Hans Blix deserves apology

[MaDHaVoK]

Hans Blix is a joke.. seriously....

Listen right now we are in the middle of battle. We aren't going to start looking for weapons until the war is over. There are 2000 - 3000 locations we need to inspect but we can't just send our inspectors in when there are tanks and guns still firing.

 

[blade]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.

In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.

We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)

We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.

We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.

We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.

We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.

We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.

We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.

We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.

We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

Very well put!

Wonder why so many are so blind to those points? :disgust: :Q

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him. In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California. We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault) We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us. We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin. We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us. We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at. We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire. We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane. We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country. We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

Excellent post.

Blade -

Perhaps the anti-US trolls here choose not to see the truth. They have an agenda, and have no use for any facts that do not further it.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.

In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.

We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)

We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.

We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.

We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.

We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.

We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.

We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.

We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.

We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

People were complaining that Democrats find ways to put the blame for their actions on other people. This is the biggest example of not taking responsibility for your actions that I've ever seen.

The world was against the US going to war. That was the initial objection. We decided to go to war anyway. So what happens as a result of this war that we chose to enter into is our responsibility. If your mom tells you not to cross the street alone, and you do anyway, you can expect to be chastised when a car almost runs you over. Yes, it's not your fault that the driver had poor eyesight, but you were violating the rules when you ran in the street, and would have had better protection if you had waited for an adult.

If we had done what the world wanted us to do, go in only as part of a world force when authorized by the UN, then we would not be getting the blame because everyone agreed to go in. We knew before we decided to attack that bad things could and would happen. We decided that we were willing to accept those consequences in order to accomplish our goal. Going in by permission of the UN would have shielded us from criticism and we knew this also. After we go in alone, it doesn't make sense to whine about the consequences we knew we were taking on.

And you still haven't pointed out anything wrong that Blix did. You just ranted about things you feel are unfair, threw Blix in among the bad things, and figured people should recognize something's wrong with him because you put him next to Saddam in a sentence. What exactly is your criticism of Blix, the subject of this thread?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.

In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.

We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)

We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.

We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.

We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.

We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.

We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.

We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.

We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.

We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

People were complaining that Democrats find ways to put the blame for their actions on other people. This is the biggest example of not taking responsibility for your actions that I've ever seen.

The world was against the US going to war. That was the initial objection. We decided to go to war anyway. So what happens as a result of this war that we chose to enter into is our responsibility. If your mom tells you not to cross the street alone, and you do anyway, you can expect to be chastised when a car almost runs you over. Yes, it's not your fault that the driver had poor eyesight, but you were violating the rules when you ran in the street, and would have had better protection if you had waited for an adult.

If we had done what the world wanted us to do, go in only as part of a world force when authorized by the UN, then we would not be getting the blame because everyone agreed to go in. We knew before we decided to attack that bad things could and would happen. We decided that we were willing to accept those consequences in order to accomplish our goal. Going in by permission of the UN would have shielded us from criticism and we knew this also. After we go in alone, it doesn't make sense to whine about the consequences we knew we were taking on.

And you still haven't pointed out anything wrong that Blix did. You just ranted about things you feel are unfair, threw Blix in among the bad things, and figured people should recognize something's wrong with him because you put him next to Saddam in a sentence. What exactly is your criticism of Blix, the subject of this thread?

"U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix briefed the Security Council on his monitors' recent discovery that Iraq had an unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, capable of dispensing chemical weapons.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer accused Blix of "burying" that finding Friday in his presentation to the Security Council. Blix did not mention the development in addressing the council, but he cited it in a 167-page report to the body."

"During the 74-year-old Blix's tenure as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency?the U.N. organization that enforces compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?from 1981 to 1997, the Swedish diplomat developed a reputation as Mr. Magoo crossed with Inspector Clouseau. His most dramatic failure occurred when IAEA failed to uncover Iraq's nuclear program during the late 1980s. As Blix told the Guardian earlier this year, "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis." When the Security Council settled on Blix as chief weapons inspector in 2000 (reportedly as the committee's 24th choice), the New York Times editorial page blasted him as a "man of uncertain resolve," a "disappointing choice," and "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system in Iraq." More about Magoo here



He found Iraq in violation of 1441 and still wanted more inspections....for what proving them more in violation?Declaring that unemployment causes terrorism

He is the Mr. Bean of UN inspectors, hand picked by France to look the other way because of France's economic interests (polite term for being bribed by Saddam to veto any action that he wants)

 

[NightTrain]

Found on another forum translated from Swedish..thought it was an interesting read:

Hans Blix believes in UN's future.

The UN will help with rebuilding after the Iraq war. That is what Hans blix hopes and believes. The past friday he appeared before a full booked second chamber auditorium in the Riksdag. Hosts for the meeting were Lars Leijonborg and Folkpartiet (the People Party).

The headline for this party meeting was "The World after the war in Iraq". Some ninety journalists were present, including several representatives from foreign press. One of the great questions which will surely create long-lasting ripples on the pond even after the end of the war, is whether or not the United Nations and the Security council in particular really is a decisive and functional organization. Hans Blix however harbors great hope that the UN will play a part in world politics also in the future.
- The security council is far from dead. This is what Kofi Annan spoke of a while back - the UN is much larger than the Iraq issue, Hans Blix said. He hopes and believes that the UN will be present in Iraq during the reconstruction of the country.

Hans Blix means to say that the division between the USA and Europe that is being presented by the press is considerably exhaggerated. The USA is still set on multilateral work, among other things the issue of North Korea and the fight against terrorism. On both sides there are forces that act to decrease the tensions that have arisen.
Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union the glue that tied Western Europe and the USA together has dissolved. The latter party on one hand maintains the superior military force in the world, but economically the States no longer hold a clear dominance, according to Blix. For example, the EU is growing and could in future match the USA. It is important that the transatlantic cooperation is not severely damaged. A discharge has taken place, but now all parties must start to look ahead.

Hans Blix dismisses many of the theories that flourish about why the USA entered Iraq:

- I do not believe this is a war of civilizations, a war between Islam and Christianity. I do not believe that they are trying to establish an american hegemony in Iraq.
Neither is oil the foremost reason for USA's actions, nor the threat against Israel.
Instead, Hans Blix says the reason which led the USA to war is what was the country has held from the very start.

- I believe they seek guarantees that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction or the ability to get them, he says.
After the attacks of September 11th 2001 the US attitude towards Iraq and terrorism hardened.
Hans Blix started his international career in the 1940ies as a councilman in the International section of FPU (the People Party Youth segment). During the People Party government 1978-1979 he was their Foreign Minister. A few months ago the eyes of the world were turned to the 75-year old Blix when he as chief of the UN's weapon inspectors in Iraq were to report their results.
Hans Blix is disappointed that the weapon inspectors were not granted more time, but at the same time he seems to have an understanding for why the USA did not want to extend the deadline and risk additional delays. Experience with Iraqi procrastination from earlier controls are the background for this.

Blix believes Iraq could have avoided confrontation by clearly declaring what weapons they still kept and that the country would start dismantling them. This was not done, instead Iraq tries to convince the UN that there were no chemical weapons in the country.
On the question whether he feels responsible for the war, Hans Blix responds with a resolute no.
Without the threat of military action Iraq would never have allowed inspections in the country. Hans Blix thinks the inspections went fairly well. In January the inspections became more intense.
- We were granted access to all areas without any delays, but it didn't really straighten out any question marks, he says.
The weapons inspectors requested more time for their work, but at the beginning of March the USA decided enough was enough. The Iraqi war began.
Three and a half months is a short time for inspections, Blix states. He does not believe the discussions in the UN during Fall were held with such a short timespan in mind.
Hans Blix works on a mission from the UN Security Council until this summer. Before Blix retires he hopes to be able to return to Iraq and finish the work the weapons inspectors started last fall. The chance of finding any weapons of mass destruction in the country increases markedly now that Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen, according to Blix.
- Iraq is a police state. I think more people are prepared to talk after the war. It is easier to find weapons when the country is liberated.

It is difficult for the USA to point out a solid reason for war. It is rather the absense of a solution from Iraq that became the motivation.
One could ask why the USA came to the UN looking for support for the war in the fall of last year. There were already signs that the USA doubted continued inspections. There were strong wishes for cooperation from USA's side -- through the UN the USA could gain legitimacy for a war on Iraq.
The division within the UN however prevented the plans of support for an interdiction. Hans Blix is convinced that France sooner or later would have agreed to a march into Iraq.
- Europe has been relatively lame in the question of weapons of mass destruction. The five permanent menbers of the security council agree to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons to themselves, Blix says ironically.
He thinks one could demand that these five nations themselves should aim to be good examples. Primarily the USA has a large arsenal and even continues development of nuclear weapons.

Amnesty International has since 1983 demanded access to Iraq, which according to the organization commits great crimes against human rights. This Hanna Roberts tells us in the panel debate following Blix's speech. She believes it is important for stability in the region that the UN takes a part in the rebuilding, it creates credibility.
- Iraq must reform their justice system and also adress the cases of abuse which took place and are taking place during the war - on both sides The Iraqi people must take part in the rebuilding, Roberts says.
People's rights professor Olle Bring believes in a question raised by Lars Leijonborg, that the people's rights are improved through the Iraq war. The conflict has among other things raised questions about individual rights contra the sovereignty of states. In the UN the fight for human rights must continue, despite resistance from the dictatorships who are members.
- We must not give in. The arguments that defend human rights are strong. There must always exist the ability for the UN to define a country as a dictatorship and take action. But it must be used carefully!


Quote ends. This text was published in the Swedish magazine "nu" ("now" ), "The Liberal News Magazine".

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Nitemare


"U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix briefed the Security Council on his monitors' recent discovery that Iraq had an unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, capable of dispensing chemical weapons.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer accused Blix of "burying" that finding Friday in his presentation to the Security Council. Blix did not mention the development in addressing the council, but he cited it in a 167-page report to the body."

"During the 74-year-old Blix's tenure as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency?the U.N. organization that enforces compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?from 1981 to 1997, the Swedish diplomat developed a reputation as Mr. Magoo crossed with Inspector Clouseau. His most dramatic failure occurred when IAEA failed to uncover Iraq's nuclear program during the late 1980s. As Blix told the Guardian earlier this year, "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis." When the Security Council settled on Blix as chief weapons inspector in 2000 (reportedly as the committee's 24th choice), the New York Times editorial page blasted him as a "man of uncertain resolve," a "disappointing choice," and "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system in Iraq." More about Magoo here



He found Iraq in violation of 1441 and still wanted more inspections....for what proving them more in violation?Declaring that unemployment causes terrorism

He is the Mr. Bean of UN inspectors, hand picked by France to look the other way because of France's economic interests (polite term for being bribed by Saddam to veto any action that he wants)

In this quote Blix does not say that unemployment causes terrorism. That's what the person with an axe to grind who quoted Blix says.

Because the root causes are even more difficult to tackle then the symptoms of it. To wield the big stick and strike here and there and have big surveillance of telephones or whatnot, that can be done, but to get at the social conditions ? better democracy, more education in the Middle East, giving the hope for the many youngsters in that part of the world ? now that's harder. Look at the Palestinians with the huge, huge percentage of unemployed. What does that breed? Anyone who's unemployed in the world, you feel there's no meaning and there's a risk that you drift over to something desperate. Yes, we have to tackle the social problems as well. [emphasis added]

What he says is that unemployment can cause desperation. When there's a loss of hope people become disconnected. I agree with that. I hardly have any emotional swings, but when I was unemployed for 3 months last year, I started to feel pretty desperate. I knew I was in a tough market and that there were a lot of other people competing for the same jobs who were similarly qualified for them. I can imagine how that is magnified in a place where everyone's unemployed and unsure of how to survive. Take his quote in context of what he was saying. He was merely pointing out that you have to address a variety of issues in order to effect change in the Middle East. You can't blow up terrorism, you need to create conditions where people see other options, and then it'll look as crazy to them as it looks to us.


I already addressed the toy airplane several times and showed why what he did was the only rational way to handle it. Please post a rebuttal to one of those posts if you'd like to argue it further.

Insults about Magoo and Clousseau, and someone's opinion in an editorial page add nothing to the argument. When you call someone insulting names, it doesn't hurt them, but makes it seem like your argument isn't a rational one. If people thought him incompetent, he wouldn't have any of those important positions. For him to get the position, a lot more countries than France had to want him.

I'll look into what the IAEA did during the 1980s. Other than the blown out of proportion model plane held together with duct tape that I've asked you to respond to my posts on, what do you think he did wrong during his inspections of Iraq?

 

[yowolabi]

From what you posted Nighttrain, Blix appears to be a sensible and intelligent man with a good grasp of the current situation. There isn't one quote that he makes in that article that I disagree with. Do you disagree, and why?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
From what you posted Nighttrain, Blix appears to be a sensible and intelligent man with a good grasp of the current situation. There isn't one quote that he makes in that article that I disagree with. Do you disagree, and why?

I thought it was a pretty well-reasoned take on things. I don't take issue with any of it.

 

[Ornery]

"I already addressed the toy airplane several times and showed why what he did was the only rational way to handle it."

You didn't focking SHOW anything! You made excuses and expressed YOUR worthless opinion. SHOW links to Blix' reason for burying that finding. Only then can you finally bury that issue.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I already addressed the toy airplane several times and showed why what he did was the only rational way to handle it."

You didn't focking SHOW anything! You made excuses and expressed YOUR worthless opinion. SHOW links to Blix' reason for burying that finding. Only then can you finally bury that issue.

From the second link in my first post in this thread.

Blix mentioned the drone in a 173-page written list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week. While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax. He said the drone hadn't been declared by Iraq to inspectors.

But Iraq insisted it declared the drone in a report in January, and Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the Baghdad inspectors, confirmed that. Ibn Firnas' general director, Gen. Ibrahim Hussein, said the confusion was the result of a typographical error: The declaration said the wingspan was 14.5 feet instead of 24.4 feet.

"When we discovered the mistake we addressed an official letter correcting the wingspan," he said.

Ueki confirmed that, saying Iraq declared a drone called the RPV-30A on Jan. 15 and pointed out what it called a typo on Feb. 18 - a day after inspectors visited the airfield and saw the drone.

But Ueki said he couldn't confirm that the specifications Iraq declared matched what the inspectors saw, and said the drone issue was "under active investigation."

What the inspectors themselves say is what I said their rationale was.

1. It was a question. They put it down as a question in their report and were waiting for Iraq to answer the question. If all they had were questions, what use would it have been in the oral report on that day? There's nothing he could say.

2. It was "under active investigation." They were looking into it. They hadn't found the answers yet. Seeing as how they had no answers, what could Blix have said in his oral report?

The word "buried" is a word used by people with an agenda. It was in the report along with all of the other questions to be answered. Apparently people think it should have been on page 1. If a toy airplane had made it to page 1, I would be questioning Blix's credibility.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I already addressed the toy airplane several times and showed why what he did was the only rational way to handle it."

You didn't focking SHOW anything! You made excuses and expressed YOUR worthless opinion. SHOW links to Blix' reason for burying that finding. Only then can you finally bury that issue.

Here you go

Blix said it did not constitute a smoking gun.

"We are not yet at that stage at all," he told reporters. "We are investigating what the drones are."

Blix said Iraq should have declared the drone in its Dec. 7 weapons declaration as required under the U.N. resolution adopted last November that gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm or face "serious consequences."

But he said the legality of the drone is related to two other issues which his experts are still trying to determine: Does it exceed the 93-mile limit and is it linked to the delivery of biological or chemical weapons?

That's exactly what I said in my earlier posts. From my earlier post:

At the time of the oral report, they hadn't yet investigated the plane to see if it was a violation of resolutions, exactly what it was capable of, or to see why it didn't appear to be reported.

Upon investigation, it was seen that it was reported, as a typo it was listed 10 feet too short, it wasn't capable of much, and it wasn't in violation of the resolutions.

What Blix did was the correct thing to do. List it as a question to be answered, then investigate, and then make a report as to how serious it is. What do you think would have been a better solution? Talk about it in his oral report as if it was a clear violation, even though he didn't know much about it yet? There was nothing to say because it hadn't been investigated yet. Anything negative he said in his oral report about it would have been later shown to be false. He recognized this as a possibility, and hence, did not make any declarations he couldn't back up. The only responsible and smart thing to do.

If that's your best argument of Blix doing a bad job, it's a poor argument.

Edit: Can we consider it buried now?

 

[Ornery]

How the drone issue came to be, or how it all washed out in the end is beside the point. The POINT is, Blix took it upon himself when he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers , yet it WAS disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting. Why was it included in that document at all? If it was still "under investigation", he couldn't know how significant this breach was. Best to err on the side of... ? It's not hard to see which way he was biased... to most of us!

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Ornery
How the drone issue came to be, or how it all washed out in the end is beside the point. The POINT is, Blix took it upon himself when he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers , yet it WAS disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting. Why was it included in that document at all? If it was still "under investigation", he couldn't know how significant this breach was. Best to err on the side of... ? It's not hard to see which way he was biased... to most of us!

That article you quote has it's facts wrong. You're basing your criticism of Blix on old reactionary articles that have been shown to have false information. It wasn't a "smoking gun."

From your article:

?It?s incredible,? a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. ?This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It?s a biggie.?

An explicit report by Dr Blix of the discovery of an Iraqi violation would help the six swing voters ? Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan ? to explain a change of position to their publics. .....

It would be the first undeclared weapons programme found by the UN and is considered by British and US officials to be a ?smoking gun?.

Except.... He didn't yet know if it was a violation. And Iraq pointed out that it was declared.

Blix said it did not constitute a smoking gun.

"We are not yet at that stage at all," he told reporters. "We are investigating what the drones are."

Blix said Iraq should have declared the drone in its Dec. 7 weapons declaration as required under the U.N. resolution adopted last November that gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm or face "serious consequences."

But he said the legality of the drone is related to two other issues which his experts are still trying to determine: Does it exceed the 93-mile limit and is it linked to the delivery of biological or chemical weapons?

He could not report a violation if he was still trying to find out if it was a violation. Where your article breaks down is where it claims that he tried to hide "smoking gun evidence of a violation". It assumes that the plane was a violation. Blix was smarter than that. He knew that in order to determine a violation, one has to actually test the weapon in question. What the writers of your article wanted him to do was to declare something to be a "smoking gun". It would have caused the six swing voters to change their stance. It would have been a Lie. He didn't know what he had. Once he gave information that spurred a war, there would have been no chance to take it back and say "my mistake, they declared it, and it isn't a violation of any agreements."

He erred on the side of... rationality.

Edit: It was included in the document simply because he wasn't trying to hide anything. It was one of many outstanding questions that he included in the document. He did not discuss everything in the document in the oral report. If he had left it out of the report, that would have been a coverup on his part. If he had left it out, he would be accused of a coverup, he puts it in, and you accuse him of knowing it was a smoking gun. Apparently you believe it would have been better if he had incited a war over false information. Please tell me how you would have addressed the situation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.

In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.

We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)

We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.

We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.

We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.

We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.

We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.

We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.

We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.

We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

This is the fault of Hans Blix? Or, is it the fault of George W Bush?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ornery
How the drone issue came to be, or how it all washed out in the end is beside the point. The POINT is, Blix took it upon himself when he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers , yet it WAS disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting. Why was it included in that document at all? If it was still "under investigation", he couldn't know how significant this breach was. Best to err on the side of... ? It's not hard to see which way he was biased... to most of us!

So he shouldn't have said/written anything? Let's break things down:

1) the oral report was a report on what was found/investigated.
2) the written report was a report on both what was found/investigated and what was going to be investigated in the future.

Just because he didn't give the US the much needed "smoking gun" he is being vilified.

 

[Speedy3D!]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.

In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.

We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)

We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.

We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.

We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.

We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.

We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.

We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.

We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.

We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

This is the fault of Hans Blix? Or, is it the fault of George W Bush?

Neither. Saddam knows how to manipulate and bend world opinion, and he is of course not the only one.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: sandorski
People hate Blix because he didn't rubber stamp "smoking gun" on any of his reports thus allowing the US to use as evidence. Blix did a good job and I'll continue to believe so until anyone can prove that he did something worthy of disdain.

We could have helped him by inserting a bug in the chemical and bio weapons we gave them during the the '80's. Well.. we did find some during the '91 skermish, blew em up and poisoned some of our own.. and France could have done the same as well as Russia and Germany.... But... no. We simply said we have intel that they are there.. our bills of sale as some have said. Of course I don't believe a word of it. Well.. we may have given them some but we assumed they'd screw up and poison themselves and save us the trouble of invading. So I guess we do owe Dr. Blix an I'm sorry well.. we are a bit sorry.

Would all the morons who still are claiming there is no proof Saddam still had WMD please at least go learn the history of what is happening and the facts involed. Saddam PROVIDED a list of his WMD to the UN, he was also required to prove they were destroyed.

How did Blix miss an underground nuclear facility anyway?

Is there any proof of WMD yet? And Alistar7, before you open your mouth, learn what proof is.

 

[Ornery]

"...you accuse him of knowing it was a smoking gun."

Oh really, when? I stated the FACTS from that article, that he left this info out of the oral report, yet had it contained in the document. Those are the facts no matter who reports on them.

His response to this? The weapons inspector shrugged off the criticism. Gee that's nice.

 

[Ornery]

"Is there any proof of WMD yet?"

Not yet. How long before you ask again?

When they're found, are you clowns going to just slink off, or what?

 

[blade]

"Is there any proof of WMD yet?"

Once more for the patience impaired:

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.

In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.

We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)

We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.

We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.

We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.

We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.

We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.

We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.

We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.

We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.

 

[Gaard]

If you think it's wrong to ask if there's proof yet, would you guys please tell your prowar compadre to stop saying that there is? Why do you guys keep pouncing on those asking if there's any proof, yet turn a blind eye to doofuses like Alistar7 who keep saying that there is proof.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...you accuse him of knowing it was a smoking gun."

Oh really, when? I stated the FACTS from that article, that he left this info out of the oral report, yet had it contained in the document. Those are the facts no matter who reports on them.

His response to this? The weapons inspector shrugged off the criticism. Gee that's nice.

The shrugged it off part is the words of the reporter. That's his personal interpretation. You have a unique ability to ignore facts and link to articles with the same biased viewpoint, and outdated information. What Blix actually said is this.

Blix said it did not constitute a smoking gun.

"We are not yet at that stage at all," he told reporters. "We are investigating what the drones are."

Blix said Iraq should have declared the drone in its Dec. 7 weapons declaration as required under the U.N. resolution adopted last November that gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm or face "serious consequences."

But he said the legality of the drone is related to two other issues which his experts are still trying to determine: Does it exceed the 93-mile limit and is it linked to the delivery of biological or chemical weapons?

How is that shrugging it off? You need to find more objective sources. You have yet to answer what you think he should have done instead of what he did. You said it would be buried when I linked to his viewpoint in his own words. I have. Tell me why his viewpoint is wrong, and what you would have had him do instead.

I stated the FACTS from that article, that he left this info out of the oral report, yet had it contained in the document. Those are the facts no matter who reports on them.

Those are the facts. I have told you why it was the right thing to do. Your argument is built on stating that he acted improperly. You have yet to state why it was the wrong thing to do.

 

[Ornery]

How is that shrugging it off?

That's what he said to U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte when he asked about Iraq's failure to declare it. But when US officials questioned his motives for not mentioning the existence of the drone in his generally upbeat oral report, that he shrugged off. Not mentioning it was the wrong thing to do, because that makes him look biased. What he should have done instead is MENTION IT! Mention it in both the oral report and the documents.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ornery
How is that shrugging it off?

That's what he said to U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte when he asked about Iraq's failure to declare it. But when US officials questioned his motives for not mentioning the existence of the drone in his generally upbeat oral report, that he shrugged off. Not mentioning it was the wrong thing to do, because that makes him look biased. What he should have done instead is MENTION IT! Mention it in both the oral report and the documents.

sniff waaaaah sniff