 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Blix will be forgotten. I think he did the best he could though. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. They are just now finding some of the underground maises that are under man-made lakes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
I realised that the US government had been very anti-Blix from the start of the inspections but I didn't realise it had turned so many people into rabid Blix-haters, perfectly willing to condemn him with no evidence other than the Bush administration's anger at him not being at hungry for war as they were.
Anyone who condemns Blix as incompetent or a liar or is certain that he will soon be found to be one or the other has clearly suspended all rational judgement and has little or no idea about the inspections process other than the fact that it was standing in the way of a quick start to the war (sort of like a trial standing in the way of quickly sending the accused to prison)
As the more rational people who have posted on this thread have mentioned, Iraq is a big place and it doesn't take huge, easy to find industrial estates to make chemical or biological weapons (if this was true - how come the people/person who was sending anthrax through the mail in the US wasn't found)
Personally I think that there probably think there were/are some WMD being hidden by Saddam but certainly not the huge stockpiles sitting out in the desert, just waiting to be found, that many in the anti-Blix camp would have us believe.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
If the US government had this concrete proof of the whereabouts of WMD, then they should have shared it with the inspectors.
The few times the US gave a (supposed) heads-up to the inpectors, they went there and found nothing meaning that US's 'concrete' evidence was inaccurate or the US didn't share its really concrete evidence with the inspectors.
If the the first is true then the US was lieing and if the second is true, then why the hell didn't they share it?
More likely, the US never had concrete proof, simply fuzzy evidence interpreted in a certain way to justify war(this isn't to say Saddam doesn't/didn't have WMD, just that the US was acting more certain than it should have been)
That aside, I have to agree with Imran. I was in favour of the war (with UN support, the lack of which pissed me off) not because of WMD (anyone who thought Saddam might fire them at the west was living on another planet) but to liberate the people.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
In a short amount of time it will become evident if he failed or not. If the americans with full reign of the country and access to people who have no fear of reprisals from Saddam do not find WMD very soon the jig is up and the spin machines will spin like they have never spun before.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Ah. All assertions and no evidence. Not surprised at all. |
UR, The problem with you leftists is that you had and still have no idea what Blix was supposed to do.
His job was not to find WMD. It was to verify that what Saddam said in the Dec. 8th report was true. Saddam said he had destroyed his WMD. The only way to verify this was to interview those who allegedly destroyed the WMD.
Blix did not interview the scientists. He never insisted that they be interviewed outside Iraq. We told him that Saddam had threatened their lives and the lives of their families. Still Blix did not act.
Blix failed, pure and simple. This has nothing to do with whether Saddam was lying or not. It has to do with Blix and his ineptitude. Blix caused the war.
Last edited by Ned on 13-04-2003 at 10:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Thats funny cause the mandate doesn't seem to say as you do.
The Commission's mandate is the following: to carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities; to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; and to monitor and verify Iraq's compliance with its undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified above. The Commission is also requested to assist the Director General of IAEA, which, under resolution 687, has been requested to undertake activities similar to those of the Commission but specifically in the nuclear field. Further, the Commission is entrusted to designate for inspection any additional site necessary for ensuring the fulfillment of the mandates given to the Commission and IAEA.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscom.htm#MANDATE
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23
Thats funny cause the mandate doesn't seem to say as you do.
The Commission's mandate is the following: to carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities; to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; and to monitor and verify Iraq's compliance with its undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified above. The Commission is also requested to assist the Director General of IAEA, which, under resolution 687, has been requested to undertake activities similar to those of the Commission but specifically in the nuclear field. Further, the Commission is entrusted to designate for inspection any additional site necessary for ensuring the fulfillment of the mandates given to the Commission and IAEA.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscom.htm#MANDATE
|
I am sure you are reading from 1441.
I think this, though, helps explain why Blix was running as fast as he could in the wrong direction. 1441 demanded that Saddam disclose everything on Dec. 8. Blix was supposed to verify that statement. Instead, he pursued his old mandate. Every time the US and the UK tried to get him back on track, he would stear a middle course, giving us some, but not all, of what we wanted.
But he never aggressively tried to verify the Dec. 8 report. This is why Blair proposed the 5 steps that Saddam could take to indicate compliance. These 5 steps should have eminated from Blix.
Last edited by Ned on 13-04-2003 at 21:18
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|