Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3790-1005056642-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 06 Nov 2001 06:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 26781 invoked by uid 510); 6 Nov 2001 14:23:06 -0000
Received: from n20.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.70) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 6 Nov 2001 14:23:06 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3790-1005056642-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [10.1.1.222] by n20.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Nov 2001 14:22:16 -0000
X-Sender: Ross.Leo@csoconline.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 6 Nov 2001 14:24:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 48562 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2001 14:24:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2001 14:24:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO csoc-fire1.csoconline.com) (140.169.2.142) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2001 14:24:01 -0000
Received: from csoc-mail-imc.csoconline.com by csoc-fire1.csoconline.com via smtpd (for mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com [216.115.97.167]) with SMTP; 6 Nov 2001 14:24:01 UT
Received: by csoc-mail-imc.csoconline.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <VDPXT97A>; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:22:44 -0600
Message-ID: <72222DC86846D411ABD300A0C9EB08A1079C30D0@csoc-mail-box.csoconline.com>
To: "'iwar@yahoogroups.com'" <iwar@yahoogroups.com>
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
From: "Leo, Ross" <Ross.Leo@csoconline.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:24:13 -0600
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] [fc:Israel.prevented.atomic.disaster.in.1981]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Despite "restless periods" in India's history (and what country has not had
those?), India has indeed been very stable over the decades. Her
neighbours, on the other hand, have proven themselves to be anything but
stable. Pakistan is attempting to play both ends, partly to save face, and
partly to keep the Taliban and their friends from taking up residence in
Pakistan. Even in Middle Eastern Lands, playing both sides can get a person
killed or a government overthrown without too much trouble. It is a shame
that so many countries (including the US) have to re-learn that lesson so
many times.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Mandeep Singh Bajwa [mailto:bajwa@i91.net.in]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 04:29
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] [fc:Israel.prevented.atomic.disaster.in.1981]
Bomb Indian nuclear facilities ? Perish the thought ! Indian nuclear weapons
are in safe hands. The deeply entrenched and solid tradition of democracy in
India has produced governments with a deep sense of responsibility. Rest
assured India's nuclear programme is only a defensive weapon.
Pakistan is of course a different case. Democracy exists only in name and
there is a long history of adventurism as much by dictatorial regimes as by
the few and far between examples of democratically elected governments. In
any case Pakistan's duplicity in the matter of support to the Taliban and
other fundamentalist outfits while professing to be a supporter of the
US-led coalition against terrorism is now not a matter of conjecture but a
documented fact.
The sooner the US realises that India and not Pakistan is the long term
bulwark against fundamentalism in South Asia the sooner the region's
stability will be strengthened.
Mandeep Singh Bajwa
Director,
Military Affairs Group
The Defence and Strategic Studies and Military History People
Chandigarh, India
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Bartoletti
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: [iwar] [fc:Israel.prevented.atomic.disaster.in.1981]
At 06:39 PM 11/4/01 -0800, you wrote:
> George Will
> November 1, 2001
> Israel prevented atomic disaster in 1981
[snip]
> The F-16s were
>to be tested to their limits when Israel learned that Iraq was about
>to receive a shipment of enriched uranium for its reactor near
>Baghdad--enough uranium to build four or five Hiroshima-size bombs.
>The reactor was 600 miles from Israel.
[snip]
>Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the attack to occur before the
>uranium arrived and the reactor went ``hot," at which point bombing
>would have scattered radioactive waste over Baghdad. The raid was
>scheduled for a Sunday, to minimize casualties. It was executed
>perfectly. Aren't we glad. Now.
Very curious. The Iraqi were "about to receive a shipment of enriched
uranium".
From where? Who was supplying these materials? Was the supplier
performing a "legitimate act" in making these material available? It
would
seem they were not, since the facility itself was not.
And if not, why would bombing the power reactor (plausibly legitimate use
of enriched uranium) act to prevent the shipment itself and its diversion?
Why not bomb the country(s) supplying the material?
By extension, should we preemptively bomb Pakistani and Indian nuclear
facilities?
Won't we be glad? Later?
Curious.
____tony____
Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:59 PST