yes)
Cc: Wally Keeler; marc.garrett; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: An editing job for the ages

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more
determined to
> quash opposing viewpoints than in constructive dialog.

There is no such thing as "constructive dialog".
The nature of Babylon is death.

> Multiple worldviews are GOOD

GOOD? As in MORAL? As in JESUS?
There are no "multiple worldviews".
This is a meaningless phrase.

> and impossible to quash without a lot of death happening.

A lot of death is happening because of "multiple worldviews".

Besides, when will you stop waving DEATH around like
some boogeyman? Everyone DIES. Humans are born to DIE.

The "problem" lies elsewhere.

Non-withstanding with bloatedly massively ignorant patronizing
idiots like yourselves who BLEAT about "multiple worldviews"
as long as they ALL jingle to your delusions.


+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Quit the argument/s. I thought you [guys, people …] were talking about
iraq :
The US is trying to make the Russians quit iraq as arms suppliers and
consultants and advisers and contract negotiators for drilling-for-oil
partnerships and marketing and shipping, in iraq. This is what is
happening in iraq. The Russian army (not in control of putin,
challenging him) is having its heyday in Chechnya, and in trying to
push/prop up saddam…. in effect using Brezinski 'blowback' given to
the Russians in iraq can now (turned around) be delivered to the US.

This Cold War is not stopping !

[another set of stupidities]




—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of -IID42 Kandinskij @27+
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:39 PM
To: joseph (yes)
Cc: Wally Keeler; marc.garrett; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: An editing job for the ages

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Wally, while you seem sincere in your passion, you also seem more
determined to
> quash opposing viewpoints than in constructive dialog.

There is no such thing as "constructive dialog".
The nature of Babylon is death.

> Multiple worldviews are GOOD

GOOD? As in MORAL? As in JESUS?
There are no "multiple worldviews".
This is a meaningless phrase.

> and impossible to quash without a lot of death happening.

A lot of death is happening because of "multiple worldviews".

Besides, when will you stop waving DEATH around like
some boogeyman? Everyone DIES. Humans are born to DIE.

The "problem" lies elsewhere.

Non-withstanding with bloatedly massively ignorant patronizing
idiots like yourselves who BLEAT about "multiple worldviews"
as long as they ALL jingle to your delusions.


+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

I am a Unit of Verse of the UnitVerse. Sometimes it does get hard, depending
on the stimuli

—– Original Message —–
From: "S. Yasir Husain" <[email protected]>
> And this implies entering each others multiverses without opening flys.
> Is it that hard, Wally Keeler [email protected].
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of joseph (yes)
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:44 PM
> To: Wally Keeler
> Cc: marc.garrett; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: An editing job for the ages
>
> Quoting Wally Keeler <[email protected]>:
>
> > Absolutely NOT. This is simply imaginary on your part. I certainly
> respond
> > to viewpoints, and my comments are critical of those particular
> viewpoints.
> > I also consider it constructive to point out that the emporer has no
> > clothes. That includes the dissident pointing out that Mugabe has no
> > clothes, that Bush has his fly open, that peace activist hurt their
> own
> > cause. That i s constructive.
>
> Well, it is pretty easy to go around pointing out what is wrong with
> someone
> else's position. However, it is much more constructive to understand
> the
> objectives and aims of all participants and then go about building a
> mutually
> beneficial outcome.
>
>
> joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
> frank + lyn - mc + El + roy
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>