Evo Morales recibe la feliciación del GrupoRisa

#267 Cabron estoy totalmente deacuerdo contigo que el hecho de que Zapatero no se levantase al paso de la bandera americana fue un acto ya no de falta de respeto si no de de desprecio, pero de la misma manera me parece una broma de muy mal gusto comprometer la politica internacional del gobierno que nos representa mal que nos pese a algunos. Y para reconocer este hecho no hace falta que nos pongamos en antecedentes ni desviemos la atencion del post, ya estan para eso bauer y demas fanaticos de partido de izquierdas y derechas.

#274 no lo decia por ti.

#272 tu tienes que ser minimo concejal del pp, porque manipulas de una forma...

yo en ningun momento dije esa tonteria, yo dije que tienes que contrastar informacion, porque no se de donde sacas que la guerra de irak fue apoyada por la onu

La Cope se disculpa por la falsa llamada telefónica a Evo Morales

ELMUNDO.ES
MADRID.- La cadena Cope se ha disculpado públicamente por la falsa llamada telefónica que un humorista realizó al presidente electo boliviano, Evo Morales, haciéndose pasar por José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. El Gobierno boliviano, el Gobierno español y la Conferencia Episcopal han reclamado las disculpas de la cadena en los últimos días.

La disculpa llega dos días después de que el programa 'La Mañana', de Federico Jiménez Losantos, emitiera la 'broma' telefónica.

Este viernes, poco antes de las 14.30, en el transcurso del informativo 'La Palestra', una locutora de la Cope ha leído en antena un comunicado emitido por el Consejo de Administración.
En él, lamentan que la llamada telefónica de un humorista del Grupo Risa suplantando al presidente del Gobierno "haya traspasado la línea marcada por los Estatutos de Radio Popular, que exigen el debido respeto a las personas y a las instituciones legítimas".
(...)

Bueno si la propia cadena Cope ha pedido disculpas en antena supongo que ahora estaréis de acuerdo en que la 'broma' sobraba, y que hacer estas tonterías no es 'libertad de expresión' xd

#275 Te avisé.

Las Naciones Unidas tienen 2 formas de posicionarse respecto a una intervención armada externa:

1-Permisión de una intervención armada externa. (Ejemplo: guerra de Iraq)
2-En contra de la intervención armada externa. (Ejemplo: guerra del golfo, donde Iraq invadió Kuwait)

Adivina qué caso es éste...

Cambiemos de perspectiva: tengamos en cuenta que resoluciones anteriores autorizaban la entrada de tropas en Iraq en caso de no cooperación en el desarme. Esto son al menos 6 resoluciones, que yo sepa.

Informe de Hans Blix a Kofi Annan sobre la inspección a Iraq.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Extracto:

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.
[...]
I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.
[...]
The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.



Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.
[...]
I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
[...]
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
[...]
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

[...]
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.
[...]
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
[...]
Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help.
[...]
The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.
[...]
To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq’s monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews “in private”, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed.

Ésta es la cooperación activa que pidió Naciones Unidas a Iraq en la resolución 1441, que firmó también España, bajo pena de acción militar. Gracioso que los malos sean los estadounidenses, cuando el desprecio del gobierno iraquí hacia su pueblo, su corrupción y su nula cooperación es la razón de que todo haya acabado en guerra.

Que alguien me dé el enlace a la condena de las Naciones Unidas a la guerra (a la guerra en sí, que ya os veo saltando con lo de la cárcel y demás) de Iraq. Pido el enlace porque está claro que nadie ha intervenido en contra de los EEUU salvo la resistencia, y menos las Naciones Unidas.
Me remito al principio del post.

EEUU, en esta ocasión, ha tenido los huevos que no ha tenido Naciones Unidas (Saddam, eres muy, muy maaaalo. Si sigues siendo maaaalo te tendremos que mandar una carta diciéndote cuán maaaalo eres...).

Hans Blix, ese famoso pepero catolico

#282 Es que hay guerras legales e ilegales. Entra dentro de lo que se llama derecho internacional. Ahora, no confundamos legalidad con moralidad.

alguien puede subir la broma que la han quitado?

que le den a la opinion exterior de españa y a españa, es una broma cojonuda, y k se jodan todos los politicos k dan ASCO.

y si os molesta os jodeis, por que para que os moleste eso ya teneis que tener una vida bastante aburrida, vamos esta noche no duermo.