This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C2C950.37A01580
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----- Original Message -----=20
From: antonio gentile=20
To: Fuoriregistro ; coordinamentonoguerrabari@??? ; =
InVento_di_pace@???=20
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: [InVento_di_pace] Bush autorizza ricorso a nucleare
Ho controllato la notizia appena letta su La Repubblica on line =
andando alla
fonte ed ho purtroppo trovato la pagina del 'The Washington Times' che =
sotto
riporto
antonio gentile
=
http://www.repubblica.it/news/ired/ultimora/rep_nazionale_n_329762.html
Washington, 15:38
Bioterrorismo, stampa: Bush autorizza ricorso a nucleare
Il presidente americano George W.Bush ha firmato un documento segreto =
nel
quale autorizza il ricorso anche ad armi nucleari in caso di attentati
chimici o batteriologici contro gli Stati Uniti. A rivelarlo =E8 oggi =
il
quotidiano 'The Washington Times'.
Gli Usa, si legge nella Direttiva presidenziale sulla Sicurezza =
nazionale
numero 17 del 14 settembre scorso, "continuer=E0 a mettere in chiaro =
che si
riserva il diritto di rispondere con il ricorso a una forza =
schiacciante -
comprese armi potenzialmente nucleari - all'uso di (armi di sterminio)
contro gli Stati Uniti, le nostre forze all'estero o paesi amici e =
alleati".
Un paragrafo simile compare, ricorda il quotidiano, anche nella =
versione
della direttiva resa pubblica l'11 dicembre.
Nel nel testo divulgato alla stampa, per=F2, invece dell'espressione =
"incluse
armi potenzialmente nucleari" si legge "incluso il ricorso a tutte le
opzioni a nostra disposizione". La Casa Bianca non ha voluto =
commentare le
rivelazioni del 'Washington Times'. Secondo una fonte =
dell'amministrazione
interpellata dal giornale, le parole 'armi nucleari' nel testo =
riservato
danno diposizione ai militari e ai funzionari cui esso =E8 destinato =
di
"preparare per il presidente ogni sorta di opzione". (red)
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm
Bush approves nuclear response
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically =
allows for
the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical =
attacks,
apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, =
it
was learned by The Washington Times.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves =
the
right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially =
nuclear
weapons - to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the =
United
States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, =
National
Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.
A similar statement is included in the public version of the =
directive,
which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons =
of
Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. =
However,
instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the =
public
text says, "including through resort to all of our options."
A White House spokesman declined to comment when asked about the
document last night and neither confirmed nor denied its existence.
A senior administration official said, however, that using the =
words
"nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other
officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of =
an
instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president," if =
need be.
The official, nonetheless, insisted that ambiguity remains "the =
heart
and soul of our nuclear policy."
In the classified version, nuclear forces are designated as the =
main
part of any U.S. deterrent, and conventional capabilities "complement" =
the
nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against =
[weapons of
mass destruction] and missiles," the original paragraph says. =
"Complementing
nuclear force with an appropriate mix of conventional response and =
defense
capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance,
interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our
overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] =
threats."
Before it released the text publicly, the White House changed =
that same
paragraph to: "In addition to our conventional and nuclear response =
and
defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against [weapons =
of mass
destruction] threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, =
surveillance,
interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities."
The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The =
Washington
Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as =
Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 4.
The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports =
that
the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not =
only to
defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi =
facilities
that could withstand conventional explosives.
For decades, the U.S. government has maintained a deliberately =
vague
nuclear policy, expressed in such language as "all options open" and =
"not
ruling anything in or out." As recently as last weekend, Bush =
administration
officials used similar statements in public, consciously avoiding the =
word
"nuclear."
"I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," =
White
House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the =
Press,"
adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to =
protect
its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."
But in the paragraphs marked "S" for "secret," the Sept. 14 =
directive
clearly states that nuclear weapons are part of the "overwhelming =
force"
that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological =
attack.
Former U.S. officials and arms control experts with knowledge of
policies of the previous administrations declined to say whether such
specific language had been used before, for fear of divulging =
classified
information. But they conceded that differences exist.
"This shows that there is a somewhat greater willingness in this
administration to use a nuclear response to other [non-nuclear weapons =
of
mass destruction] attacks, although that's not a wholesale departure =
from
previous administrations," one former senior official said.
Even a slight change can make a big difference. Because it is now
"official policy, it means that the United States will actively =
consider the
nuclear option" in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, executive
director of the Arms Control Association.
"This document is far more explicit about the use of nuclear =
weapons to
deter and possibly defeat biological and chemical attacks," he said. =
"If
someone dismisses it, that would question the entire logic of the
administration's national security strategy against [weapons of mass
destruction]."
Mr. Kimball said U.S. nuclear weapons "should only be used to =
deter
nuclear attacks by others."
A senior official who served in the Clinton administration said =
there
would still have to be a new evaluation before any decision was made =
on the
use of nuclear weapons.
"What this document means is that they have thought through the
consequences, including in the abstract, but it doesn't necessarily =
prejudge
any specific case."
Baker Spring, a national security fellow at the Heritage =
Foundation,
said the classified language "does not undermine the basic posture of =
the
deterrent and does not commit the United States to a nuclear response =
in
hypothetical circumstances. In a classified document, you are willing =
to be
more specific what the policy is, because people in the administration =
have
to understand it for planning purposes."
Both former officials and arms control analysts say that making =
the
classified text public might raise concerns among Washington's allies =
but
has little military significance. On the other hand, they note, the =
nuclear
deterrent has little value if a potential adversary does not know what =
it
can expect.
They agree that there must have been "good reasons" for the White =
House
to have "cleaned up" the document before releasing it. They speculated =
on at
least three:
Although responding to a non-nuclear attack by nuclear weapons is =
not
banned by international law, existing arms-control treaties call for a
"proportionate response" to biological and chemical attacks. The =
question
is, one former official said, whether any nuclear response is =
proportionate
to any non-nuclear attack.
Second, naming nuclear weapons specifically flies in the face of =
the
"negative security assurances" that U.S. administrations have given =
for 25
years. Those statements, while somewhat modified under different =
presidents,
essentially have said the United States will not use nuclear weapons =
against
a non-nuclear state unless that state attacks it together with a =
nuclear
ally.
Finally, publicly and explicitly articulating a policy of nuclear
response can hurt the international nonproliferation regime, which the
United States firmly supports. That sets a bad example for countries =
such as
India and Pakistan and gives rogue states an incentive to develop =
their own
nuclear capabilities.
William M. Arkin, a military analyst, wrote in the Los Angeles =
Times
earlier this week that the Bush administration's war planning "moves =
nuclear
weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them =
in
with all the other military options."
Mr. Arkin quoted "multiple sources" close to the preparations for =
a war
in Iraq as saying that the focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear
weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that =
they
might be impervious to conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's =
use of
weapons of mass destruction."
He cited a Dec. 11 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. =
Rumsfeld
to Mr. Bush, asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., =
chief of
the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the full range of "strategic"
warfare options.
NSPD 17 appears to have upgraded nuclear weapons beyond the =
traditional
function as a nuclear deterrent.
"This is an interesting distinction," Mr. Spring said. "There is =
an
acknowledgment up front that under the post-Cold War circumstances,
deterrence in the sense we applied it during the Cold War is not as
reliable. I think it's accurate."
Yahoo! Gruppi - Sponsor=20
=20
Per annullare l'iscrizione a questo gruppo, manda una mail =
all'indirizzo:=20
InVento_di_pace-unsubscribe@???
L'utilizzo, da parte tua, di Yahoo! Gruppi =E8 soggetto alle =
Condizioni di Utilizzo del Servizio Yahoo!=20
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C2C950.37A01580
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dmogent@??? href=3D"
mailto:mogent@libero.it">antonio =
gentile</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dfuoriregistro@???=20
href=3D"
mailto:fuoriregistro@didaweb.net">Fuoriregistro</A> ; <A=20
title=3Dcoordinamentonoguerrabari@???=20
=
href=3D"
mailto:coordinamentonoguerrabari@yahoogroups.com">coordinamentono=
guerrabari@???</A>=20
; <A title=3DInVento_di_pace@???=20
=
href=3D"
mailto:InVento_di_pace@yahoogroups.com">InVento_di_pace@yahoogrou=
ps.com</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 31, 2003 =
4:00=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [InVento_di_pace] Bush =
autorizza=20
ricorso a nucleare</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><TT>Ho controllato la notizia appena letta su La =
Repubblica on=20
line andando alla<BR>fonte ed ho purtroppo trovato la pagina del 'The=20
Washington Times' che sotto<BR>riporto<BR>antonio gentile<BR><BR><A=20
=
href=3D"
http://www.repubblica.it/news/ired/ultimora/rep_nazionale_n_32976=
2.html">
http://www.repubblica.it/news/ired/ultimora/rep_nazionale_n_32976=
2.html</A><BR>Washington,=20
15:38<BR>Bioterrorismo, stampa: Bush autorizza ricorso a =
nucleare<BR><BR>Il=20
presidente americano George W.Bush ha firmato un documento segreto=20
nel<BR>quale autorizza il ricorso anche ad armi nucleari in caso di=20
attentati<BR>chimici o batteriologici contro gli Stati Uniti. A =
rivelarlo =E8=20
oggi il<BR>quotidiano 'The Washington Times'.<BR>Gli Usa, si legge =
nella=20
Direttiva presidenziale sulla Sicurezza nazionale<BR>numero 17 del 14=20
settembre scorso, "continuer=E0 a mettere in chiaro che si<BR>riserva =
il diritto=20
di rispondere con il ricorso a una forza schiacciante -<BR>comprese =
armi=20
potenzialmente nucleari - all'uso di (armi di sterminio)<BR>contro gli =
Stati=20
Uniti, le nostre forze all'estero o paesi amici e alleati".<BR>Un =
paragrafo=20
simile compare, ricorda il quotidiano, anche nella versione<BR>della =
direttiva=20
resa pubblica l'11 dicembre.<BR>Nel nel testo divulgato alla stampa, =
per=F2,=20
invece dell'espressione "incluse<BR>armi potenzialmente nucleari" si =
legge=20
"incluso il ricorso a tutte le<BR>opzioni a nostra disposizione". La =
Casa=20
Bianca non ha voluto commentare le<BR>rivelazioni del 'Washington =
Times'.=20
Secondo una fonte dell'amministrazione<BR>interpellata dal giornale, =
le parole=20
'armi nucleari' nel testo riservato<BR>danno diposizione ai militari e =
ai=20
funzionari cui esso =E8 destinato di<BR>"preparare per il presidente =
ogni sorta=20
di opzione". (red)<BR><BR><A=20
=
href=3D"
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm">
http://www.=
washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm</A><BR>Bush=20
approves nuclear response<BR>By Nicholas Kralev<BR>THE WASHINGTON=20
TIMES<BR><BR> A classified document signed by=20
President Bush specifically allows for<BR>the use of nuclear weapons =
in=20
response to biological or chemical attacks,<BR>apparently changing a=20
decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it<BR>was learned by =
The=20
Washington Times.<BR><BR><BR> "The United =
States will=20
continue to make clear that it reserves the<BR>right to respond with=20
overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear<BR>weapons - to the =
use of=20
[weapons of mass destruction] against the United<BR>States, our forces =
abroad,=20
and friends and allies," the document, National<BR>Security =
Presidential=20
Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last =
year.<BR> A=20
similar statement is included in the public version of the =
directive,<BR>which=20
was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons =
of<BR>Mass=20
Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. =
However,<BR>instead=20
of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the =
public<BR>text=20
says, "including through resort to all of our=20
options."<BR> A White House spokesman declined =
to=20
comment when asked about the<BR>document last night and neither =
confirmed nor=20
denied its existence.<BR> A senior =
administration=20
official said, however, that using the words<BR>"nuclear weapons" in =
the=20
classified text gives the military and other<BR>officials, who are the =
document's intended audience, "a little more of an<BR>instruction to =
prepare=20
all sorts of options for the president," if need=20
be.<BR> The official, nonetheless, =
insisted that=20
ambiguity remains "the heart<BR>and soul of our nuclear=20
policy."<BR> In the classified version, =
nuclear forces=20
are designated as the main<BR>part of any U.S. deterrent, and =
conventional=20
capabilities "complement" the<BR>nuclear =
weapons.<BR> =20
"Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons =
of<BR>mass=20
destruction] and missiles," the original paragraph says.=20
"Complementing<BR>nuclear force with an appropriate mix of =
conventional=20
response and defense<BR>capabilities, coupled with effective =
intelligence,=20
surveillance,<BR>interdiction and domestic law-enforcement =
capabilities,=20
reinforces our<BR>overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass=20
destruction] threats."<BR> Before it released =
the text=20
publicly, the White House changed that same<BR>paragraph to: "In =
addition to=20
our conventional and nuclear response and<BR>defense capabilities, our =
overall=20
deterrent posture against [weapons of mass<BR>destruction] threats is=20
reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance,<BR>interdiction =
and=20
domestic law-enforcement capabilities."<BR> =
The=20
classified document, a copy of which was shown to The =
Washington<BR>Times, is=20
known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as =
Homeland<BR>Security=20
Presidential Directive 4.<BR> The disclosure =
of the=20
classified text follows newspaper reports that<BR>the planning for a =
war with=20
Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to<BR>defend U.S. forces =
but also=20
to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities<BR>that could withstand=20
conventional explosives.<BR> For decades, the =
U.S.=20
government has maintained a deliberately vague<BR>nuclear policy, =
expressed in=20
such language as "all options open" and "not<BR>ruling anything in or =
out." As=20
recently as last weekend, Bush administration<BR>officials used =
similar=20
statements in public, consciously avoiding the=20
word<BR>"nuclear."<BR> "I'm not going to put =
anything=20
on the table or off the table," White<BR>House Chief of Staff Andrew =
H. Card=20
Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press,"<BR>adding that the United States =
will use=20
"whatever means necessary" to protect<BR>its citizens and the world =
from a=20
"holocaust."<BR> But in the paragraphs marked =
"S" for=20
"secret," the Sept. 14 directive<BR>clearly states that nuclear =
weapons are=20
part of the "overwhelming force"<BR>that Washington might use in =
response to a=20
chemical or biological attack.<BR> Former U.S. =
officials and arms control experts with knowledge of<BR>policies of =
the=20
previous administrations declined to say whether such<BR>specific =
language had=20
been used before, for fear of divulging classified<BR>information. But =
they=20
conceded that differences exist.<BR> "This =
shows that=20
there is a somewhat greater willingness in this<BR>administration to =
use a=20
nuclear response to other [non-nuclear weapons of<BR>mass destruction] =
attacks, although that's not a wholesale departure from<BR>previous=20
administrations," one former senior official =
said.<BR> =20
Even a slight change can make a big difference. Because it is =
now<BR>"official=20
policy, it means that the United States will actively consider =
the<BR>nuclear=20
option" in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, =
executive<BR>director of=20
the Arms Control Association.<BR> "This =
document is=20
far more explicit about the use of nuclear weapons to<BR>deter and =
possibly=20
defeat biological and chemical attacks," he said. "If<BR>someone =
dismisses it,=20
that would question the entire logic of the<BR>administration's =
national=20
security strategy against [weapons of=20
mass<BR>destruction]."<BR> Mr. Kimball said =
U.S.=20
nuclear weapons "should only be used to deter<BR>nuclear attacks by=20
others."<BR> A senior official who served in =
the=20
Clinton administration said there<BR>would still have to be a new =
evaluation=20
before any decision was made on the<BR>use of nuclear=20
weapons.<BR> "What this document means is that =
they=20
have thought through the<BR>consequences, including in the abstract, =
but it=20
doesn't necessarily prejudge<BR>any specific=20
case."<BR> Baker Spring, a national security =
fellow at=20
the Heritage Foundation,<BR>said the classified language "does not =
undermine=20
the basic posture of the<BR>deterrent and does not commit the United =
States to=20
a nuclear response in<BR>hypothetical circumstances. In a classified =
document,=20
you are willing to be<BR>more specific what the policy is, because =
people in=20
the administration have<BR>to understand it for planning=20
purposes."<BR> Both former officials and arms =
control=20
analysts say that making the<BR>classified text public might raise =
concerns=20
among Washington's allies but<BR>has little military significance. On =
the=20
other hand, they note, the nuclear<BR>deterrent has little value if a=20
potential adversary does not know what it<BR>can=20
expect.<BR> They agree that there must have =
been "good=20
reasons" for the White House<BR>to have "cleaned up" the document =
before=20
releasing it. They speculated on at<BR>least=20
three:<BR> Although responding to a =
non-nuclear attack=20
by nuclear weapons is not<BR>banned by international law, existing=20
arms-control treaties call for a<BR>"proportionate response" to =
biological and=20
chemical attacks. The question<BR>is, one former official said, =
whether any=20
nuclear response is proportionate<BR>to any non-nuclear=20
attack.<BR> Second, naming nuclear weapons=20
specifically flies in the face of the<BR>"negative security =
assurances" that=20
U.S. administrations have given for 25<BR>years. Those statements, =
while=20
somewhat modified under different presidents,<BR>essentially have said =
the=20
United States will not use nuclear weapons against<BR>a non-nuclear =
state=20
unless that state attacks it together with a=20
nuclear<BR>ally.<BR> Finally, publicly and =
explicitly=20
articulating a policy of nuclear<BR>response can hurt the =
international=20
nonproliferation regime, which the<BR>United States firmly supports. =
That sets=20
a bad example for countries such as<BR>India and Pakistan and gives =
rogue=20
states an incentive to develop their own<BR>nuclear=20
capabilities.<BR> William M. Arkin, a military =
analyst, wrote in the Los Angeles Times<BR>earlier this week that the =
Bush=20
administration's war planning "moves nuclear<BR>weapons out of their=20
long-established special category and lumps them in<BR>with all the =
other=20
military options."<BR> Mr. Arkin quoted =
"multiple=20
sources" close to the preparations for a war<BR>in Iraq as saying that =
the=20
focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear<BR>weapons: attacking =
Iraqi=20
facilities located so deep underground that they<BR>might be =
impervious to=20
conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's use of<BR>weapons of =
mass=20
destruction."<BR> He cited a Dec. 11 =
memorandum from=20
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld<BR>to Mr. Bush, asking for =
authority to=20
place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., chief of<BR>the U.S. Strategic Command, =
in=20
charge of the full range of "strategic"<BR>warfare=20
options.<BR> NSPD 17 appears to have upgraded =
nuclear=20
weapons beyond the traditional<BR>function as a nuclear=20
deterrent.<BR> "This is an interesting =
distinction,"=20
Mr. Spring said. "There is an<BR>acknowledgment up front that under =
the=20
post-Cold War circumstances,<BR>deterrence in the sense we applied it =
during=20
the Cold War is not as<BR>reliable. I think it's=20
accurate."<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></TT><BR><!-- |**|begin egp html =
banner|**| -->
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D2 border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR bgColor=3D#ffffcc>
<TD align=3Dmiddle><FONT color=3D#003399 size=3D-1><B>Yahoo! =
Gruppi -=20
Sponsor</B></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<TD align=3Dmiddle width=3D470><!--
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=3D125884.1883617.3380487.1810154/D=3Ditclubs/S=3D55=
9003206:HM/A=3D966044/R=3D0/?http://www.yahoo.com
--><IFRAME marginWidth=3D0 marginHeight=3D0=20
=
src=3D"http://it.adserver.yahoo.com/a?f=3D559003206:HM&p=3Ditclubs&am=
p;l=3DHM&c=3Dhm&bg=3Dffffff&site-country=3Dit&tgt=3D_blan=
k&rand=3D1044025272"=20
frameBorder=3D0 width=3D470 scrolling=3Dno=20
height=3D80><script language=3D"JavaScript"
type=3D"text/javascript"
src=3D"http://it.adserver.yahoo.com/a?f=3D559003206:HM&p=3Ditclubs&l=3DHM=
&c=3Djm&site-country=3Dit&tgt=3D_blank&rand=3D1044025272">
</script></IFRAME></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- |**|end egp html =
banner|**| --><BR><TT>Per=20
annullare l'iscrizione a questo gruppo, manda una mail all'indirizzo:=20
=
<BR>InVento_di_pace-unsubscribe@???<BR><BR></TT><BR><BR><TT>L=
'utilizzo,=20
da parte tua, di Yahoo! Gruppi =E8 soggetto alle <A=20
href=3D"http://it.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html">Condizioni di =
Utilizzo del=20
Servizio Yahoo!</A></TT> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C2C950.37A01580--
