Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War

    source: New York Times

    UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

    In a two-hour interview in his United Nations offices overlooking Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Blix, the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the administration's campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

    "Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

    Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

    Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.

    He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections.

    Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

    More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."

    Mr. Blix said he continued to endorse disarmament through peaceful means. "I think it would be terrible if this comes to an end by armed force, and I wish for this process of disarmament through the peaceful avenue of inspections," he said. "But I also know that diplomacy needs to be backed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure."

    The decision to disarm Iraq through force was not his, he said, restating what has become a veritable mantra: It has to be decided by the "Security Council, and yes, by Iraq."

    Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday.

    "I haven't pleaded for continuing inspections because I haven't seen a change of attitude on the part of Iraq," he said.

    In the interview, Mr. Blix said that his examination of a liquid-filled warhead that inspectors had discovered in a bunker on Jan. 16 found no signs of any chemical weapons agent. The other 11 warheads found in the bunker were empty, he said, adding that scores of samples his team had taken across Iraq in the past two months had turned up "no trace" of either chemical or biological agents.
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger

  • #2
    interesting, somebody read this and than voted 1.0 for this article. Had I posted an article saying "Blix strongly supports Bushs drive to war" the same person had probably given this a 5 star voting.

    So you (whoever you are) seem to like to select your sources of information and only accept those that support your opinion ?

    I mean after all this _is_ important as it has just blown away one of Bushs arguments (THE argument up to today, because there are no others) why the USA has to attack Iraq.

    But dont worry, shortly before the war the US will come up with "proves" why Saddam is ultimately evil and why the world must attack him right away. Maybe again some babies that are thrown out ot their life supporting machines ? After all, that was really creative by Bush senior, maybe Bush Jr. can top it ?
    (Please remember, that was a lie, told to the world to strengthen their will to fight the monster Hussein. It was pure 100% BS!)
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger

    Comment


    • #3
      Amazing....

      Kraut,

      It amazes me that you would rather believe a madman's story than a somehow decent man, if not a flawed, person's story whose struggle is to do good for the world.

      Why are you willing to accept somebody's story when he has in fact been lying to us for the last 12 years and ruling his country brutally.

      I honestly believe if America were to offer a way to assassinate or overthrow Saddam's regime by indirect means, you would try to find some excuse to stop this from happening.

      I cannot stand anybody willing to get into bed with Saddam, God knows America did that once, and now many people are starting to regret the choice they made with a such madman. Don't you have any compassion for Iraqi people who are suffering at the hands of Saddam's brutal loyal supporters? Don't you desire to see a fledging democracy to be given a new lease on life in Iraq should Saddam be ousted? Don't you desire Iraq to cease the development of a potential WMD?

      Okay, I'm not accusing you of cheering Saddam on, but damnit, I am coming close to doing that one. You're throwing away an opportunity to get rid the world of a dangerous man. Yet, you're seeing my President as an extremely dangerous man, far more deadly than Saddam, which is clearly absurd. You say Bush Jr.'s ambitions are deadly and lethal to the vision of world peace, but at the same time, you continue to ignore Saddam's personal ambitions.

      You're blind.

      I have given a lot of thoughts on this one, and I am willing to die for my country if called to serve in US Army. I may not wear a uniform, but if given a chance, then I would do that, because the soldiers in my country deserve a lot of support thrown their way!

      Kraut, you strike me as a man who would spit on soldiers if they were walking down the road, and yell, "You're baby-killers!" You say because my country is the major world power, therefore, America must endure harsh criticism, this is stupid. Don't the bad guys ever get harsh criticism, it's like nobody is willing to criticize Saddam Hussein for his terrible deeds.

      I knew it in my heart that when Blix was choosen, he would never give a fair and credible report simply because he knew if he did that, then America would have a smoking gun to go after Saddam once for all. I knew in my heart that nobody is willing to stand by Bush with Blair as an exception. I knew America would face a long and hard journey to safeguard her national interests.

      Some people say America deserved 9/11 attacks, and I was shocked at that one, because nobody deserved to die like that. Getting killed in combat is not fun, nor it is meant to be. What OBL committed was heinous, if we can call an individual's criminal acts brutal and heinous, then how much more we can call Saddam, a dictator with unlimited powers, an extremely dangerous man?

      It's like I almost wished OBL would send suicide bombers or terrorists to your country, Germany, to cause another 3,000 people dead, so that you can finally understand what my country, America, is going through. We're not looking for revenge, but somebody has to answer our grief, even if it meant sending somebody straight to their death. We don't want glory or domination, I would rather have America go back to her quasi-isolationaist stance.

      Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of the world's hypocritical theatrical antics. I am especially getting tired of your country's annoying cry for peace when in fact Saddam is violating that kind of peace by pursuing his personal ambitions in building the baddest WMD he can do.

      For just once, shut up and let America do the dirty job...which is killing a bunch of bad guys who need to depart from this world permanently. If you don't like it, then don't complain to us or the world, just shut up.

      Dan
      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

      "Aim small, miss small."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kraut
        interesting, somebody read this and than voted 1.0 for this article. Had I posted an article saying "Blix strongly supports Bushs drive to war" the same person had probably given this a 5 star voting.

        So you (whoever you are) seem to like to select your sources of information and only accept those that support your opinion ?

        I mean after all this _is_ important as it has just blown away one of Bushs arguments (THE argument up to today, because there are no others) why the USA has to attack Iraq.

        But dont worry, shortly before the war the US will come up with "proves" why Saddam is ultimately evil and why the world must attack him right away. Maybe again some babies that are thrown out ot their life supporting machines ? After all, that was really creative by Bush senior, maybe Bush Jr. can top it ?
        (Please remember, that was a lie, told to the world to strengthen their will to fight the monster Hussein. It was pure 100% BS!)
        Ah don't feel bad Kraut i had five threads that i either posted to or started get voted one star in one day.Someones gone rate happy.Though it would be nice if instead of panning someones Piece they would at least write why they disliked it or the opinions involved.You put alot of effort into your thoughts and posts,i don't ,its a good article.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh well i tried to bump it up some,won't let me rate this thread.

          Comment


          • #6
            Everyone knows the rating system is rigged.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Amazing....

              Originally posted by Cheetah772
              Kraut,

              It amazes me that you would rather believe a madman's story than a somehow decent man, if not a flawed, person's story whose struggle is to do good for the world.

              Why are you willing to accept somebody's story when he has in fact been lying to us for the last 12 years and ruling his country brutally.
              Maybe you should reread the article I've posted ? It wasn't Saddam who was interviewed by NYT and who's opinion I've posted, it was Blix, probably a person with some of the best insights into Saddams capabilities.

              Now Blix gave a report a few days ago were he reported from the first 60 days of their inspections in Iraq. Than came Bush and said that this report proves a) b) c) but that's not true as Blix says now. So either Bush and his administration weren't able to understand Blix report (very unlikely) or they simply made things up to strengthen their position (I call that lying).
              Bushs reasoning for war is that saddam has breached 1441. Now Blix said that not everything is working as supposed and that Iraq has to work harder to prove that he no longer has WMDs but that there is at least cooperation from Iraq. In his report he purposly didn't said whether he'd like to see the inspection continue or not because he thought that that is just his personal opinion and he wanted the security council to decide what to do.
              Most members of the security council tend towards voting for prolonged inspections (UK included)
              So without the security council declaring a martial breach the US suddenly has lost one of their reasons for war. Remember, most of your partners only support a war backed up by the UN so if the USA don't want to loose their supportes they have to stay inside UN resolutions.

              I honestly believe if America were to offer a way to assassinate or overthrow Saddam's regime by indirect means, you would try to find some excuse to stop this from happening.
              Nop, go ahead, do it, if you have a way to remove saddam without killing thousands of innocents that's certanly better than another war. But there is no such way or the USA would have already done that.

              I cannot stand anybody willing to get into bed with Saddam, God knows America did that once, and now many people are starting to regret the choice they made with a such madman. Don't you have any compassion for Iraqi people who are suffering at the hands of Saddam's brutal loyal supporters? Don't you desire to see a fledging democracy to be given a new lease on life in Iraq should Saddam be ousted? Don't you desire Iraq to cease the development of a potential WMD?
              I'm not going into bed with saddam, I prefer women
              But seriously: Don't you have any compassion for Iraqi people who are suffering at the hands of Saddam's brutal loyal supporters?
              Oh come on! This war has nothing to do with freeing the poor Iraquis from Saddam! There are far more opressive states in the world and if asked whether they want to live under saddams rule or being bombed by the USA I can assure you that 99% want to continue living their life as they live today if the alternative would be war !
              Don't you desire to see a fledging democracy to be given a new lease on life in Iraq should Saddam be ousted?
              That would be really nice but you can't force democracy upon people, Afganistan is the best example. These people are used to live their lifes lead by their clan leader, they don't want to be lead by democracy leaders probably from another clan ! How should democracy rise in Iraq ?? Is there any democratic movement ? No. The many oppositions have only one common goal and that is to get rid of saddam but as soon as that is done they won't form a democracy, they'll follow their own goals again. Democracy never works without support by the iraqui people and I don't see them wanting a democratic government right now. Just because we see democracy as the best possible government doesn't mean that other nations and cultures have the same opinion.
              The people in Iraq see themself as different, the shiits in the south, the sunits in the north, the kurds etc. As long as they don't see themselfs as iraquis first and ethnical or cultural belonging second they'll never accept a democracy were the others make descisions that'll affect them too.

              Don't you desire Iraq to cease the development of a potential WMD?
              Yes, of course, but I dont want to see the Iraq bombed to pices to remove its WMDs if there are other, peacefull ways. I think that the weapon inspectors can achive the same, it'll maybe take them longer but it'll cost far less, either in terms of money and more important in terms of lives !
              Remember, the weapon inspectors found and destroyed more WMDs during their inspection than the US destroyed during Gulf War ! So maybe inspections are even more effective ??

              Okay, I'm not accusing you of cheering Saddam on, but damnit, I am coming close to doing that one. You're throwing away an opportunity to get rid the world of a dangerous man. Yet, you're seeing my President as an extremely dangerous man, far more deadly than Saddam, which is clearly absurd. You say Bush Jr.'s ambitions are deadly and lethal to the vision of world peace, but at the same time, you continue to ignore Saddam's personal ambitions.
              If I would step forward and say that I want to become the supreme ruler of the world, would you see me as a risk to world peace? Surely not and why? Because I have no power to fulfill my evil plans. You probably couldn't care less about my ambitions. And it's the same with Saddam. He might still want to get more land/power but he simply cant because he is too weak. He is no thread to world peace, and all you keep doing is stereotypic repeating that Saddam is a danger to peace without saying why !! Saddam has the _potential_ to attack another country because he has an army but so has any country with an army ! Syria could declare war on Israel, should Israel preemtively attack and occupy Syria ??? Without any imminent danger, just because Syria _could_ attack (and than Egypt and Jordan and ....) ?? You see (I hope), this is just absurd and would lead to chaos and war all over the world.
              If you disagre than I have a question: why is the Iraq an imminent danger to world peace ??? What are your proves/indications ??? (And I mean proves not this Bush-Babble about what could happen!)

              Kraut, you strike me as a man who would spit on soldiers if they were walking down the road, and yell, "You're baby-killers!" You say because my country is the major world power, therefore, America must endure harsh criticism, this is stupid. Don't the bad guys ever get harsh criticism, it's like nobody is willing to criticize Saddam Hussein for his terrible deeds.
              first, I've never attacked an american souldier and will never becaus I know that they are just doing their job if ordered to, the one responsible for their actions is their government and therefore I'm only criticizing Bush and not a soldier personally.
              And: I am also criticizing Saddam, we are not living in a black/white world were one is either good or bad, I see that Saddam is a bad man but that doesn't automatically turn every man who opposes him into a good man ! And I've never said that america must endure harsh criticim because its the only super power left, you made that up! I critizice the USA because of what they do, not because of what they are !!!

              I knew it in my heart that when Blix was choosen, he would never give a fair and credible report simply because he knew if he did that, then America would have a smoking gun to go after Saddam once for all. I knew in my heart that nobody is willing to stand by Bush with Blair as an exception. I knew America would face a long and hard journey to safeguard her national interests.
              thats paranoid thinking ! This was all a big conspiracy by the UN to take away the reason for the USA to attack Saddam ? You can't be serious!

              Some people say America deserved 9/11 attacks, and I was shocked at that one, because nobody deserved to die like that. Getting killed in combat is not fun, nor it is meant to be. What OBL committed was heinous, if we can call an individual's criminal acts brutal and heinous, then how much more we can call Saddam, a dictator with unlimited powers, an extremely dangerous man?

              It's like I almost wished OBL would send suicide bombers or terrorists to your country, Germany, to cause another 3,000 people dead, so that you can finally understand what my country, America, is going through. We're not looking for revenge, but somebody has to answer our grief, even if it meant sending somebody straight to their death. We don't want glory or domination, I would rather have America go back to her quasi-isolationaist stance.
              Some people say America deserved 9/11 attacks, and I was shocked .... It's like I almost wished OBL would send suicide bombers or terrorists to your country, Germany, to cause another 3,000 people dead <--- maybe you should think about this for a while !

              OK, terrorism is the source of all evil but let's not forget that the Iraq crisis has nothing to do with OBL or the fight against terrorism !!
              I repeat, there are no links between Iraq and the WTC attacks or any planed attacks on the USA! You can be assured that if there were such links Bush would immediately call a press conference to rub it under the worlds nose because he finally has an argument to go to war! The alliance that attacked Afganistan was an anti-terror allieance and at the moment the world is united in its fight against terrorism. Had there only been the slightes clue whatsoever of Iraq/AlQaeda links we would have a totally different situation. Let me quote Blix again: Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue


              Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of the world's hypocritical theatrical antics. I am especially getting tired of your country's annoying cry for peace when in fact Saddam is violating that kind of peace by pursuing his personal ambitions in building the baddest WMD he can do.
              annoying cry for peace ?? I guess you haven't fully understood the true meening of war or you wouldn't be so eger to start one. Just because mostly Iraquis will die in this war and there is no danger for your ppl at home doesnt make this war (or any war) less horrible. I'd say fighting for peace is the most noble thing to fight for, fighting for war is just stupid.

              And why do you keep repeating that Saddam is 'building the baddest WMD he can' ?? There are no proves, step foreward and show them or stop pretending you are speaking of hard facts. AND you can't build nukes in your backyard. You need huge fascilities and logistics that are easily recognizable on sattelite pictures, you need highly advanced technology which of the Iraq posessen non. There is a reason why biological and chemical WMDs are known as poor mans WMDs because it's not that easy to build nukes. And even these bio/chem WMDs need the propper weapons to efficiently use them for example if a WMD SCUD is equipped with a contact fuze the WMDs will be far less efficient that with an approximate fuze. And IIRC the inspectors discovered that Saddam not even had such fuzes. Look, even the japanes aum sect was able to build chemical WMD, if they could do it every state can! So you can never prevent WMDs from being build but you can prevent them from being used. How ? With internation pressure and with the consequences a state would have to fear if he uses WMDs ( the cold war nuclear retaliation strategy for example). So instead of hunting WMDs that could easily be replaced if wanted, it would be a lot better to get nations to not wanting to posess or use these WMDs. WMDs (especially nukes and bio weapons) are weapons for self defence, you don't nuke a country you want to occupy, you dont use bio weapons on the attack whos spread cant be controlled and who might turn against you, these are just weapons to scare away potential attackers. Chems are a different story, they have the potentila to be used as offensive weapons but as long as a state cant use them because he than had to fear harsher consequences for his country he wont use them.
              So the best way to control WMDs is to prevent their usage through military pressure thereby rendering them pretty much useless. Thinking that preassure could prevent a state that wants to have WMDs from building them is naive.
              So what we need is a realistic scenario were any state that uses WMDs offesively must fear massive retaliation (by UN/NATO ?), if we could achive that situation we would be a lot safer than if we try to run after every WMD with the aim to destroy them because thats a never ending story.
              For just once, shut up and let America do the dirty job...which is killing a bunch of bad guys who need to depart from this world permanently. If you don't like it, then don't complain to us or the world, just shut up.

              Dan [/B]
              I won't
              "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

              Henry Alfred Kissinger

              Comment


              • #8
                Colin Powell is scheduled to brief the UN security council on February 5th. President Bush has ordered that top secret intelligence data be revealed in order to show that Iraq is systematically deceiving the UN weapons inspectors. There is currently quite a fight going on within the US intelligence community to keep this data from being released. The reasons for that are many.

                First, US intelligence experts claim they can see a very clear pattern of the Iraqis moving material and equipment with 48 hours of the arrival of the UN inspectors. That leads them to believe that somehow the schedule of the UN inspectors has been compromised. Exactly how that has occurred is so far a mystery. Either the Iraqis have bugged the team, have inside information, or they are just damn lucky. I'm not inclined to believe in luck on this issue.

                Second, US intelligence experts are of the opinion that this evidence is 100% bullet proof, however, it may not be obvious to the untrained eye. What may be convincing evidence to an experienced agent may be just a bunch of buildings or trucks to the average person. They fear that having potentially compromised some of our most closely guarded secrets, some members of the UN security council have already made up their mind to see only what they wish to see. So why waste the data?

                If Powell does come through and deliver ironclad proof of Iraqi efforts to deceive the UN, will Germany and France then change their attitude and support the US-led mission? Personally, I doubt it. At this point it would cost their respective politicians way too much political capital to admit they have been wrong all along. They will likely attempt to pick apart the data in any way they can and still claim it's less than 100% conclusive no matter what evidence is submitted. They'll release a statement saying that they new evidence is "interesting" or "disturbing," but they will not suddenly do an about face. This may be their last chance to change course. If a US-led coalition does take Iraq, you can bet there will be plenty of Iraqi scientists and generals willing to tell all after Saddam is gone. That will give Tony Blair and George Bush a sledgehammer to use against critics in Germany and France, and a huge "I told you so."
                Editor-in-Chief
                GameSquad.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Kraut - I stand and applaud your reply to Cheetah's outrageous post . Pure beauty.

                  Don - If there is evidence why withhold it ? Surely it would make sense to show the world. Unless like I have already mentioned it is either false and intended to be so or it has been withheld in order to justify a war. If there is evidence and the US has had it for a while, then why try and guide the UN inspectors to suspected sites ? It just does not make sense.....because it is not true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If the US released all the intelligence information at their disposal, sources would dry up like a popcorn fart and there would be no more intelligence to be had. As it is, by releasing some info. the Bush team is already going to be compromising assets.
                    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If Kraut was a politician, I would support Cheetah772's post. However, since he isn't, I have to say Cheetah simply got too heated.

                      Kraut, the UN inspectors were never designed or expected to disarm Iraq unilaterally. Success always has and will depend on the level of cooperation received from the reigning Iraqi government. At this point, based on the statements made by Blix to the UN, Iraq's level of cooperation, though improved, is still not sufficient to ensure the successful completion of the inspector's mission. The Iraqi's have yet to provide a more complete declaration of the WMD programs, and have violated some sanctions.

                      Providing more time is useless unless the Iraqi government changes it's current policy toward inspections. They have failed to answer important questions they should know about.

                      No one wants to say the word "Material Breach" because the term is seen as a trigger for war.

                      3.Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

                      4.Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;



                      “5.Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;


                      The Blix Report highlighted the following:

                      1. Iraq, in principle have cooperated to facilitate process and accessing to relevant sites.

                      2. Assistance provide by Iraqi to build up UNMOVIC in country;

                      3. Iraq has publically made false statements against UN inspectors resulting in harrassment and protest;

                      4. 12,000 page declaration is a reprint of old declarations, with no new information; (If the old document was ruled to be a material breach, so should this one);

                      5. UNMOVIC has conflicting reports about Iraqi VX agent

                      6. Weaponary and agents are "unaccounted for"

                      7. Iraq violated missile ban (but have allowed steps to be taken to contain this);

                      In short, while there is no smoking gun against Iraq, no one is prepared to say he has disarmed

                      No matter how you cut it Kraut and Marko, Saddam has not cooperated unconditionally and fully. That was the mandate given to Iraq. We're not talking about a few bombs here or there. We're talking about thousands of shells, rockets, and tons of agents Iraq can't account for. There's something wrong with that, and I don't think it's Saddam's math.

                      The Blix report was inconclusive, but free to interpretation. Cheetah believes Saddam is not complying fully. And the evidence supports that. However, evidence also suggest more time is needed before a conclusive position can be reached. Me, Cheetah, and others don't want to wait anymore.

                      I completely respect your position Kraut, though I don't support it. I would be willing to wait if I thought it would make a difference. If Iraq answered conclusively some of the big questions we still have, I would support a delay. However, I see no indication otherwise. Thus, I feel we need to get the damn killing over with, and not draw this out into a long, painful experience that will only end up with the violence time was suppose to avoid.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marko
                        Don - If there is evidence why withhold it ? Surely it would make sense to show the world.


                        I guess I'm making a big assumption here, but you did in fact read my post? I went to some length to explain the reasons that most experts do not want raw intelligence data released.

                        I'll try to explain it again.

                        First, if we release satellite reconnaissance photos the Iraqis will certainly glean a hell of a lot of information from examining those photos. Even if we reduce the resolution and color depth to protect that portion, there is still much that foreign agencies will learn from them. For one they will know some of the things that we are allocating resources to and the Iraqis can then adjust their covert techniques to compensate for this. One of the things that we learned from the Gulf War is that the Iraqi military is quite skilled at fooling our reconnaissance aircraft and they have come up with some rather elaborate and effective camouflage and deception schemes.

                        Second, the Iraqis will just insist that any evidence the US presents is doctored and false. No matter what evidence we present it will be challenged.

                        Third, intelligence data is only a tool to help politicians and generals make informed decisions. France and Germany have already taken a political stance based on other factors. It is probably a waste of our resources and time to try and convince them that the Iraqis are deceiving the UN. It is also more than likely that even if they were faced with incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, they would still want to "give Iraq another chance." Neither country is going to contribute anything significant in any event, so why should the US waste more time in useless debate?

                        If there is evidence and the US has had it for a while, then why try and guide the UN inspectors to suspected sites ? It just does not make sense.....because it is not true.


                        Uh...the US has been doing exactly that for several weeks. It resulted in 3,000 pages of documents relating to the enrichment of uranium being seized from the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist. Of course the Iraqis claim they forgot about those documents. Nothing important.

                        The bottom line Marko - which seems to be evident to 98% of the viewers of this forum - is that you are only willing to accept information that proves there some vast world wide conspiracy to "frame" Saddam Hussein (as if that was necessary). The utter absurdity of debating this with you tickles my funny bone. You seem perfectly willing to accept any tripe that Saddam submits in your general direction at face value. On the other hand you believe (by your statements) that much of the rest of the civilized world is involved in a gigantic cover up/deception to frame this paragon of civilized virtue.

                        Now that we have established that you find fault with the US, Britain, Spain, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Turkey, Qatar, Yemen, Italy, and a few others... let's here your master plan to deal with Saddam Hussein. Let me guess, it doesn't involve any risk or expense on your part, and involves granting Saddam Hussein an indefinite amount of time to...what? Finish destroying his last stockpiles of WMD? Yeah right. We know for a fact that Iraqi had large quantities of these in 1998 because the UN weapons inspectors told us so (and they're never wrong). That's why Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out in 1998: so that he could more efficiently dispose of these weapons on his own!! That's it!!

                        Your logic is so convoluted and full of obvious holes that it's hardly a challenge to refute them. First you scream that the US hasn't presented enough hard evidence to justify military action. Then you question the integrity of the American people and state that the evidence that Secretary of State Powell is about to release is all lies and falsehoods (see your above post), even though no one outside of the US intelligence community has seen this data. Wow, that's fairly impressive...
                        Editor-in-Chief
                        GameSquad.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Don Maddox

                          Colin Powell is scheduled to brief the UN security council on February 5th. President Bush has ordered that top secret intelligence data be revealed in order to show that Iraq is systematically deceiving the UN weapons inspectors. There is currently quite a fight going on within the US intelligence community to keep this data from being released. The reasons for that are many.

                          Is this a smoking gun?


                          First, US intelligence experts claim they can see a very clear pattern of the Iraqis moving material and equipment with 48 hours of the arrival of the UN inspectors. That leads them to believe that somehow the schedule of the UN inspectors has been compromised. Exactly how that has occurred is so far a mystery. Either the Iraqis have bugged the team, have inside information, or they are just damn lucky. I'm not inclined to believe in luck on this issue.


                          I wouldn't put this past a couple of Weasels I know.


                          Second, US intelligence experts are of the opinion that this evidence is 100% bullet proof, however, it may not be obvious to the untrained eye. What may be convincing evidence to an experienced agent may be just a bunch of buildings or trucks to the average person. They fear that having potentially compromised some of our most closely guarded secrets, some members of the UN security council have already made up their mind to see only what they wish to see. So why waste the data?


                          Good point.
                          "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                          Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I've gone over the first post and I don't think it states whether Blix is for or against war. Basically it's neutral talk from a diplomat:

                            "Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."
                            "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said about Iraq's link to Al Qaeda, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."
                            On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
                            "I think it would be terrible if this comes to an end by armed force, and I wish for this process of disarmament through the peaceful avenue of inspections," he said. "But I also know that diplomacy needs to be backed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure."
                            "I haven't pleaded for continuing inspections because I haven't seen a change of attitude on the part of Iraq," he said.
                            "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                            Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Don Maddox
                              I guess I'm making a big assumption here, but you did in fact read my post? I went to some length to explain the reasons that most experts do not want raw intelligence data released.

                              I'll try to explain it again.

                              First, if we release satellite reconnaissance photos the Iraqis will certainly glean a hell of a lot of information from examining those photos. Even if we reduce the resolution and color depth to protect that portion, there is still much that foreign agencies will learn from them. For one they will know some of the things that we are allocating resources to and the Iraqis can then adjust their covert techniques to compensate for this. One of the things that we learned from the Gulf War is that the Iraqi military is quite skilled at fooling our reconnaissance aircraft and they have come up with some rather elaborate and effective camouflage and deception schemes.

                              Second, the Iraqis will just insist that any evidence the US presents is doctored and false. No matter what evidence we present it will be challenged.

                              Third, intelligence data is only a tool to help politicians and generals make informed decisions. France and Germany have already taken a political stance based on other factors. It is probably a waste of our resources and time to try and convince them that the Iraqis are deceiving the UN. It is also more than likely that even if they were faced with incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, they would still want to "give Iraq another chance." Neither country is going to contribute anything significant in any event, so why should the US waste more time in useless debate?

                              Uh...the US has been doing exactly that for several weeks. It resulted in 3,000 pages of documents relating to the enrichment of uranium being seized from the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist. Of course the Iraqis claim they forgot about those documents. Nothing important.

                              The bottom line Marko - which seems to be evident to 98% of the viewers of this forum - is that you are only willing to accept information that proves there some vast world wide conspiracy to "frame" Saddam Hussein (as if that was necessary). The utter absurdity of debating this with you tickles my funny bone. You seem perfectly willing to accept any tripe that Saddam submits in your general direction at face value. On the other hand you believe (by your statements) that much of the rest of the civilized world is involved in a gigantic cover up/deception to frame this paragon of civilized virtue.

                              Now that we have established that you find fault with the US, Britain, Spain, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Turkey, Qatar, Yemen, Italy, and a few others... let's here your master plan to deal with Saddam Hussein. Let me guess, it doesn't involve any risk or expense on your part, and involves granting Saddam Hussein an indefinite amount of time to...what? Finish destroying his last stockpiles of WMD? Yeah right. We know for a fact that Iraqi had large quantities of these in 1998 because the UN weapons inspectors told us so (and they're never wrong). That's why Saddam kicked the weapon inspectors out in 1998: so that he could more efficiently dispose of these weapons on his own!! That's it!!

                              Your logic is so convoluted and full of obvious holes that it's hardly a challenge to refute them. First you scream that the US hasn't presented enough hard evidence to justify military action. Then you question the integrity of the American people and state that the evidence that Secretary of State Powell is about to release is all lies and falsehoods (see your above post), even though no one outside of the US intelligence community has seen this data. Wow, that's fairly impressive...
                              Firstly you an American so I would not expect anything else. You like your oil cheap too. Secondly, the US administration does not need world approval to attack Iraq - but it will seek it by hook or by crook. There is no intelligence, satellite images of trucks moving around hardly constitutes foulplay. Trucks are actually designed to carry stock and move it from A to B like so:

                              A...................to..................B This involves a journey. Also military, industrial and commercial installations may require the use of a truck and a subsequent journey. Next piece of evidence will be some connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, several chance meeting several years old no douby. Just like those meetings Rumsfeld attended in Iraq. Is it this factor that makes it all hurt so much - the fact that the US supported Iraq at one stage. He He . And EVERYONE knows the inspectors (not every individual) in 1998 were spying, thanks again to the US of A.!!! So you only have yourselves to blame for that fiasco. What is also apparent (observed by 98.7% of forum users) is your continually contradictions. Stop trying to interpret what I say into a political or moral stance. I do not like Saddam, so don't imply that I am concerned about a conspiracy against him. Its the good old US of A that worries me - why aren't they honest. Like this intelligence BS, we all know its BS - if you don't then the US admin has succeeded in getting one over on you...he he... Another Pro-war propoganda puppy.....aaahhhhh

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X