Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/15/08 11:50 AM, Proteas wrote: 2 years and 3 months worth of oil

Blegh... we only get about 21% of our imported oil from the persian gulf, with even less than that coming from Iraq (around 3%). But the point still remains; of all the arabian countries we get oil imported from, why would we spend so much money and time on a country that accounts for that little bit of our oil imports? Why wouldn't we make up some bullshit excuse and go after Saudi Arabia, or better yet, Canada (whom we the most oil imported from at 16% of total imports)?

At 9/14/08 03:39 PM, aninjaman wrote:

What I was basically saying was that it is the governments that started the war that gave them PTSD and it should be the governments responsibility to taqke care of them. Im pretty sure you would not be saying "we will all live if they have untreated PTSD so why should I care" if you had PTSD.

Maybe not, but does my argument have any less merit because of it? I could hardly be objective and rational when it came to something I suffered from myself.

Attacks in Afghanistan are up and attacks in Iraq are down but they are still rampant and new terrorists are still coming up no matter how many we kill. What I was sayinng is we are going at the war all wrong. To win we cannot just kill terrorists we have to go after the root of terrorism.

I assume the point of your argument is that we can prevent terrorism without sacrificing or compromising our national interests (if not, then whose side are you on?). Implied by this is that terrorism is reactionary against certain unnecessary actions committed by us, which in this case is the war in Iraq.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that attacks would decrease as our presence increased? Think about it. After 5 years, suddenly 30,000 more US soldiers arrive with new authorization to be more aggressive. Not only that, but this increase is publicly stated to influence the policies of the Iraqi government (i.e. conciliation). So the end result is a more intrusive foreign occupier even more determined to interfere with the national government.
But where are all the attacks? Surely this must be the last straw for many as they feel compelled to rise up against the "occupation they see as evil." Why haven't they become insurgents? And what about terrorists? Jihadists still arrive from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia to commit terrorist acts and are sometimes successful. But why is it that the terrorists who the US is ostensibly creating are those with no personal involvement with the occupation at all? They aren't being victimized. What is it about our policies that would compel them to resort to terrorism while those who "suffer" the most refrain from it and increasingly act against it by ridding communities of terrorist cells?

The bottom line is that your view about the connection between US policies and the roots of terrorism isn't holding out by what's happening in Iraq. Now, your process isn't so unbelievably implausible not be true elsewhere, but surely you must see that Iraq is at the very least an exception?

War is always justified...
we are here to fight and die, not to sit on our lazy asses and grow fat...

At 9/15/08 05:49 PM, Division101 wrote: War is always justified...

No it isn't.

we are here to fight and die, not to sit on our lazy asses and grow fat...

No, we are here to live, survive, and live peacefully with each because we are all dependent on someone else one way or another. Don't draw a false comparision between growing fat and not fighting a war.

Well, "justified" is completely subjective. The war was "justified" based on the information we had at the beginning, but that information turned out to be false. So, in truth it wasn't "justified" since I'll main justification for going in turned out to be false, but we had no way of knowing that.

Blegh... we only get about 21% of our imported oil from the persian gulf, with even less than that coming from Iraq (around 3%). But the point still remains; of all the arabian countries we get oil imported from, why would we spend so much money and time on a country that accounts for that little bit of our oil imports? Why wouldn't we make up some bullshit excuse and go after Saudi Arabia, or better yet, Canada (whom we the most oil imported from at 16% of total imports)?

Because Canada and Saudi Arabia are already secure sources of oil, the US already gets oil from them and there Iraq offered an opportunity because of its international situation. The Iraq war, for me, wasn't about obtaining more oil to profit the US (or the Bush administration) in the short-term, but to provide long-term oil security to the US by installing a friendly government on good terms that is seen to have a debt to the US, by opening up the oil sector to foreign investment, by keeping US troops in there for the foreseeable future (which also provides a good base for other potential forays into the Middle East) and potentially improving the US's influence in OPEC.

It's not historically unprecedented to go to war for oil. There was the Germans against the Russians in WW2 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour: the US even considered it against Saudi Arabia during the 70s OPEC embargo. It's also certainly not unprecedented to go to war for vital resources that fuel (literally in the case of oil) the economy.

At 9/15/08 11:50 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/15/08 08:02 AM, bcdemon wrote: I really can't believe that you're still defending the "war for WMD" bit.

Somebody alert the media, someone on the internet holds an opinion that's different from bc's.

ROFL, you hold an opinion that has been proven FALSE, by your very own government and military.

Blix said a few times that they found no evidence of WMD, and you still wanted war. Sure he was skeptical of Saddams declaration of WMD, but he wasn't willing to shoot the place up over some inconsistencies in paper work. The way you guys did.

He said he found no wmd's and he had no confidence to show that they had been eliminated EITHER. The UN Security Counddcil passed 11 resolutions demanding Saam disarm with the last one saying "disarm or else." They didn't believe he had disarmed either. We didn't have to make a case for war, it was made for us.

There was no evidence to prove he hadn't disarmed either, yet YOU STILL WENT TO WAR. The inspection process began so that UNMOVIC could potentially find what GW Bush had said existed. But the inspections found nothing (except the Al Samoud2, not a WMD, but illegal because of its range), The Bush administration said "We know where they are", referring to the WMD in Iraq. Apparently the Bush adm. was wrong, not just a little bit either, I mean absolutely completely wrong. Just curious but, are you still hoping they find some WMD? lol. The fact remains proteas, your country opted for war when there was absolutely no proof that Iraq had any WMD, no mobile biological chemical trucks, no hundreds of tons of chemical agents, NOTHING. All you had were claims that turned out to be horrifically wrong, for the Iraqis anyway.

At 9/16/08 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: It's also certainly not unprecedented to go to war for vital resources that fuel (literally in the case of oil) the economy.

So show me how the U.S. economy has benefited from this. Or do you side with bc in the claim that every last cent somehow went back into the administration's pockets?

At 9/16/08 08:59 AM, bcdemon wrote: ROFL, you hold an opinion that has been proven FALSE, by your very own government and military.

Unless you noticed, I'm disagreeing with you on why we went to war. I'm presenting a viewpoint that is historically accurate and puts things in a proper context, you on the on the other hand are presenting a revisionist viewpoint that relies on the idea that what is truth now always has been the truth in the past, and ignores the fact that we didn't flat know there weren't wmd's at that point time in order to support your own little anti-establishment conspiracy theories.

It's also certainly not unprecedented to go to war for vital resources that fuel (literally in the case of oil) the economy.

So show me how the U.S. economy has benefited from this.

It hasn't, not yet. Anyhow, I magine Iraq represents more of a strategic asset than an economic one, although I'm sure in 2030 when US oil consumption reaches 27 million bpd (EIA prediction) that Iraqi oil will be giving a helping hand.

Or do you side with bc in the claim that every last cent somehow went back into the administration's pockets?

I think there was certainly some fishy things going on with regards to allocation of funds (mostly Iraqi funds, though.) But I wouldn't involve the US administration personally, mainly because they're mostly already multi-millionaires.......although that does suggest they're used to a bit of skulduggary to climb the greasy pole higher.

At 9/16/08 10:33 AM, Proteas wrote: Unless you noticed, I'm disagreeing with you on why we went to war. I'm presenting a viewpoint that is historically accurate and puts things in a proper context, you on the on the other hand are presenting a revisionist viewpoint that relies on the idea that what is truth now always has been the truth in the past, and ignores the fact that we didn't flat know there weren't wmd's at that point time in order to support your own little anti-establishment conspiracy theories.

Gee, if only there were someone sent to Iraq to find WMD. You know, maybe lead an investigation into finding some WMD. Then if this guy finds any WMD evidence then you would have your "smoking gun". And IF HE DOESN'T FIND ANY WMD EVIDENCE, then you won't have to go to war over something that doesn't even exist.
Usually people take the word of an investigator and go with it, the USA completely ignored Hans Blix findings.

At 9/17/08 09:03 AM, bcdemon wrote: Usually people take the word of an investigator and go with it, the USA completely ignored Hans Blix findings.

You know, you never did respond to my point about Clinton and Operation: Desert Fox.

Why is that?

At 9/15/08 08:02 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Ohh, KBR does an $8.5 million dollar job for the DoD under Cheneys watch and that should mean they get first dibs? NOPE. Bush, Cheney and Halliburton were in bed before Iraq Part 2 even started. Cheney negotiated the $7.7 billion sale of a company that Prescott Bush used to run and G.H.W Bush worked for to Halliburton.

Yeah it couldn't have been because KBR/Haliburton has been working with the military since WW2.......

Or the fact that KBR was known for their speed, efficency, and it's acheivments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo

At 9/17/08 09:03 AM, bcdemon wrote: Usually people take the word of an investigator and go with it, the USA completely ignored Hans Blix findings.

Yes, because 20 guys with Iraqi escorts can be depended on to search hundreds of thousands of square miles for WMD's and never be fooled or deceived. How many times were they expelled over the years since the Gulf War? How many times were they refused entry to certain facilities? The whole strategy of special inspector seals and proof of wmd destruction depended entirely on Saddam's cooperation and our faith that he wasn't holding anything back.

At 9/17/08 07:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yes, because 20 guys with Iraqi escorts can be depended on to search hundreds of thousands of square miles for WMD's and never be fooled or deceived. How many times were they expelled over the years since the Gulf War? How many times were they refused entry to certain facilities? The whole strategy of special inspector seals and proof of wmd destruction depended entirely on Saddam's cooperation and our faith that he wasn't holding anything back.

You know, one thing that always interested me was. If saddam had WMDs, why didnt he use them? Hell he has nothing to lose, and like he cares what the world thinks. He already gassed the kurds. Why is it beyond him to use these weapons? and if we pre-empted him to the point of rendering them useless, why didnt we find any in the rubble?

There is no such thing as a "just" war. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", there are only winners and losers.

At 9/17/08 07:03 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/17/08 09:03 AM, bcdemon wrote: Usually people take the word of an investigator and go with it, the USA completely ignored Hans Blix findings.

Yes, because 20 guys with Iraqi escorts can be depended on to search hundreds of thousands of square miles for WMD's and never be fooled or deceived. How many times were they expelled over the years since the Gulf War? How many times were they refused entry to certain facilities? The whole strategy of special inspector seals and proof of wmd destruction depended entirely on Saddam's cooperation and our faith that he wasn't holding anything back.

20 guys? UNMOVIC had over 200 people in Iraq before the invasion. "This includes about 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 15 IAEA inspectors, 50 air crew and 65 support staff." That and UNMOVIC was not expelled from Iraq in 1998, they were withdrawn by the chief weapons inspector, Robert Butler. You can read here the difference 4 years makes to this story. Before this last round of inspections, Saddam was quite the dick, blocking inspections to certain sites and what not. But Hans Blix stated in his March 2003 report that "In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties...This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance." So the inspection process was going fairly well, weapons deemed illegal were being destroyed, no WMD evidence was found. So why the invasion?

The most justified course of action would be for everyone to melt their guns and turn them into ploughshares then dance hand in hand in a big circle and smoke weed. That's not going to happen though.

War is only justified via contrast to it's alternatives.

At 9/18/08 09:04 AM, bcdemon wrote: But Hans Blix stated in his March 2003 report that "In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties...This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

Also from you're article;

Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence.

At 9/18/08 09:28 AM, Proteas wrote: Also from you're article;

Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence.

Wow, thanks tips. Should we just copy/paste the whole damned report so as to not miss anything that may or may not (in this case) have any relevancy? Proteas, the inspections were working, doing what they were intended to do, the USA just ignored them, and you support it.

At 9/18/08 09:34 AM, bcdemon wrote: Wow, thanks tips. Should we just copy/paste the whole damned report so as to not miss anything that may or may not (in this case) have any relevancy? Proteas, the inspections were working, doing what they were intended to do, the USA just ignored them,

Then why did he say he still believed that Iraq was not being completely truthful with the inspectors, much less the UNSC in his declarations? You're leaving out the parts you don't like to support your viewpoint, bc, and that is Cherry Picking, and it shows how blatantly biased you are to ignore such things.

and you support it.

And? Does that somehow disqualify me from calling you on your bullshit?

At 9/18/08 09:50 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/18/08 09:34 AM, bcdemon wrote: Wow, thanks tips. Should we just copy/paste the whole damned report so as to not miss anything that may or may not (in this case) have any relevancy? Proteas, the inspections were working, doing what they were intended to do, the USA just ignored them,

Then why did he say he still believed that Iraq was not being completely truthful with the inspectors, much less the UNSC in his declarations? You're leaving out the parts you don't like to support your viewpoint, bc, and that is Cherry Picking, and it shows how blatantly biased you are to ignore such things.

I don't recall Blix saying Iraq wasn't being truthful, he said he was disappointed about the lack of new documentation. Proteas, just to please you, I will paste the entire report, it will take 3 posts to do it due to NG BBS restrictions, and I will do it every time I quote a section of the report. That way you can't say I'm leaving out parts I don't like. Fair?

At 9/18/08 10:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: I don't recall Blix saying Iraq wasn't being truthful, he said he was disappointed about the lack of new documentation.

He stated that such a well-run government's as Saddam's not being able to supply any new paperwork on the matter of his own inventory of the aformentioned weapons was disappointing. The fact that he couldn't/wouldn't do such a thing to me is suspicious, and in itself showing an unwillingness to BE truthful and forthcoming about his own stockpiles.

Fair?

It seems to me that you are suffering from a classic case of....

At 9/18/08 09:04 AM, bcdemon wrote:

20 guys? UNMOVIC had over 200 people in Iraq before the invasion. "This includes about 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 15 IAEA inspectors, 50 air crew and 65 support staff." That and UNMOVIC was not expelled from Iraq in 1998, they were withdrawn by the chief weapons inspector, Robert Butler. You can read here the difference 4 years makes to this story.

Expelled? Ordered to leave? What difference does it make? The only thing they can do without Iraqi cooperation is sit around in their hotel rooms.

At 9/18/08 09:04 AM, bcdemon wrote: Before this last round of inspections, Saddam was quite the dick, blocking inspections to certain sites and what not. But Hans Blix stated in his March 2003 report that "In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties...This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

How about another selection?
"American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures"
If you recall, Saddam did not accept fly-overs by U-2 aicraft in the final terms of the inspections.
"I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation and for the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to increase our staff in Iraq. I'm not talking about a doubling of the staff. I would rather have twice the amount of high-quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send."
This is precisely the point I made before. This paragraph suggests that Blix believes there are more sites that should be inspected but haven't been identified yet. It could also mean that simply exploring a chosen building or facility with inspectors isn't good enough without substantially more information, depending on how you interpret the words. In any case, it is clear that the inspection process as it was left a lot to be desired.

"...the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council. The calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed...It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome."
This paints a clear picture of a country that is dragging its feet in the face of an ultimatum and has an established record of trying to deceive and frustrate inspectors. Blix can welcome whatever he wants but no one can afford a piecemeal approach to WMD inspections. Because of its very name, even one WMD is too many. And Blix doesn't really know himself what to make of it. His entire report is couched in uncertainty. There was still a lot of risk remaining, and Bush decided that it was better to take definitive action to end it rather than do nothing and hope for the best.

Two corrections: That there were no connections or indirect cooperation with Al-Queda was never disproved. The only confirmed fact is that there was no formalized working relationship between them.

Second: The Iraqis DID greet us with rose petals in the streets; the only problem is that it's very easy for 10,000 or so assholes spread around the country to hide among civilians until they could strike again, or work secretly on roadside bombs.

Firstley the word " Al-Queda " was made up in the USA in a court. Its not real and never has been real.
Secondley 9/11 was commited by 19 men, narley all died at the event. osumabinladen was a wealthy man who sponsered the event with his money, and another crazy organised it.

Theres no connection between 9/11, Iraq or afganistan. The US had been planning a war and this was the perfect exscuse to start the war, and when it started it was terrable. We bombed what was left of the water, electric. Sadam was penyless, a mouse could have kiled him with a bad fart.

Politishans went against the people, against Democrasy to launch this evil war, This stupid was in Iraq And afganistan have united meny nations and factions against us!!!

so its Not justifyable! Its cost Trillions of dollars, meny thosands of lives, and its caused more hatred and terrorisum than ever.

At 9/18/08 07:12 PM, WARTORIOUS wrote: Firstley the word " Al-Queda " was made up in the USA in a court. Its not real and never has been real.

SEARIUSLY?

At 9/18/08 07:12 PM, WARTORIOUS wrote: a mouse could have kiled him with a bad fart.

I'm pretty sure that was Plan B.

At 9/10/08 05:35 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Are you seriously saying that the US wouldn't exist if you hadn't gone to war with afghanistan and/or iraq?

i'm saying without the troops to protect us the country would be in flames.

whats wrong with you? can you not read?

At 9/18/08 07:12 PM, WARTORIOUS wrote: moronic conspiracy bullshit.

shoo shoo little one, the big kids are talking.

At 9/18/08 10:44 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/18/08 10:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: I don't recall Blix saying Iraq wasn't being truthful, he said he was disappointed about the lack of new documentation.

He stated that such a well-run government's as Saddam's not being able to supply any new paperwork on the matter of his own inventory of the aformentioned weapons was disappointing. The fact that he couldn't/wouldn't do such a thing to me is suspicious, and in itself showing an unwillingness to BE truthful and forthcoming about his own stockpiles.

But before you said that Blix said Iraq was not being truthful, Blix never said that. Now you sit there and say that it is YOU who felt Iraq wasn't being truthful. That and it would appear Iraq was being truthful about their WMD declaration. Blix was an investigator, Bush was/is a war monger, that's the difference that had Blix wanting more time for inspections and Bush wanting immediate war. Even the UN wanted more time for inspections, that is why Bush, Blair and Aznar ran to the Azores to make their own war resolution. What Bush did was force a war on Iraq, by setting March 17 as the final day to disarm. Iraq had disarmed, no evidence to support a WMD was being found, regardless of what Iraq had or didn't have, they were going to be invaded.

Fair?

It seems to me that you are suffering from a classic case of....

And it seems that someone caught you in all your glory:

At 9/18/08 05:04 PM, adrshepard wrote: Expelled? Ordered to leave? What difference does it make? The only thing they can do without Iraqi cooperation is sit around in their hotel rooms.

But they weren't expelled or ordered to leave, by Iraq. Their own boss pulled them out.

"I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation and for the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to increase our staff in Iraq. I'm not talking about a doubling of the staff. I would rather have twice the amount of high-quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send."
This is precisely the point I made before. This paragraph suggests that Blix believes there are more sites that should be inspected but haven't been identified yet.

That would be why Blix was asking for more time for inspections. "Mr. President

UNMOVIC was established by the Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) and was enabled to enter Iraq and carry out its inspection work almost three years later.

It might seem strange that we are presenting a draft work programme only after having already performed inspections for three and a half months. However, there were good reasons why the Council wanted to give us some time after the start of inspections to prepare this programme. During the months of the build up of our resources in Iraq, Larnaca and New York and of inspections in Iraq we have - as was indeed the purpose - learnt a great deal that has been useful to know for the drafting of our work programme and for the selection of key remaining disarmament tasks. It would have been difficult to draft it without this knowledge and this practical experience.

The time lines established in resolution 1284 (1999) have been understood to mean that the work programme was to be presented for the approval of the Council at the latest on 27 March. In order to meet the wishes of members of the Council we made the Draft Work Programme available already on Monday this week. I note that on the very same day we were constrained together with other UN units to order the withdrawal of all our inspectors and other international staff from Iraq.

I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq, that no more time is available for our inspections and that armed action now seems imminent.

At the same time I feel a sense of relief that it was possible to withdraw yesterday all UN international staff, including that of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. I note that the Iraqi authorities gave full cooperation to achieve this and that our withdrawal to Larnaca took place in a safe and orderly manner. Some sensitive equipment was also taken to Larnaca, while other equipment was left and our offices in Baghdad have been sealed. Some inspection staff will remain for a short time in Larnaca to prepare inspection reports. Others who have come from our roster of trained staff, will go home to their previous positions and could be available again, if the need arises.

Mr. President,

I would like further to make some specific comments that relate to the Draft Programme. I am aware of ideas which have been advanced that specific groups of disarmament issues could be tackled and solved within specific time lines. The programme does not propose such an approach, in which, say, we would aim at addressing and resolving the issues of anthrax and VX in March and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) in April. In the work we pursued until now we worked broadly and did not neglect any identified disarmament issues. However, it is evidently possible for the Council to single out a few issues for resolution within a specific time, just as the draft programme before you selects twelve key tasks progress on which could have an impact on the Council's assessment of cooperation of Iraq under resolution 1284 (1999). Whatever approach is followed, results will depend on Iraq's active cooperation on substance.

May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions.

Mr. President,

Under resolution 1284 (1999) UNMOVIC's work programme is to be submitted to the Council for approval. I note, however, that what was drafted and prepared for implementation by a large staff of UNMOVIC inspectors and other resources deployed in Iraq, would seem to have only limited practical relevance in the current situation.

UNMOVIC is a subsidiary organ of the Security Council. Until the Council takes a new decision regarding the role and functions of the Commission, the previous resolutions remain valid to the extent this is practicable. It is evidently for the Council to consider the next steps.

In its further deliberations I hope the Council will be aware that it has in UNMOVIC staff a unique body of international experts who owe their allegiance to the United Nations, and who are trained as inspectors in the field of weapons of mass destruction. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a large department of skilled nuclear inspectors and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has a large staff of skilled chemical weapons inspectors, no other international organizations have trained inspectors in the field of biological weapons and missiles. There is also in the secretariat of UNMOVIC staff familiar with and trained in the analysis, both of discipline specific issues and in the broad questions of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. With increasing attention being devoted to the proliferation of these weapons this capability may be valuable to the Council.

I thank you, Mr. President"