It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: The UN Didn't OK Iraqi Uranium Transfer to US

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Contrary to many news reports saying the US had cooperated with the UN's IAEA on tranfering Iraqs Uranium to an undisclosed location in the US (believed to be Tennesee) The UN's IAEA is now saying no permission was granted according to an AP report.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
UNITED NATIONS - The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq (news - web sites) uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday.

"The American authorities just informed us of their intention to remove the materials, but they never sought authorization from us," said Gustavo Zlauvinen, head of the IAEA's New York office.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Its understandable to remove these materials from Tuwaitha keeping them out of the hands of terrorists. But at this late stage why the lack of cooperation on the removal of known stocks of nuclear material that the US had allowed to be resecured under UN auspices in June 2003 and then left under US guard.

Related News Links:
www.abovetopsecret.com
www.abovetopsecret.com
www.abovetopsecret.com

[edit on 7-7-2004 by Phoenix]




posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Since when have we needed permission from the UN to take actions that are in the best Interest of the USA?

Since the Oil for food rippoff and the lack of will by the UN to enforce 10 years worth of sanctions against Iraq, (gee i wonder why?) Why would the USA trust he UN with decision making authority over our soverign nation?

We the people did not elect anyone at the UN to rule over us, nor do they have that privilage.

The UN is a big country club people, not the worlds savior. The USA PAYS for most of the UN's operating budget....the USA for all intensive purposes OWNS the UN not the other way around.

It is one thing for the USA to get recognition from the UN for finding and securing this material.....it is quite another to need their approval to do so.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The UN is a toothless tiger they let millions die in Africa and look the other way. They dont even show the power to enforce there own decisions and sanctions. The ideal the UN was formed from was a good thing but in practice it falls way short.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
After the Food for Oil Program, the UN has nerve making another statement about any subject concerning the US.

At best, the UN has become a bunch of pocket-lining obstructionists whose only talent appears to be bashing the United States.

It is time to tell the UN where to get off - permanently. All those characters ought to be rounded up and sent home.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
A link from the times of India

US secretly removes uranium from Iraq
timesofindia.indiatimes.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
To hell with the UN for now. The US doesn't ened their approval because they are not righteous.

I would like to be more a citizen of the world than of the United States. I believe that humanity can thrive around the world if the borders can come down some day. I can't speak for all Americans (actually I think I speak against them as a whole, if not as individuals) but if it would make the rest of the world better off, and relatively fair and peaceful, I'd accept a world where America wasn't on top. I could ride a bike, and maybe limit myself to just renting an old car once in a rare while when it was important. I could start drinking more water and less coke. I could survive on probably half my current income- especially if it was correcting the world in ways that i knew would make my kids live better off without the evils that make our current standards possible.
The problem here is not simply that America is standing in the way of a unified and peaceful world- the problem is that nobody could deliver it if America stepped down.

So, to UN supporters:
When the UN ends a war fairly, they'll get my attention.
When they intervene, at HUGE expense, at HUGE loss of life, at HUGE political costs, for LONG periods of time, and DO THE RIGHT THING no matter what, even just in once single country just one single time... they'll have some of my respect.
When they demonstrate consistent fairness, and a stable system that doesn't screw innocent people, they'll have my allegiance, even ahead of America.

However, now that I'm done being noble, until the UN can deliver that, here is my other promise. Tomorrow, if George W. Bush announces his intent to launch a war of conquest against France or any other nation, I will volunteer to fight and subject the enemy to the will of my people. I'm all for fairness, but if it's gonna be unfair, I can assure you it will be unfair in favor of myself and the people I love.


Q

posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   
It would seem that I'm very much in agreement with the general concensus on the UN in this thread.

Heck, I'm surprised the IAEA isn't denying the existence of these 'materials'!

And I hardly think we need ask permission from the "oil (and kickbacks) for food (and military technology, and political clout)" bunch to remove potential dirty bomb material from a conflict zone. Kind of a no-brainer, IMO.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link   
There was some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA.





But Paul Longsworth, deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, said Wednesday night the United States didn't need IAEA approval for the transfer.

"We believe we have the legal authority to do it," he said. "We are in custody of the material only, and we have the permission of the Iraqi government to take this out of the country."



Associated Press/haaretz: U.S. transferred 2 tons of uranium from Iraq without UN okay

The airlift ended on June 23, five days before the United States transferred sovereignty to Iraq's new interim government. Tuwaitha is now under the control of Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology.

.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Yes I agree with most posters here that the UN is inept and prone to influence that generally seems at odds with US interests and that is a good point.

The original media reporting prominatly announced the the UN had indeed blessed this transfer of material to the US, either the media got it wrong or thats what the government told them. Knowing the medias propensity to paint Iraqi affairs in a neutral to bad light, I doubt they would err and say the IAEA approved this action on their own (media).

I believe that the media was told what they reported by the US government, if thats the case why the subterfuge? Why not just simply say the Iraqi provisional government agreed and leave it at that? Why claim that the IAEA approved this when it did not?

These are the questions that beg an answer.

On the face of it by the initial news reports everyone is led to believe this was a good move keeping these materials from being accessed by terrorists and that all parties dutifully agreed, but it appears through the actions of the DoD and DoE in the way the story was broken that reason now exists to question the whole affair.

The US had been guarding this material for more than a year, the original June 30, 04 transfer date had been known for months. There existed no known reason for a "spur" of the moment operation for removal of the radioactive material, hence it seems that it would have been an easy matter to include an IAEA representitive to observe the material loaded in Iraq and then unloaded at its destination in the US. That inclusion would have ensured that all of the known material was accounted for, no additional material was added and that all material arrived at its final destination.

The exclusion of the IAEA opens doors to all kinds of conspiracy possibilities, the first that comes to mind is that more material was removed from Tuwaitha than the IAEA knew about, lending credence to the thought that the US had trucked in material from Kuwait in an attempt to "find" wmd but then did not have the oppurtuinity to carry out an operation like that because the Kuwaitis found out about it. The US would then need a way to "remove" this material, what better cover than the removal of Iraqi stocks are there one has to ask.

Maybe more was taken out than the IAEA had originally accounted for?

If the US had simply included the IAEA then these questions would be moot.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I think the easy answer come froms President Bush's warning to the UN prior to the war....either do something or your credibillity will be inquestion.
As we saw, the UN was unwilling to give iraq an ultimatum to disarm. Moreover, several key members were found to be aiding the enemy they SAID they had sanctioned against.

What makes me think the UN/IAEA would be any more leigitmate?

The time to be included in things was from the start when we ask the UN to cooperate and take a stance for backing the piles of useless paper sanctions they accumulated over the years.

How could we trust any UN agency after the oil for food scandal...if they cant safeguard $$$, what makes me think they can secure nuclear materials safely?



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
There wouldn't have been 'An' observer from the IAEA, there would have been four or five, at least. And a few months later there would have been 'unofficial' leaks from one of the observers about "the American nukes that were smuggled out of the peace loving country of Iraq! They were going to nuke Sadam, because we all know they lost the war!"

No thanks, our own media and government make up enough lies and rumors already, we don't need any help from the UN on this.

As has been said, the original time and date had been established in advance. What a golden opportunity for a sam, or ied. Then what a mess we'd have! It was very much in everyone's best interest to do it, quietly and with no fuss or muss.

[edit on 7/13/2004 by Montana]

[edit on 7/13/2004 by Montana]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
For those who think the UN was sitting on their hands in Iraq:


A State Department summary issued on November 16, 1998, indicates that UNSCOM has supervised the
destruction of:
48 operational missiles;
14 conventional missile warheads;
six operational mobile launchers; 28 operational fixed launch pads;
32 fixed launch pads;
30 missile chemical warheads;
other missile support equipment and materials, and a variety of assembled and non-assembled supergun
components.
38,537 filled and empty chemical munitions;
90 metric tons of chemical weapons agent;
more than 3,000 metric tons of precursor chemicals;
426 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment; and,
91 pieces of related analytical instruments.
The entire Al Hakam biological weapons production facility and a variety of production equipment and
materials

Source: www.csis.org...


This, needless to say, with a few Land Rovers full of inspectors, is a hell of a lot more than the US was able to find with a whole army. The UN was doing a good job in Iraq, despite what people would like to assume after the Oil for Food scandal. The UN is a big agency, just as the US is. And believe me when I say the US has hidden and misappropriated it's fair share of money itself over the years.

Who knows what more they might have found if not for the US invasion?

-koji K.

[edit on 13-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 13-7-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   
koji_k...

yea, good job starving iraqi's and making saddam rich in exchange for cheap oil.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join