Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Official: Libyan nuclear material in U.S
cnn ^ | 27 Jan 2004 | Elise Labott

Posted on 01/27/2004 11:07:02 AM PST by demlosers

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S plane filled with Libyan nuclear components landed this morning at a U.S. facility in Knoxville, Tennessee, for destruction, a senior administration official said.

"It is chock full of nuclear materials," the official said. "They let us take out some extraordinary stuff."


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; US: Tennessee; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: curtweldon; disarmament; libya; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: FreedomPoster
You really don't pay much attention to state lines from the air. I just know that the blue areas started about 50 miles west of the Apalachians and continued for a few hundred miles in many directions. Some big, some small, but loads of them.

In many cases I don't even know where I am if I'm flying VFR. I just dial 911 into the GPS and it gives me the closest airport. That's when I decide where I am and if it's important. Proved me the fool a couple times using LORAN C when I found myself in those never-land zones of spotty coverage. At least it made me curious when I landed. I love it when the lineman parks you and the first thing you ask is "Just where the hell am I?"

When not having a clue where you are though it's best to avoid those airports which have a tower thingy poking skyward unless it's an emergency.

61 posted on 01/27/2004 1:03:13 PM PST by blackdog (Democrat Party? Democratic Party? Democrat Candidate? Democratic Candidate? Wassup wit dat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
SAIC and Inland Motors........Two customers I still have nightmares over to this day. They decide to put their facilities in the middle of nowhere and if you are late on delivery they make you feel it, watch and all.

I once delivered a load of electronics to Inland Motors by flying to some dirt patch a dozen miles away, landing at midnight, calling a cab to deliver the parts from there. The cab driver laughed and said he gets requests like that all the time. I got home around 3:00am, was in work by six to field the incoming inspection reject report because the ink was still wet on the parts and would smudge if you rubbed it real hard. I had to rework them after they smeared the ink on 50 tank motor filters. I mean why have to prove wet ink by smearing all 50?

Shmucks!

62 posted on 01/27/2004 1:12:53 PM PST by blackdog (Democrat Party? Democratic Party? Democrat Candidate? Democratic Candidate? Wassup wit dat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Since the material was flown to the United States, wouldn't it have been cheaper to have used Fed-Ex?
63 posted on 01/27/2004 1:13:33 PM PST by Rebelbase ( <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure put it in your tagline too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
Your# 58.......correct,.....maybe, some is already here,...and 'Q' is now doing a CYA job.

Libya has a substantive amount of chemical material, the official said, and some of it might be destroyed in the country because "some of the containers are leaking."

Are these 'containers' from Russia via SH-Iraq?

What happened to those 3 'SH-Mystery Ships' and their 'cargoes' anyway?

:-(

64 posted on 01/27/2004 3:11:30 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Why doesn't Libya deserve a regime change? The only reason Gadhafi made this move was to secure some oil contracts with foreign business men; I was just wondering why you were giving him what he wants aka as appeasing?

You really need to pay attention to news stories before making your little comments. Bush administration and State Department officials have already said that what Ghaddafi has done so far is welcomed, but not enough for some sanctions to be lifted. He has not (in recent years) been involved with terrorists the way Hussein was, and seemingly was not involved in the production of BW agents the way Hussein was, and he had a more firm control over his territory, unlike Hussein's regime which tacitly allowed various terrorist organizations use of its land and possible access (whether given by Hussein or not) to WMD technology and/or actual WMD.

[HenryLeeII from a previous reply]: "your ceaseless and baseless attacks on President Bush can be taken as a defense of Hussein."

[JohnGalt's irrational, non-sequiturious response]: Ah, I see you are a Rightwing Marxist.

...and its obvious to anyone with a brain that you are not exactly wrapped real tight, and have no basis for the drivel you spout. I would really love to see your excuse for bringing Marxism into this discussion, especially "rightwing Marxism," which, as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of political philosophy knows, is an oxymoron.

65 posted on 01/27/2004 8:19:35 PM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
your ceaseless and baseless attacks on President Bush can be taken as a defense of Hussein.

The intellectual history of this type of argument is Marxism.

66 posted on 01/28/2004 5:44:40 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Uhh, Marxism is a form of socialism, an economic model. You baselessly accused me of appeasing Ghaddafi with absolutely nothing to back it up with, so I pointed out the stupidity of your argument and your hypocrisy by lumping you in with the other Hussein-apologists (John Kerry, Howard Dean, MoveOn.org, Martin Sheen, the French and Russian governments, etc.) who continuously attack George Bush for things he never said AND for having the courage to defend our country (and the world in general) by taking out a reckless tyrant such as Hussein and forcing another (Ghaddafi) to the bargaining table. Perhaps you would prefer Al Gore, who would still be negotiating with the U.N. about what to do with the Taliban. Your arguments are insipid and specious, and you lack the intellectual depth to participate fully on a forum such as this.
67 posted on 01/28/2004 6:50:01 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
LOL

Marxist linguistics often employ the logical fallacy that if you are against a certain policy you are objectively in favor of the ill alleged to be addressed. The Democrats often use that type of construction when they say, if you are against an increase in the funding of Medicare, you are for killing old people.

You are out of your league so I suggest you stick to 'liberal media' threads.
68 posted on 01/28/2004 7:13:31 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
I'm betting that there is significant evidence of Euro involvement, but there could have been paki, South African, israeli, iraqi, chinese, NKorea, etc, links. Now, on the one hand, rogue individuals from say the paki secret police would be a story, it would be no surprise, but "KOCH INDUSTRIES" stamped on the side of a neutron gun shield would have very deep implications...
69 posted on 01/28/2004 8:51:00 AM PST by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
He's long chafed under the designation of terror-state and had made some initial steps toward us already in surrendering the Lockerbe hijackers for trial in the West. And he'd been keeping his head down internationally.

The run-up to Gulf War II revealed to Qaddafi just how impotent the Arab League really was. If they wouldn't unite to protect Saddam in their midst, they were never going to help Qaddafi. And I suspect he didn't fare too well in handouts and oil discounts. Hence, his disruption of recent Arab League meetings. And their failure to unite and support Saddam gives him justification with his Muslim population to abandon them entirely. And he won't get Saudi-funded Muslim radicals into his country now that he won't be taking their money.

Qaddafi made a rational economic decision, both for himself and his country. How rare in dictators.

He calculates that trade with the West will be more valuable than what his current allies offer him. And he's right. The more oil that is brought online in Iraq, the more rational his choice will be.

Along with Kuwait, Qumran and the UAE and other Gulf oil sheikdoms, Libya is now effectively separated from the Arab League.

I expect we are going to force him to expel the North Koreans that are presently working on that giant deep-underground pipeline to Egypt. Less cash for Kim.

I rather hate to say it but Powell deserves some credit here, it seems.
70 posted on 01/28/2004 3:54:05 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The intellectual history of this type of argument is Marxism.

I was under the impression that Marxism is now considered a philosophy. It's claims as a science or rational economic model are thoroughly refuted.

Increasingly, it will be viewed as a historical curiosity, much the way we see the race theories or the one-leader type of fascism (Hitler, Mussolini) as ignorant but tragic relics of the past.
71 posted on 01/28/2004 4:01:11 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I am sure some might be categorizing Marxism as such, but I would check their agenda first. Conservatives consider Marxism to be the revolutionary/radical sector of liberalism which grew out of Robespierre, and the social Democrats/socialists to be the non-radical Marxists.

Thus conservatives are not fooled by Trotskyites or Leninist or socialists who are simply proposing a slower pace in destroying traditional Western institutions, regardless of any political stripe.

As far as linguistics goes, because morals and truth are not fixed, 'ideology', a Marxist construct, becomes the only means of discerning truth or lie:"if you are not for ideological point A, then you are objectively for point b."
72 posted on 01/29/2004 6:16:03 AM PST by JohnGalt (The Iraq Hawk: An Appeaser to Real Invaders, Caution: Easily Frightened, Not Good With Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Thus conservatives are not fooled by Trotskyites or Leninist or socialists who are simply proposing a slower pace in destroying traditional Western institutions, regardless of any political stripe.

I think that Marxism is dead as a rational political and economic explanation. It has failed at every turn. Human beings do not and will not behave according to its underlying assumptions. We're not made of such stuff.

The remaining legacy of Marxism is that of Third Way politicians, people like Clinton and Blair and the EU. They employ Gramscian rhetoric and strategy to further their socialism-lite agenda.

But Marxism itself is dead.
73 posted on 01/29/2004 6:25:43 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Marxism is not a system of government but a mode of thought; Stalinism, Leninism, Trotskyism, socialism, Third Way Socialism, are just interim steps toward the complete abolition of the state and the onset of the Workers Paradise. Indeed, Karl Marx recommended a period of "free trade" and high income taxes to ensure a large prosperous state; he then suggested this state would be imperialistic as it search for new markets, all the while he advocated a program of over turning traditional institutions like the family, marriage, church, gun rights, free press...

While Stalinism died with Stalin, though you could argue it lives in North Korea, Trotskyism had many adherents (James Burnham--a founder of National Review, Irving Kristol) who found their way into the upper echelon of the Republican Party in the 1980s. Indeed, National Review printed an indefense of Trotsky earlier this year by Stephen Schwartz.

74 posted on 01/29/2004 6:36:58 AM PST by JohnGalt (The Celts at the Battle of the Allia had little government but lots of swords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Marxism is an academic issue. No one seriously proposes it as a model for politics or economics or as a rational explanation of history.

It's dead, Jim.

I can see your points but we're going to end up quibbling over semantics. If you want to lock yourself in the bunker against the sweeping hordes of Marxists, go ahead. I'm much more concerned about the Third Way groups.
75 posted on 01/29/2004 6:47:35 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The most clever thing the Devil ever did was convince the world he never existed.

The Third Way groups dominate both parties at this moment in time, and both sides are dominated by Marxists. Third Way or market economies with a welfare state, is the dominant political philosophy and its roots are strictly Marxist. (see tagline)
76 posted on 01/29/2004 7:04:44 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Like I said, we're quibbling over semantics. I stand by my other observations.
77 posted on 01/29/2004 7:39:00 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Marxist linguistics often employ the logical fallacy that if you are against a certain policy you are objectively in favor of the ill alleged to be addressed. The Democrats often use that type of construction when they say, if you are against an increase in the funding of Medicare, you are for killing old people.

You are out of your league so I suggest you stick to 'liberal media' threads.

Dude, when you can stop with your self-aggrandization and answer some basic questions that I have put to you several times, then I will take you seriously. Why should President Bush have sat back and done nothing about Hussein just because there were WMD programs but possibly no actual WMD stockpiles? Don't forget, Iraq is a sand-covered nation the size of California, with access to Syria and Iran which makes hiding things easy.

And why do you insist there was an intelligence failure? We knew before the war that there was a ballistic missile program, and there was; and an unmanned aerial vehicle program, and there was; and possibly a reconstituted nuclear program, and there was; and a state-directed concealment program to thwart U.N. inspectors, and there was; and the "capacity to possess" WMD (the exact words of the congressional resolution authorizing the war), and there was. Tell me, hotshot, where was the failure?

You sit there and spit out your pseudo-intellectual drivel but make as little sense as a U.C. Berkeley professor with your pronouncements as to who is a right-wing purist and who is a Third Way Mainstream Right Wing Dead Ender Marxist, or whatever Lew Rockwell tagline you've read in the past few hours.

78 posted on 01/29/2004 10:12:26 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
The President can do whatever he likes.


I am just curious why you are such a scaredy cat.
79 posted on 01/29/2004 10:55:59 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The President can do whatever he likes.

No, the president is restricted to the confines of Article II of the United States Constitution. You're endangering your credentials as the purest of all right-wing Americans with comments like that!

I am just curious why you are such a scaredy cat.

Hiding your head in the sand (or elsewhere) while chanting "WMD programs are okay/ballistic missiles are okay/UAVs are okay/Just so long as Hussein doesn't have neatly-labeled vials marked "Banned BW agent" is the cowardly course to take. President Bush showed conviction, resolve, and courage in his actions regarding Iraq, and that is why he is greatly admired by millions of Americans.

80 posted on 01/29/2004 11:30:26 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson