ChristiansUnite Forums

Nuclear materials 'vanish' in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html)

Does anyone else see the irony here?  First, the international community said Iraq was not a threat....now all of sudden they had nuclear materials that might be used by rogue states to make nuclear weapons  ???   The UN is bating a thousand here!

 ::)

Grace and Peace!

I think you maybe misread the article a little.  We aren't talking about bombs here.  They are talking about dual-use things, milling machines,  turning lathes, and high strength aluminum are specifically mentioned.   They aren't talking about weapons as such, but things that potentially could be used to make weapons.  They are followed because they could be used for nuclear weapons, but not usually banned because of their other uses.

It appears that someone has been systematically taking the facilities apart.  Since this has been happening since the invasion, we can only hope that it is some CIA program or the like.  They clearly have value and many industrial uses other than nuclear bomb making.  Many of the machines would be quite heavy and not just something you would throw in the back of a Toyota and take off.  Some was probably lost to looting during or immediately after the war, but you would think securing these known sites would have been pretty high on the list of objectives for the invasion in order to minimize looting wouldn't you think?

For some reason, the administration will not allow UN inspector into Iraq or report to UN inspectors, even though the UN resolutions calling for the inspectors are part of the justification the administration points to for the invasion.

We sold many of the dual use items to Iraq during the Reagan administration.  They even decided at that time that it was okay to sell dual use items to nuclear programs in Iraq.  During that time when we were aiding Iraq, Iraq was known to be using poisonous gas on almost a daily basis.  The US even helped Iraq equip helicopters so the pilots would be safer when applying "insecticides".

The whole thing doesn't give the US much credibility in fighting against terrorism and WMD's.  Especially since people so high up like Cheney and Rumsfeld were insturmental in arming Saddam and keeping him in power.

A real good, complete history of the whole mess can be found at the National Security archive.  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

I warn you, it will be very difficult to think highly of the people in power today, especially as suppossed Christians after you read the material.  If you would prefer to live happy and ignorant, just avoid the site.

Marv

Hi Marv,

I guess I made the point on WMD's more than the other.   I read the article right.   What I meant was, if this activity is a threat now, was not also more of a threat when Saddam was in control?   Was He not more likely to use it, or sell or whatever for no good than it being stolen for same purposes?  It just strikes me as odd that all the powers that be were not too concerned about what Saddam might have been up to, and now we have proof no WMD's or threats, but NOW, there is all of a sudden danger where there was not before.  Just seems kinda suspect to me.

Grace and Peace!

I believe what you are seeing is an attempt by the UN to exert itself and get back into Iraq.  They are pointing out that things which they are responsible to inspect under the UN resolutions are missing and they should be allowed to enter Iraq and attempt to trace the products.  They aren't talking nuclear materials like people think enriched uranium or plutonium they are talking machinery and materials that could be used but are not necessarily used for nuclear weapons.  For all we know, they went in the scrap metal heap that Iraq has been selling since the war.  There have been rocket engines sold for scrap which have been discovered.  Good heavy cast iron milling machine might bring $20 down at the junk yard.  Then again, it is possible that the buildings and inventory have been disassembled under US orders.  We just don't know.

Here in North Dakota, we just found a 110 lbs of sodium cyanide which fell off a truck last week.  Two other barrels fell off on the same trip but were found right away.  Turns out it was going to beekeepers to kill the bees in their colonies before moving south for the winter.  When the state started checking, turns out other beekeepers had cyanide too.  Problem is, it's not registered for that use.  It used in mining, electroplating and the like, but it turns out since those uses aren't pesticide that pretty much anyone (probably going to change now) could buy however much cyanide they wanted.  All you needed was to find a distributor that would take your money.  No registration, no liscencing, nothing.  Makes you feel safe doesn't it.  I remember when the postman used to deliver cyanide to our farm a few years ago, so it's not that big a deal to me.  But 110 lbs of sodium cyanide is enough to kill a lot of people.  If you could get them to ingest it.

Now if we had found that barrel in the ditch by Baghdad instead of Lakota, ND, USA, that would be trotted out as proof that Saddam had a real WMD program going, when maybe he just had a couple of beekeepers.

It is pretty certain that Saddam Hussein had the fewest WMD's at the time of our invasion since well back into the 80's.  That's when the chemical companies started really selling him the chemicals for making chemical weapons, and there's pretty good evidence that we provided him with some anthrax and botulism.

I'm sure Saddam would have loved to have more WMD's but the embargo and inspections have been proven to have been pretty effective.  He was stupid not to be more cooperative.

Marv

Oh, I forgot to answer whether these things were more of a threat when Saddam was in power.

You tell me who has them now, and I can answer.

Marv

 Try Syria and Iran.

If Syria and Iran have the tools and materials, then I would say we are less safe, particularly since we no longer can follow what they are used for or inspect them.

Marv

 Israel told the USA that Iraq had moved most of there WMD to Syria and Iran and most of the WMD were probably used during the Desert Storm War in 1991 as well as hidden somewhere in the desert. Even Clinton when he was in office mentioning that Saddam had WMD.

Here is an interesting website that list the WMD that have been found recently.

Michael

 Israel told the USA that Iraq had moved most of there WMD to Syria and Iran and most of the WMD were probably used during the Desert Storm War in 1991 as well as hidden somewhere in the desert. Even Clinton when he was in office mentioning that Saddam had WMD.

Here is an interesting website that list the WMD that have been found recently.

Michael

http://www.atomicarchive.com/weblog/

 Thanks for the link Michael, good stuff.

 I recall watching CNN in the weeks leading up to the war, and they showed satellite images of a very long caravan of covered military trucks leaving Iraq and entering Syria. The odd thing is - I watch CNN a lot, and I only saw that imagery once, after that there was no more mention of it...not a peep.

 Bronzesnake

From what I am seeing, I believe the UN will probably drop the reigns of any power they currently posses(which ain't saying a whole lot).  I suspect the EU is waiting in the wings and will gladly pick up where the UN leaves off in the not so distant future.   As for the Iraqi situation, yeah its a real mess, but it still strikes me as strange how some will say they were no problem before because at least a tyrant kept things under control.  This IMO is hooey.   This is like saying evil doers have rights too, as long as they control the majority of evil doers they rule over. (http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)   Saddam is right where He should be, regardless of what happens in Iraq's future.  If sKerry wins the election Iraq will probably wind up worse off than it is, and will no doubt lay the Blame a GW's feet.

Grace and Peace!

 Bush will win the election. Here in Canada, Bush took a pounding in our polls leading up to, and after the Iraq war by our week kneed GIRLY MAN liberals.

 The rhetoric has toned down somewhat as of late, but it still sickens me how cowardly our leaders are here in the Great White North. It's my honest opinion, that our government is in appeasement mode to terrorists for fear of upsetting them and being attacked if they actually convert their jelly backbones for steel. I was extremely saddened that our nation's leadership chose to turn their backs on our American brothers and sisters, who fought so gallantly beside us and our British counterparts in the two great wars, and other battles - and in your darkest hour we tucked tail and ran.  :-[ :'(

 Our military has been shamefully ransacked and robbed of decent equipment by successive Liberal and Conservative governments for decades, just look at the crap diesel subs we foolishly bought from the British. All four subs have been in dock for years for major refit. Recently, fire broke on on the submarine "Chicoutimi" while she was at sea, and  Combat systems engineer lieutenant Chris Saunders was one of three crewmen airlifted from the submarine from the Atlantic. He subsequently died in hospital in Ireland.

 Our soldiers are highly skilled but pooly equipt.

Here's a section of a column from one of our newspapers...

 But even when they're hit with a crippling blow, somehow the Canadian Forces pulls through.
Defence critics say the glue that binds the cash-strapped military is its exceptionally trained uniformed men and women. Even their rusted-out equipment can't break their resolve to get the job done.

But only on high-profile missions such as Afghanistan do their accomplishments make headlines. Most of the time our troops toil in obscurity.

Even impressive feats close to home fail to pique the interest of Canadians. Every year Canadian soldiers strut their stuff and beat opponents in international military competitions.

Canadian snipers regularly shoot down their competition, as do Canada's fighter pilots.

In April, Royal Military College officer cadets placed second in an international field of 45 teams in the gruelling Sandhurst Competition in Britain.


 As far as the E.U. Look at their involvement in the world and for those of us who doubt it - ask yourself if this is could at least possibly be the beginning of the revived Roman Empire. Keep in mind that the E.U. began it's life through a treaty which was radified in Rome, and the origional member countries were all part of the ancient Roman Empire.

 Here is an excellent site which connects scriptures with the E.U. and the revived Roman empire.

http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/romanempire.php (http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/romanempire.php)

Here are links which expose the E.U. as a world force which is steadily gaining momentum.

http://www.eusa.org.za/Content/Background/TheEUandtheWorld.html (http://www.eusa.org.za/Content/Background/TheEUandtheWorld.html)

 http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/ (http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/)

http://www.eurunion.org/partner/EUUSTerror/EURespUSTerror.htm (http://www.eurunion.org/partner/EUUSTerror/EURespUSTerror.htm)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/europe/neweurope/021223_neweurope_01n249.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/europe/neweurope/021223_neweurope_01n249.shtml)

Bronzesnake

Brother, I think you are right on the money about this (I also hope you are right about the election...I am starting to fear it may go the other way).   I have been watching a lot of news out of the EU and can clearly see Daniels prophecy looming on the horizon.  I hear a lot of boo hiss when I start talking about this from many brothers and sisters, but I think it will be more than evident soon enough.   The current situation in Israel (the protective wall and dissmanteling settlement, 3rd temple talk), the power struggle between the US and the EU for implementation of a peace process in Israel, the current state of US world power, even this upcomming election.   I really do believe we are on the verge of huge fulfillment of endtime prophecy.   Its time for some urgency in witnessing and sharing Gods love with a lost world.

Maranatha Lord Jesus!

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_26.jpg)

 Standing ovation for the lady folks!!!  :D

Bronzesnake

LOL!   :D

See:  http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1025.html

For a reprinted New York Times article about the 380 tons of high explosives which would have fit into the category mentioned earlier.  It also mentions the machine tooling is gone.

We failed to secure the site in the article and some considered even more important after the invasion.

So are we safer?

Marv

Terrorism has been doubling every year since our invasion, and will only get worse.

 Come on Marv...

 Do you honestly believe these psycho brainwashed Islamic fanatics would have simply dropped the twin towers, and then left you alone? Don't you realize that your president had no choice but to go after these dangerous, American haters wherever they might be? Would you rather have taken a purely defensive or diplomatic position with these animals?

 Stop with all the "he did/said this and he did or didn't do this,and are we safer, second guessing. These killers didn't start with the twin towers Merv, they bombed many, many buildings which were full of innocent people all over the world - and many other targets such as the Cole.  President Clinton took a cautious approach, and his most offensive tactics included lobbing bombs and missiles without an invasion force...look what good that did. There comes a time when strong willed men must push aside those without the will to act, or re-act. There comes a time when we must face those who would try to destroy us, and instead destroy them - we can not bow to the protests of our enemies friends - we can not be all things to all people - we must protect ourselves Merv, we didn't start the war, but with the grace of God, we will finish it, or die trying. I would rather did fighting to protect my country than die at my desk at work...how about you?

 Ecc 3:1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:  


 Ecc 3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;  


 Ecc 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;  


Ecc 3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;  


 Ecc 3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;  


 Ecc 3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;  


 Ecc 3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;  


Ecc 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Bronzesnake

THEY WEREN'T IN IRAQ. Why is that so difficult for some of you. The Ba'athist state, Syria and Iraq, where THE WORST EMEMIES OF ISLAMIC FANATICS IN THE MOSLEM WORLD.

 I disagree. I believe they were there. The entire U.N. Security Council believed they were there. The evidence is overwhelming that the weapons existed. Stockpiles that were tagged by inspectors following the first war disappeared - however, Saddam either couldn't, or wouldn't disclose where they went. Saddam used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. I believe the WMD were shuttled across the boarder and into Syria.

 Ask yourself this question...
 Why would Saddam keep screwing the inspectors around? Why wouldn't he have simply said, "ok, I don't want to have my country attacked and occupied - I don't want to die or be captured - I like my job with all the riches and killing of anyone who looks at me the wrong way - I really don't have any WMD, so I will allow full access and disclosure."
 It would have been that simple Tim. He would still be in power today, his sons would still be alive and free to torture and murder whoever they chose. Saddam, Russia, France, and Germany would still be secretly leeching millions off of the oil for food program.

 I am not naive enough to believe Saddam had no connection or interaction with America's most viscous enemies. Saddam had the weapons and the technology, and he most likely handed some of it over to those who would kill your family Tim.
To believe this guy (Saddam) was just an innocent victim (slight exaggeration on my part) is ludicrous. Now the Americans are right beside Iran, and have a fighting force smack dab in the Middle east. That was brilliant strategy.
Would you honestly have attacked Iran first? Any military tactician worth his salt would never have attempted that under the same circumstances Tim. Sorry about your luck Saddam, but you reap what you sew. Goodbye evil dictatorship - hello democracy!

 Is it just coincidence that Iran is now backing down from their nuclear ambitions? Do you honestly believe this would have happened if Saddam was still in power and the Americans weren't parked next door?

 Dems and Republicans alike were all for the war Tim, and now that the election is on, the Dems are pretending they were clueless.

 Take care...I love your plant and bee collection.
Where are you at Tim?

Bronzesnake

I was talking about terrorists. Those that were responsible for 9/11 were not in Iraq.

I'm on the Central Coast of California, 6 years back from developing large irrigated farms in South Africa for 9 years.

They're not attacking us on our own soil anymore either!  I'd much rather us be fighting them in their backyard than our front yard.....wouldn't you?   If they werent there before, they sure are now.   ;)

Grace and Peace!

Was that supposed to make any sense? Why can't you get it through your head that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists attacking us?

I guess the same reason you are unable to see they are attacking us there instead of here now.   8)

 Actually Iraq  did have ties to other terriost organizations when they attacked USA.

You haven't a shread of evidence for that.

The only logical person on this board who supports the invasion is Roger, who justifies it by the good Samaratan argument. He also feel we Americans are obligated to stop evil in China and else where. This is a philosophy a thousand times more dangerous than that held by Al quada, but at least he's consistant.

 I heard on the radio the other day that Iraq had ties to islamic terriost in Uganda.

Some people just can't see the forest for the tree's Sulfurdolphin.    Its not hard to find documentation to back this up.

Have a nice read Mr. Vaughan

IRAQ
Iraqi Ties to Terrorism

Archived: April 29, 2003


--------------------------------------

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam’s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking.

Was Iraq the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists.

What types of terrorist groups did Iraq support?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase.

What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists“ list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.

Was Iraq involved in the 9/11 attacks?
There is no concrete evidence linking Iraq to the attacks, and although Iraq never expressed sympathy for the United States after the attacks, it denied any involvement. In late 2001, Czech intelligence officials reported that the 9/11 ringleader, Muhammad Atta, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001, but many American and Czech officials have since disavowed the report and say they have no evidence that such a meeting occurred.

Did Iraq cooperate with al-Qaeda?
This is a subject of heated debate. U.S. intelligence officials say they have reports of links, and President Bush has cited Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda as a reason for confronting Iraq. Still, many of the alleged connections remain tenuous, and because U.S. intelligence agencies must protect their sources and methods of intelligence gathering, few specifics have been offered publicly. Most intelligence on Iraq and al-Qaeda draws on sources of unknown reliability, including al-Qaeda detainees.

What ties have been alleged between Iraq and al-Qaeda?
In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet announced that the CIA had received uncorroborated reports that:

Senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda stretch back a decade.
Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed the provision of safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression.
Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in chemical weapons and conventional explosives.
Al-Qaeda leaders have tried to cultivate contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Some al-Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan took refuge in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
In October 2002, President Bush said that among those who found refuge in Iraq was a “very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks“—apparently a reference to a Jordanian operational commander named Abu Musab Zarqawi, who subsequently left Iraq. A second alleged al-Qaeda operative, the Iraqi national Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, was also thought to have returned to Baghdad after fleeing Afghanistan.

Other charges center on possible ties between al-Qaeda operatives and Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish extremist group that Saddam used as a proxy to combat his Kurdish foes. Some al-Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan were reportedly helping—and receiving shelter—from the group, which operated in a remote corner of northern Iraq’s no-fly zone before being routed by U.S. forces. It remains unclear whether mutual ties to Ansar indicate any sort of active cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Why would Iraq help al-Qaeda?

It’s hard to say. Al-Qaeda and Saddam would seem to have incompatible goals. Al-Qaeda is committed to overthrowing secular Muslim rulers like Saddam; for his part, Saddam historically regarded Islamists as a threat to his leftist Baath Party regime and was wary of groups he couldn’t easily control.

Still, Saddam demonstrated signs of selectively cooperating with Islamists—or at least co-opting them. In the 1970s and 1980s, he backed the fundamentalist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood; he also on various occasions adopted Islamist rhetoric; and he supported Palestinian Islamist terror groups. And whatever their differences, Saddam and bin Laden shared a deep hatred of the United States.

Has Iraq used terrorism against the United States in the past?
It has tried. During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq trained several hundred operatives for planned terrorist attacks on U.S. targets, including bombings of American facilities in Southeast Asia. But these efforts weren’t particularly successful: although Iraqi operatives pulled off small-scale shootings and grenade attacks in the Middle East, they bungled efforts to use explosives. Outside intelligence and law enforcement agencies thwarted more significant plots, including a 1993 attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait.

Would Iraq have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?
Experts disagree. The Bush administration played up this possibility, but some experts doubt that Saddam would have been so reckless, as his goal was to avoid a U.S. invasion. In October 2002, CIA Director Tenet said that the CIA thought Saddam was unlikely to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States—unless a U.S.-led attack appeared imminent. In that case, Saddam might “decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.“ Such an attack failed to materialize.

If you didn't write that, you need to provide a source.


Now I see!!

So, we spend 80 billion dollars destroying a country which killed Islamic terrorists when ever they were caught, just to bring the type of Chaos that attracts Islamic terrorists, so we can kill them. Sort of like a very expensive piece of bait.

You are a real master strategist!

Here's your source.  http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php


Not my strategy, but, then again, I deffinately prefer attacks happening in a foreign country over my own.   If you don't, perhaps you can find some cheap property in Iraq?   ;)

Either way, a little more than a shred of evidence can be found to back up that Iraq did have ties to terrorism.

Grace and Peace!

Your source is the Council on Foreign Relations. It's head is Max Boot, an leading Jewish neocon

http://www.cfr.org/bio.php?id=5641

This organisation is one of many controled by the same neocons who suckered us into the war with Iraq. One of there leaders, Strauss (whom Wolfowitz studied under) actually said that sometimes leaders had to lie to the masses for their own good. These people have no tradition of Christianity.

 See that's where you are wrong we are not destroying a country but wiping out the bad terriost. We are helping out a people that are grateful we set them free. And helping there country out and helping them establish a government. Do you realize the iraqi police are trying to stop the islamic terriost for further destruction on them and other countries?
All the terriost want is the other islamic terriost to be set free so they can kill there own people and Jews and Americans or anyone who gets in there way. so it's not an expensive bait. ;D

Tim, go to google, and do your own search.   I'm sure the hundreds of links that show up will give you plenty to disagree with.   To say Iraq has no ties to any terrorist groups what-so-ever, IMO can only be caused by not being able to see it, or not wanting to see it.

We have no choice but to agree to disagree.

Blessings in the Lord!

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts


The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

National Review is also a neocon organisation. In their writings, we know that they are willing to lie.

I thought this might be appropriate -

"Of course the people don't want war.  But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliment, or a communist dictatorship.  Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Hermann Goring

 So, what politically motivated group isn't willing to lie?

 Bronzesnake

 When a surgeon removes a cancer, he sometimes must cut away at surrounding tissue Tim.

 South Africa huh... I guess you got kicked out of there right?
That government ruined the countries economy pretty quick by tossing experienced farmers and landowners who knew how to work the land. Now the land is pretty much useless, and thousands are out of work.

 Very impressive collection you have put together Tim. Do you mind if I download some of the pictures?

Bronzesnake

 

Please download anything you'd like. Yes, it was made know to me I wasn't welcome, me being a western conservative in agriculture and having been outspoken against the US State Department, which at that time was doing everything in it's power to bring about an ANC government. Nothing that left a paper trail, but there are other forms of pressure.

 Thanks Tim.
How are you dealing with the threat of Africanized bees intermingling with your stock?

Bronzesnake