Hans Blix deserves apology

[charrison]

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.

Anything that was illegal should have least been mentioned in his oral report, even it was only see the appendix for things that currently under investigation.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: 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.

No response from those bitching about people asking for proof. It figures.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: 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.

No response from those bitching about people asking for proof. It figures.

Maybe they read the 12,000 page report SADDAM SUBMITTED TO THE UN YOU FVCKING DOOFUS THAT OUTLINED HIS WMD PROGRAMS....

Which you "conviently" never acknowledge..... doesn't change the fact it's still very real and true.

Oh I'm sorry, I missed that you rolled your eyes, guess that report doesnt exist then....

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: 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.

No response from those bitching about people asking for proof. It figures.

Maybe they read the 12,000 page report SADDAM SUBMITTED TO THE UN YOU FVCKING DOOFUS THAT OUTLINED HIS WMD PROGRAMS....

Which you "conviently" never acknowledge..... doesn't change the fact it's still very real and true.

Oh I'm sorry, I missed that you rolled your eyes, guess that report doesnt exist then....

Look up to Ornery's post with the 6:39 PM time stamp. <<Not yet.>> Does that mean he is "conviently" not acknowledging it?

 

[Alistar7]

Apparently alot of people are not even aware or refuse to accept the fact Saddam provided evidence of existence.....

That drives me nuts, its simple fact, readily found for anyone concerned with the truth.

 

[Jani]

Apparently alot of people are not even aware or refuse to accept there have not been found any WMD so far..... And still they claim proof of WMD. Why would that 12000 page report be the truth if Saddam have always lied before.

 

[Ornery]

Nobody ever answered MY question. "When they're found, are you clowns going to just slink off, or what?"

"And still they claim proof of WMD"

Who is "they"? Take it up with "them".

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll try your question, Ornery. Among the mass of excused Bush tiied to float to attack Iraq while hiding the real reason, American New Century Imperialism, he tried the WMD excuse, the WMD bogeymsan. We have to attack them becore they attack us. Well we attacked them and they didn't even attack us back with these dreaded weapons. That tells you that if somebody isn't a threat wehn you attack them, they sure as hell aren't a threat if you leave them alone. So if they find some weapons, it's not going to affect my thinking on what a subterfuge and lie this war was because we just proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Iraq was a paper tiger, a threat to nobody outside Iraq. Are you going to crawlunder a rock if and when the whole Iraq fiasco turns to crap. I hear on the radio the Iraqis are already asking us to get out and some are boycotting the meatings to form a new gov because of US envolvment.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Nobody ever answered MY question. "When they're found, are you clowns going to just slink off, or what?"

"And still they claim proof of WMD"

Who is "they"? Take it up with "them".

Who are these 'clowns' you speak of? If by 'clowns' you mean people asking "where are the WMD" or "where is the proof of WMD", obviously those questions won't be asked anymore. Is that what you mean?

 

[Ornery]

WHEN the WMDs are found, Bush WILL be vindicated. Blix and France will babble some kind of excuse.

After 9-11, we're not waiting for these lunatics to strike first. It only takes a handful of terrorists to wreak havoc.

After Hussein was pummeled for invading Kuwait, the UN and Res. 1441 kept him from being annihilated. He blew his last chance.

Will Iraq's democracy have birthing pains? No doubt. Will it be worth it? No doubt.


Is that what you mean?

No, I mean are they going slink off without acknowledging Bush was right after all the carping?

 

[Gaard]

<< WHEN the WMDs are found, Bush WILL be vindicated. Blix and France will babble some kind of excuse. >>

Can I borrow your crystal ball for a few nights? I'd like to know what next weeks lotto numbers are going to be.

 

[Ornery]

You're right, I can't be sure France will say or do anything other than slink off...

 

[JJMcKay]

Originally posted by: Bite
Hans Blix deserves to be pelted with a million Iraqi shoes. He's nothing but a political windsock....

Good to see you are no better than that sicko Saddam Hussein.

 

[Moonbeam]

We have WMD, I can't wait for the Andromadens to come in and snuff us out. WMD don't mean jack. We went for Imperialism, the future of business and to deny potential enemies oil, not for WMD. The WAVES would have defeated Iraq. Some threat they were.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Nobody ever answered MY question. "When they're found, are you clowns going to just slink off, or what?"

In my opinion, finding WMDs or not is irrelevant to justifying the war. The real issue is what was the hurry when we already had inspectors in the country looking for proscribed weapons? Why didn't we give them more time to do their job instead of rushing to kill thosands of people? Who the hell are we to tell the rest of the world to stick it just because Bush-lite had an urgent need to distract the American people from his malfeasance?

Granted, if we don't find WMDs, it reinforces the world view of Bush as an evil cowboy. Even if we do find them, unilaterally attacking Iraq was wrong.

 

[Ornery]

Blix and company NEVER would have found anything. Only reason they had any influence at all, is because we had our troops at the border. How long were we supposed to leave them sitting there?

The UN should have allowed us to stomp his sorry ass 12 years ago!

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Blix and company NEVER would have found anything. Only reason they had any influence at all, is because we had our troops at the border. How long were we supposed to leave them sitting there?

The UN should have allowed us to stomp his sorry ass 12 years ago!

We might never find anything. There might not be anything left to find.

It was Bush Sr.'s decision to not go after Saddam 12 years ago. He wanted him dead, but didn't want to have to march into Iraq to acoomplish it. Plus, he promised the Arab nations in the area that he wouldn't and working together with them was a priority for him.

Link

 

[Ornery]

If Bush wasn't just obliging the U.N., then that was a bigger mistake than raising taxes... almost.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Ornery
If Bush wasn't just obliging the U.N., then that was a bigger mistake than raising taxes... almost.

My link goes into why Bush Sr. decided not to go get Saddam. Your link does not show that. It's the cease-fire conditions.

Bush decided on February 27 to end the war.

The cease fire that you linked was then drafted and adopted by the UN on March 2. It was Bush's decision to end the war when he did and not go after Iraq.

Mr Bush decided that enough was enough. He asked Mr Powell to speak to Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Desert Storm, immediately, to arrange a ceasefire. "Colin picked up the secure phone in the bottom drawer of the president's desk and was put through to Schwarzkopf. It was agreed there would be a few more hours to allow forces to wind down their immediate operations," says Mr Gates. Hours later, Mr Bush went on national television to announce the end of the Gulf war. Americans celebrated; the "Vietnam syndrome" seemed to have been banished.

Find one source that says that the UN pressured him into it. I know you would like to blame the UN for as many things as possible, but this was Bush's call only. The UN did not factor into his decision.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Ornery
If Bush wasn't just obliging the U.N., then that was a bigger mistake than raising taxes... almost.

My link goes into why Bush Sr. decided not to go get Saddam. Your link does not show that. It's the cease-fire conditions.

Bush decided on February 27 to end the war.

The cease fire that you linked was then drafted on March 2. It was Bush's decision to end the war when it did and not go after Iraq.

Mr Bush decided that enough was enough. He asked Mr Powell to speak to Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Desert Storm, immediately, to arrange a ceasefire. "Colin picked up the secure phone in the bottom drawer of the president's desk and was put through to Schwarzkopf. It was agreed there would be a few more hours to allow forces to wind down their immediate operations," says Mr Gates. Hours later, Mr Bush went on national television to announce the end of the Gulf war. Americans celebrated; the "Vietnam syndrome" seemed to have been banished.

Find one source that says that the UN pressured him into it. I know you would like to blame the UN for as many things as possible, but this was Bush's call only. The UN did not factor into his decision.

Considering the world mandate was only to remove him from Kuwait, I would say the UN was big factor in this.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have WMD, I can't wait for the Andromadens to come in and snuff us out. WMD don't mean jack. We went for Imperialism, the future of business and to deny potential enemies oil, not for WMD. The WAVES would have defeated Iraq. Some threat they were.

Given the distance the Andromadens have to travel when they arrive they will be in awe. They, no doubt, will wonder how all the cockaroaches built the pyramids.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, won't it be great if the wonder that us us is only really admired a billion years from now by aliens. One could almost cry at times to think we can't see it in the children.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yeah, won't it be great if the wonder that us us is only really admired a billion years from now by aliens. One could almost cry at times to think we can't see it in the children.

Ahh not to worry my photon friend... we will leave a planet free from all the signs of our presence. Unfortunatly, the right wing hawks fluttering about will not escape notice as they swoop to talonate the crumbs of the galacticaly stupid.

 

[Ornery]

UN involvement in Iraq

• The subsequent Multinational Force that removed Iraq from Kuwait through 'Operation Desert Storm' was not under UN command but it was valid under articles 47(3) and 51, which allow collective security measures. Moreover, the Force was careful to follow all Security Council directions and not go beyond them. General Sir Peter de la Billi&egrave;re, commander of the British Forces, noted soon after the action:
  • 
    
    'Our United Nations mandate flowing from Resolution 678, authorised us to use all necessary means to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait. We did not have a mandate to invade Iraq, or take the country over, and if we had tried to do that, our Arab allies would certainly not have taken a favourable view. Even our limited incursions into Iraqi territory had made some of them uneasy.

I'm only saying, in hindsight, Bush should have crushed Hussein in '91, with or without anybody's approval. Of course that's easy to say now, but it's still very true. BIG mistake!

 

[blade]

Blix and company NEVER would have found anything. Only reason they had any influence at all, is because we had our troops at the border. How long were we supposed to leave them sitting there?

Exactly!


But how long would they take to find anything? Just as soon as Iraq repaid france and germany and their oil contracts were either over with or declared invalid.

"Never" is the answer.