Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Blix Report

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

  • The Blix Report


    United Nations -- Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, gave a broadly negative report Monday on Iraq's cooperation with two months of inspections, saying that Baghdad had failed to provide persuasive evidence that it had rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

    "Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," Blix said, summing up a grim 15-page litany on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs.

    His report contained information that often appeared to echo the administration's view that Saddam Hussein would never disarm unless compelled to do so.

    After Blix had spoken, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Washington: "The issue is not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark.

    It is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and to come clean. And the answer is: Not much more time."

    Powell's remark came at the start of a critical few days in which President Bush will present his case for disarming Hussein in his State of the Union address tonight, before consulting with allies, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair later in the week. Then, and only then, Powell suggested, will the president make his plans clear.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief inspector for atomic weapons, was less critical of Iraq on Monday, reporting that his team had found no evidence so far that Iraq had attempted to revive its nuclear weapons program and appealing to the council for a "few months" more to complete his work.

    The clash within the 15-member Security Council over the duration of the inspections sharpened Monday. The U.S. ambassador, John Negroponte, insisted they had already gone on long enough to demonstrate that Iraq had no intention of disclosing its secret arms to the inspectors. "There is nothing in either presentation that would give us hope that Iraq has ever intended to fully comply," he said.

    But other veto-bearing council powers, including France, Russia and China, contended that the inspections were still working and should be allowed to continue. Britain, Washington's closest ally, expressed support for a German proposal that the inspectors report back to the council again on Feb. 14.


    PRESSURE ON FRANCE, GERMANY
    Blix's sweeping and detailed critique of Iraq's failure to demonstrate with documents, interviews and other evidence that it had destroyed its prohibited weapons appeared to put new pressure on France, Germany and other nations that have resisted early military action, to respond more forcefully to Baghdad's noncompliance.

    Iraq heightened the confrontation Monday by bluntly rejecting all of the inspectors' criticism.

    "Iraq has complied fully with all its obligations" under Resolution 1441, the measure that set up the inspections, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri said, in his most categorical dismissal of the inspections since they began in November.

    The Security Council nations are due to give their official evaluations of the chief inspectors' reports on Wednesday.

    In an open council meeting Monday morning and a closed session in the late afternoon, Blix said that despite Iraq's denials, his team found indications that Iraq had created weapons using the nerve agent VX, which he described as "one of the most toxic ever developed."

    He said that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration of its arms programs that Baghdad presented on Dec. 7.

    So far, he added, Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs that could contain as much as 1,000 tons of chemical agent.

    While Iraq has dismissed as insignificant the inspectors' finding on Jan. 16 of 12 empty chemical warheads in a recently built bunker, Blix said the rockets "could be the tip of a submerged iceberg."

    The discovery "shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate," he said. He added that his inspectors had also found at another site a "laboratory quantity" of thiodiglycol, which he described as a precursor of mustard gas.

    Iraq has declared that it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax for biological warfare before the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Blix said, and claimed to have destroyed all of it unilaterally that year.

    "Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction," he said. There are "strong indications" that Iraq made more anthrax than it declared, and "at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date," Blix said.


    MISSILES VIOLATE U.N. LIMITS
    Blix also reported that Iraq was building two missiles, the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah, which he said seemed clearly to violate U.N. restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 150 kilometers (93 miles). He said he had asked Iraq to cease test flights of the missiles.

    Iraq has refurbished a missile plant that had been previously destroyed by weapons inspectors and has illegally imported chemicals that could be used for weapons, Blix said.

    He also reported that Iraq was "not so far complying with our request" to use his team's U2 high altitude photographic surveillance plane.

    Blix had especially strong language for what he called "disturbing incidents and harassment," including charges by Iraqi officials that his inspectors are spies.

    "Iraq knows they do not serve intelligence purposes, and Iraq should say so, " he said.

    In his much less confrontational report, ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that his team had visited nuclear- related buildings where satellite photography showed new structures and found no new nuclear activities there.

    ElBaradei appealed to the council to give the 2-month-old weapons inspections program more time, saying, "These (next) few months would be a valuable investment, because they could help us avoid a war."

    White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to ElBaradei's assertion about the Iraqi nuclear program by saying that Hussein's biological and chemical weapons capability alone could kill millions of people.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.N. INSPECTORS STILL HAVE QUESTIONS
    A look at specific issues raised by Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), before the U.N. Security Council on Monday:


    AT ISSUE

    VX
    A nerve agent; one of the most toxic substances on earth.

    Chemicals used to make VX


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- Indications that Iraq has worked on the purity and stability of the substance.

    -- Indication that VX has been weaponized.

    -- Inspectors have questions concerning the fate of these chemicals.


    AT ISSUE
    Chemical bombs

    A document found in 1998 details the expenditure of bombs used during the Iran-Iraq war.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- The document states that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988 - 6,500 less than the Iraqis claim. The amount of chemical agents in these bombs is assumed to be unaccounted for.


    AT ISSUE
    Chemical rocket warheads

    Discovered by inspectors in December 2002.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- While Iraq's claims that these warheads were overlooked before are possible, this could also be "the tip of the iceberg" and points to the issue of several thousand unaccounted for rockets.


    AT ISSUE
    Anthrax


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- No documentation produced proves Iraq's claim it destroyed its supply of the deadly agent.

    -- There are indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared.


    AT ISSUE
    Bacterial growth material


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- The table showing Iraq's imports of this material was omitted from its Dec. 7 report to inspectors, and the pages of the report were renumbered.


    AT ISSUE
    Scud-type missiles Iraq may have retained after the Gulf War.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- No technical information has been given to prove Iraq's claim they were used to test an anti-ballistic missile system during the 1980s.


    AT ISSUE
    Missile development projects

    Two Iraqi projects to develop missiles.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- Both missile systems have been tested in excess of the allowed range.

    -- Both types of missiles have been given to the Iraqi armed forces despite Iraq's claim they are still in development.


    AT ISSUE
    High-strength aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to obtain tubes used to manufacture nuclear centrifuges.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- IAEA analysis of the tubes is consistent with the Iraqi claim they were needed to reverse-engineer conventional rockets, but they need more time to investigate fully.

    -- Iraq is forbidden from purchasing the tubes under a U.N. Security Council resolution.


    AT ISSUE

    HMX
    An explosive that can be used for nuclear weapons or for legitimate purposes.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- IAEA says it needs to investigate further the whereabouts of missing quantities of HMX the Iraqis claim were used for mining purposes.


    AT ISSUE
    Uranium

    Iraq has denied trying to import uranium since 1991.


    U.N. FINDINGS
    -- IAEA does not have enough information on the topic and needs to pursue its investigation.

    Sources: United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC); IAEA
    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

  • #2
    The report supports both sides. On the one hand Iraq is not complying fully with relevant UN SC RESO's. On the other, the UN Inspectors need more time to conclude what weapons and equipment Iraq possesses.

    I don't believe Iraq can be disarmed within unconditional government support. Only Iraq knows what they have and where it's all stored. The UN inspectors could find more, but never completely resolve the issues in question. More importantly, unconditional compliance is our best hope that Saddam will never restart WMD programs after inspectors have left. The level of monitoring will not be sufficient to ensure this. So Saddam can't just give up the WMDs he already own. He must also change his opinion on the importance of these weapons in his military arsenal.

    I don't believe another sixty days will bring us any closer to disarming Iraq. We might have more answers to questions, but little more. Saddam must seen the severity of the situation. His decision not to comply, whether it was to hide WMDs or out of pride, provides the necessary justification for the use of force. Twelve years of diplomacy, sanctions, and limited action have done nothing to change the Iraqi position. The only option available, at least in my opinion, is a military operation to remove those who create and enforce the belligerent policies of Iraq.

    The US and it's allies should move quickly to take military action. If we do embark on attempting to get UN support, member states must understand they only have a week or two to make their decision. Nothing more. I know for a fact they can debate and decide the issue in less than a day. However, we should give them at least a week.

    However, I don't believe UN support is necessary, although I would like to have it. Despite Blix's report, neither Germany nor France have changed their positions. Their decision was made "before" the report was released. So that leads me to believe they have already made up their minds and will not change no matter what evidence is presented. Without these countries support, UN approval is impossible, so why try?

    In short, it's time for OPERATION: REGIME CHANGE. Saddam missed the only opportunity he had to disarm and preserve his regime. Now he must submit to the consequences he created by his arrogance and ignorance.
    "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


    • #3
      I disagree with the opinion that the US/UN should strike immediately but they should give the weapon inspectors more time. Consider this: if the US strikes now they will (no matter how you interprete the current situation from your sight) get into serious international diplomatic trouble and would do everything to build up a negative picture uf the USA. All the USA needs is just one clear proove that Saddam is purposly hiding a large stockpile of WMDs from the weapon inspectors to change world opinion. So why not sit back, keep up the pressure and let the inspectors do their job ? At the moment Saddam cant even visit the toilet without being spied on by the US. Its absolutely impossible for him to secretly prepare an attack against any nation right now, no way!
      So, let the Inspectors do their job, Iraq has promised just a few days ago to improve their cooperation with the weapon inspectors, lets see if they do.
      Every week the inspectors work in Iraq gives us a better picture abour Saddams weapon stockpile. If it would take another 6 month to be sure whether saddam is hiding something or not, so what ???? Saddam is clearly no imminent threat so its no matter of days or weaks to disarm him, even if he had WMDs they are useless to him right now. And during 6 month the inspectors should at least be able to discover just _one_ WMD stockpile (if there are some) or informatuon that Saddam is continuing his WMD program, that would be enough to proove that Saddam broke 1441 and the USA could have it their way.

      WHY strike immediately, what is the problem with waiting ??? As long as the weapon inspectors are able to do their job I don't see a justification for war.
      "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

      Henry Alfred Kissinger

      Comment


      • #4
        The problem is the inspectors will not be able to do their job as long as the Iraqi regime doesn't comply unconditionally. It would simply be a continuation of what is a failed policy. Furthermore, it's bad enough our troops are going to be fighting this war. I don't want them to also be hindered by the Desert Summer.

        There are also political concerns here in the US that must be considered. While few people care, I would prefer not to see this war become "the" issue of the 2004 election. Bush will not be able to muster the kind of Congressional support he possesses now. Politics is politics, no matter the justifications.

        To be honest Kraut, even if the inspectors found WMDs, I doubt public support internationally would change. It's been twelve years and most have been lulled into a since of security that only a direct attack could alter.

        I do see your point in waiting, as hard as it might be to believe. I just don't think it waiting will achieve our long term objectives if Saddam doesn't become a far more active participant in the process. The inspections were never decided or intended to solely disarm Iraq. They always depended on the cooperation of Iraq. Their effectiveness is limited by Saddam's level of cooperation. So if he is only 50% cooperative, the inspectors will be just 50% effective.

        Those are my reasons why I believe we should attack now. Not immediately, necessarily, but as soon as our forces are ready.
        "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


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kraut

          So, let the Inspectors do their job, Iraq has promised just a few days ago to improve their cooperation with the weapon inspectors, lets see if they do.
          Iraq promised to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors when RESO 1441 was enacted and the Blix report says they haven't. How many times are you willing to hear Saddam lie ??
          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not sure extra time will do much unfortunately. The Blix report is a lot worse than I thought it would be. Look at the anthrax issue. Iraq claims to of destroyed all of it's antrax but doesn't have any documentation to prove it:


            Blix: Do you still have Anthrax?

            Saddam: No, we destroyed it.

            Blix: Where was it destroyed?

            Saddam: (shrugs shoulders)

            Blix: When was it destroyed?

            Saddam: (shrugs shoulders)

            Blix: Who destroyed it?

            Saddam: (shrugs shoulders)
            "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

            Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

            Comment


            • #7
              one thing you all seem to forget is that this is not just about Saddam but about hundreds of thousands of human beings who will most likely die in this war! If it would be just Saddam... go on, kill him, I dont care but this war will not just kill Saddam nor 'only' the soldiers in the Iraqui and US army but also many many thousands of innocent civilians ! Remember how you fealt when America was attacked by Osama, how much sorrow and despair but also hate and anger? 3000 US citizens died in this tragedy but a gulf war will most likely kill 100.000 equally innocent Iraquis! Can you imagine what you are about to do to the citizens ?
              And that is my point! Saddam isn't complying fully.. yeah yeah. He is an evil man who deserves death, true. BUT HE DEFENITELY ISN'T DANGEROUS ENOUGH TO KILL ALL THESE INNOCENTS JUST TO KILL ONE MAN!

              I know that nobody wants to kill these citizen but we all know that a war will have terrible consequences for the civilians, there houses will be destroyed, their relatives killed, the Infrastructure will be destroyed, this is unavoidable especially if Saddam defends inside the cities.

              I think that you'd need some damn good arguments to justify all this and the Iraq not complying fully (he is complying but could do better, thats my opinion) is definitely no reason for war.

              "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

              Henry Alfred Kissinger

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kraut
                one thing you all seem to forget is that this is not just about Saddam but about hundreds of thousands of human beings who will most likely die in this war!
                This is true. If it wasn't for concern of the loss of innocent life Saddam would of been removed by force many years ago. Hopefully some Iraqi will soon 'convice' Saddam to step down by putting a bullet in the back of his head.
                "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                Comment


                • #9
                  The thing with Saddam is that he has been killing civilians in his own country for years.
                  Had he been stopped in '91, who knows how many would have been saved?

                  Yes, any military should be very concerned about the possibilities of collateral damage and civilian deaths. But military forces can't let the fear of civilian deaths deter them from accomplishing their goals.

                  Civilian deaths are a certainty in any war. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Believe it or not, but as violent as warfare is today, the technology available to the military commander actually lessens the likelyhood of civilian deaths. It doesn't eliminate it but it does reduce it.

                  I guess that's as much as we can hope for.
                  Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tigersqn
                    The thing with Saddam is that he has been killing civilians in his own country for years.
                    Had he been stopped in '91, who knows how many would have been saved?
                    Well, I can't remember any massacres after the GulfWar. OK, the shiits and kurds revolted and were crushed by saddams forces but the west knew this would happen and watched it happen. I don't know much about these revolts but I heaven't heard that saddam purposly killed the civilians during these revolts. So you cant use these as a justification for a war. And you should know which country protected Saddam back in the 80's when he gased the Kurds...

                    Civilian deaths are a certainty in any war. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Believe it or not, but as violent as warfare is today, the technology available to the military commander actually lessens the likelyhood of civilian deaths. It doesn't eliminate it but it does reduce it.

                    I guess that's as much as we can hope for.
                    Yes, civilian death will happen in this war but war wasn't declared (I know, technically the US is still at war with Iraq) and before military force is used I want to see some real reasons why these many civilians must die! US officials said that GW2 might claim 100.000 - 500.000 Iraquis dead, most of them civilians !!!

                    So, what are your points to justify a war that'll lead to these many casualties ?? And please forget about Saddams mass murders 20 years ago, we all agree that it would be best if Saddam would be shot dead but that is no justification for the horrors a new war will bring upon the innocent iraqui citizen!
                    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                    Henry Alfred Kissinger

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Back in GW 1, Saddam agreed to dismantle his WMD.
                      Since that time he has consistently and continually tried to circumvent the various UN resolutions that were imposed.

                      In 1945, the Germans initially attempted to negotiate terms for a surrender, Eisenhower shut them down and reiterated the terms: Unconditional Surrender. Had the German representatives continued to attempt negotiations, do you think Ike would have said "OK, one more chance" ?

                      How much longer does the world have to wait before Saddam complies with their demands ???

                      BTW, about all these estimates of civilian deaths. In GW 1, American casualties were estimated to be as high as 10 000 or more. IIRC, they were much lower.
                      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tigersqn
                        Back in GW 1, Saddam agreed to dismantle his WMD.
                        Since that time he has consistently and continually tried to circumvent the various UN resolutions that were imposed.



                        I repeat my question: do you think that it is justified to willingly accept the death of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians just because Saddam is not complying to 100% ?? remenber, Blix gave him a 'B' for his compliance!!

                        In 1945, the Germans initially attempted to negotiate terms for a surrender, Eisenhower shut them down and reiterated the terms: Unconditional Surrender. Had the German representatives continued to attempt negotiations, do you think Ike would have said "OK, one more chance" ?
                        In no way is the current situation similar to WW2 !! That's just silly!


                        How much longer does the world have to wait before Saddam complies with their demands ???
                        If I could choose to wait 6 more months to see results and than decide what to do or strike now and thereby kill hundreds of thousands I would wait _anytime_ !

                        BTW, about all these estimates of civilian deaths. In GW 1, American casualties were estimated to be as high as 10 000 or more. IIRC, they were much lower.
                        In GW1 the iraqui losses already exceeded 100.000 ! So ppl will die and just because few americans but mostly iraquis will die doesn't change anything. These people have the same right to live in peace than you.

                        So if Uncle Sam is going down there, starting a war which will kill so many I think he should provide a better reason than 'Their leader is only doing 90% of what we want him to do'
                        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                        Henry Alfred Kissinger

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes, civilian death will happen in this war but war wasn't declared (I know, technically the US is still at war with Iraq) and before military force is used I want to see some real reasons why these many civilians must die! US officials said that GW2 might claim 100.000 - 500.000 Iraquis dead, most of them civilians !!!

                          Had the Iraqis resisted, the casualties might have been as high as 10,000. Fortunately, the regular army collapsed so fast, it degraded the effectiveness of the entire Iraqi military force. They really had no choice, but to withdraw. Unlike in 1991, there is nowhere for these troops to go. And we can't depend on the assumption that civilians will be able to escape the combat intensive urban battlefields. 100,000 - 500,000 don't reflect how many dead is estimated. Instead it concerns the number of people who will receive injuries or be killed as a result of combat operations. That doesn't mean they'll be shot. Starvation, lack of medical treatment, structural hazards, lawlessness, etc all can be attributed to combat. The number of civilian dead will probably be less than 10% of any of these numbers. Still, that's alot of people.

                          The reports of atrocities committed by the Iraqi government even after 1991 is well established. Saddam did little to hide his ruthless method of command and control. However, IMHO, this is more of an internal issue that should be settled by the Iraqi people, not outside parties. I know that sounds cold, but unless I see more outcry from the Iraqi people opposing Saddam, I would not be very quick to send troops to resolve internal issues.

                          (Unfortunately, they will in any case.)

                          My justification for war Kraut are as follows

                          UNSC Resolution 687; April 3, 1991 (Note paragraph 8-12)

                          http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fle...ution_687.html

                          UNSC Resolution 707; August 15, 1991

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 715; October 11, 1991

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0715.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 949; October 15, 1994

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0949.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1060; June 12, 1996

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1060.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1115; June 21, 1997

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1115.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1134; Octber 23, 1997

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1134.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1137; November 12, 1997

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1137.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1154; March 2, 1998

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1154.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1194; September 9, 1998

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/unscr-1194.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1205; November 5, 1998

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/98110505_nlt.html

                          UNSC Resolution 1284; December 17, 1999

                          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/99sc1284.htm

                          UNSC Resolution 1441; November 8, 2002

                          http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...10702-1198.pdf

                          Further information concerning reports

                          http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/

                          While Saddam has since complied with some Resolutions, he has yet to comply with all. This doesn't take months to materialize. If Saddam was serious it would do more than say it destroyed the weapons without UN Supervision, which a tad bit on the stupid side.
                          "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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kraut

                            remenber, Blix gave him a 'B' for his compliance!!


                            Please get the facts right. The U.N. nuclear agency gave a 'B' for compliance, not Blix.


                            If I could choose to wait 6 more months to see results and than decide what to do or strike now and thereby kill hundreds of thousands I would wait _anytime_ !


                            This was said six months ago! I'm sure in 6 months there will be found yet more reasons to wait another 6 months...

                            Then someday down the road say a terrorist uses a WMD on a major American city and huge numbers die. I'm sure Gerhard Schröder will make a little speech giving his deepest 'sympathies'. Yeah right.

                            So if Uncle Sam is going down there, starting a war which will kill so many I think he should provide a better reason than 'Their leader is only doing 90% of what we want him to do'

                            What a bunch of bull. Clearly he isn't doing 90% or even close. There is a specific reason Iraq hasn't come clean to the inspectors.
                            "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                            Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Chuck
                              Please get the facts right. The U.N. nuclear agency gave a 'B' for compliance, not Blix.
                              You are right here Blix didn't gave the Iraquis a note but his report wasn't that negative either. Blix: It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. Blix report


                              If I could choose to wait 6 more months to see results and than decide what to do or strike now and thereby kill hundreds of thousands I would wait _anytime_ !


                              This was said six months ago! I'm sure in 6 months there will be found yet more reasons to wait another 6 months...
                              that was 2 month ago! The weapon inspections started again in november! And they at first had to build up again (Blix report: Mr. President, I must not conclude this update without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC. In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communication, translation and interpretation staff, medical support and other services at our Baghdad office and also Mosul field office.

                              Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues. Even at this moment, we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we should have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

                              The team supplied by the Swiss government is refurbishing our office in Baghdad which had been empty for four years. The government in New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. And the government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a field office in Larnaca.

                              All of these contributions have an assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities, so has help from the U.N. in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.



                              Then someday down the road say a terrorist uses a WMD on a major American city and huge numbers die. I'm sure Gerhard Schröder will make a little speech giving his deepest 'sympathies'. Yeah right.
                              I think it'll be a lot easier for terrorists to get WMDs from former SU states than from Iraq and some of better quality, too. I would be more concerned by this threat!

                              So if Uncle Sam is going down there, starting a war which will kill so many I think he should provide a better reason than 'Their leader is only doing 90% of what we want him to do'

                              What a bunch of bull. Clearly he isn't doing 90% or even close. There is a specific reason Iraq hasn't come clean to the inspectors. [/B]
                              This isn't a bunch of bull! Read the report that I provided a link to!
                              Blix is saying that the Iraq is generally complying but has to improve in some ways. I still say 90% compliance is reasonable to say but thats just my personal opinion.
                              "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                              Henry Alfred Kissinger

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X