Blix on not finding any WMD yet

[HeroOfPellinor]

"The United States forced the end of U.N. weapons inspections prior to going to war, against the wishes of the inspectors, who had asked for more time.

"'They did not have patience for that,' the lead inspector, Hans Blix, said in a telephone interview broadcast on Colombian radio on Friday. 'However, of course what I notice now is that when the American inspectors do not find anything, then it is suggested we should have patience.'

-MSNBC



One big difference, Blixy, we can afford to be patient now with the regime overthrown because, irregardles of where they are, there's no one to use them now. But, hey, at least you got to be faux condescending which, in this day an age, is nearly as good as the real thing.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The United States forced the end of U.N. weapons inspections prior to going to war, against the wishes of the inspectors, who had asked for more time.

"'They did not have patience for that,' the lead inspector, Hans Blix, said in a telephone interview broadcast on Colombian radio on Friday. 'However, of course what I notice now is that when the American inspectors do not find anything, then it is suggested we should have patience.'

-MSNBC



One big difference, Blixy, we can afford to be patient now with the regime overthrown because, irregardles of where they are, there's no one to use them now. But, hey, at least you got to be faux condescending which, in this day an age, is nearly as good as the real thing.

Blix is kicking their ass.. use their own ammo against them

If Bush can do something about unemployment then the voters won't remember the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

 

[Moonbeam]

The war never had anything to do with WMD except as an excuse to get it started. We are no safer now because we were never in any danger. We were lied to. The war was fought for neocon ideology. It was a religious war and a hundred and twenty odd soldiers died for a lie. A straight out explanation of the real reason for the war would have evoked a 'hell no' from the American people. A cabal of elitist within the Administration sent us to conquer another nation because they knew it was best for us regardless of what we think. We are too stupid to be informed and confronted with the real issues. We are the stupid sheep that need to be herded by wise shepherds. You are a chump but a safe chump because you are also a sucker.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Blix is right. We had no reason to believe Saddam was anything more than a minor annoyance to the international community. There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country. Bush and Co. could not wait because their agenda called for this action, and they not have the patience of a typical 5 year old. So I want to see what we knew before the war. We knew what and where. I want to see that now. Now Now Now. Hypocritical? No, I have no interest in justifying this war after the fact. Do it now, or else Bush should be run out of the country. When someone claims shooting another out of self defense, I what to see the weapon of the person shot. "I am sure he had one. Just be patient, I'll find it sometime". That is what Bush is doing. Further, IMO, since we had a shooting war, Bush needs to prove 2 things. Means and intent, and all demonstrated by evidence acquired before the war. Too high a standard? No, yours is too low.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I don't understand why people are asking to see evidence when they clearly already know the answer (they think).

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I don't understand why people are asking to see evidence when they clearly already know the answer (they think).

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yes, I think you understand, at least some of it, but here ya go.

Party A claims Party B is dangerous. A claims that B has exceedingly dangerous weapons, and has intent to use them. Further A states he knows what and where they are.

Party A attacks Party B.

Party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Party A now says "Be patient, we will find them" but does not have what was stated for a certainty.

So supporters of A now start to spin recent history. Oh he didn't mean X when he said it. Bull. I held Clinton's feet to the fire for his BJ lie. How many died for that? Yet it seems more moral to some to start a war based on poor or non-existent evidence. I want to see the evidence, and oddly enough to some, I hope it is there. Evidence before the fact, not guesses.

Why? Because if it is there, Bush is still an ass for suppressing it, but at least there would be half the justification for a war. The other would be proof of aggressive intent. Nevertheless, the second can be debated. Having neither renders this attack the same as Pearl Harbor. Japan and the US pre-emotively attack a nation because of fear, not fact. I do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren how we attacked another country for no good reason that we knew of. Knew, not hoped was true.

This ought not to be swept under the rug. This is a black eye on American history until proven otherwise. It is for the aggressor to justify, not for the defender. I do not accept the "she was raped because she was asking for it" cause for war.

 

[Gaard]

I think that for some that believe our president was less than 100% truthful with the American (and world) population...and sadly, I'm one of them...it's important to know whether he was duped by either bad information or those around him, or whether he purposely misled people about this war.

Ok, maybe 'important' isn't the right word. But it would be nice to know whether he lied or was simply wrong.

Of course, another possibility is that he was 100% right about everything and....nah.

 

[UltraQuiet]

First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The war never had anything to do with WMD except as an excuse to get it started. We are no safer now because we were never in any danger. We were lied to. The war was fought for neocon ideology. It was a religious war and a hundred and twenty odd soldiers died for a lie. A straight out explanation of the real reason for the war would have evoked a 'hell no' from the American people. A cabal of elitist within the Administration sent us to conquer another nation because they knew it was best for us regardless of what we think. We are too stupid to be informed and confronted with the real issues. We are the stupid sheep that need to be herded by wise shepherds. You are a chump but a safe chump because you are also a sucker.

While I agree with most of this, the part I disagree with is that the American public would have responded with a resounding "hell no". Perhaps you are making the same mistake the administration did by presuming to know how the American people think. There are some, maybe not enough, that would have thought the real reasons were sufficient to go to war.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The United States forced the end of U.N. weapons inspections prior to going to war, against the wishes of the inspectors, who had asked for more time.

"'They did not have patience for that,' the lead inspector, Hans Blix, said in a telephone interview broadcast on Colombian radio on Friday. 'However, of course what I notice now is that when the American inspectors do not find anything, then it is suggested we should have patience.'

-MSNBC



One big difference, Blixy, we can afford to be patient now with the regime overthrown because, irregardles of where they are, there's no one to use them now. But, hey, at least you got to be faux condescending which, in this day an age, is nearly as good as the real thing.

At least Blix found banned weapons.

 

[Moonbeam]

While I agree with most of this, the part I disagree with is that the American public would have responded with a resounding "hell no". Perhaps you are making the same mistake the administration did by presuming to know how the American people think. There are some, maybe not enough, that would have thought the real reasons were sufficient to go to war.
-----------------------
You are right, jj, I am making an assumption that Americans would not have permitted a preemptive war on Iraq for the reasons laid out in the Plan for a New American Century. I believe, however, that I am right. Perhaps, to free the Iraqi people, but not a fancy new Imperialism. I could be wrong.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
While I agree with most of this, the part I disagree with is that the American public would have responded with a resounding "hell no". Perhaps you are making the same mistake the administration did by presuming to know how the American people think. There are some, maybe not enough, that would have thought the real reasons were sufficient to go to war.
-----------------------
You are right, jj, I am making an assumption that Americans would not have permitted a preemptive war on Iraq for the reasons laid out in the Plan for a New American Century. I believe, however, that I am right. Perhaps, to free the Iraqi people, but not a fancy new Imperialism. I could be wrong.

The only way to circumvent the UN Authority (absence of invasion resolution) was to justify unilaterial (illegal?) invasion based on exigent circumstances. Free the Iraqi is not an exigent issue. Only immenent threat was or is. So Saddam not only had to have WMD but, also must be shown to be at least in the planning stages of use and against someone outside of Iraq... it would seem to me.

 

[adlep]

Agh!
:disgust: this stupid Saddam!
How could he!
He ate all the WMD just before we came in!
Bastard!
Now it is going to take a lot of time to plant **cough** I mean find any proof of WMD..

 

[Moonbeam]

If so, HJ, then that would certainly provide a motive, other than total distrust of the people, as to why they might have lied. Puts a new light, for me, on 'it's the only one we could all agree on'.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If so, HJ, then that would certainly provide a motive, other than total distrust of the people, as to why they might have lied. Puts a new light, for me, on 'it's the only one we could all agree on'.

So it follows that when Cheney said "He has them and he's going to use them", Bush secured the only plausable defense for the invasion in view of the absense of a resolution to permit it. Now, in order to avoid disolvement of the defense, Bush must provide the proof of the exigent circumstance claimed. That is: Both the WMD and the Proof of immenent use. Failing this proof, we are open to sanction at the least by the UN and possible litigation in the Haag. Additionally, if some proof of the exigent circumstance is not forthcomming soon the issue must be investigated by the congress for possible impeachment issues for a number of the administration... 'who knew what and when did they know it...'. Too bad Sam Irvin is not with us and sitting in the senate committee he chaired.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

haha, you are like uber pathetic. If I could express myself in English as good as I could in German, this post would be a lot longer.

 

[her209]

What I don't get is why the US won't let the UN Inspectors back in? Hmmm...

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

haha, you are like uber pathetic. If I could express myself in English as good as I could in German, this post would be a lot longer.

I'm sure if you were smart enough to assemble a coherent sentence you would certainly try. "uber" is a word for the exclusive use of retarded 10 year old girls.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

Some would probably like to be proven wrong. I would like for every word Bush to have uttered to be true, every accusation valid, every suspicion reasonably supported. Unfortunately, the way it seems to be playing out at best he was inept, and at worst he was deceitful in justifying this war. Either is inexcusable. But of course, if we don't ask the question, we'll never have to face that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

Because I want those who died to not have done so for a lie. I couldn't care less about Bush, true, but he never put his neck on the line. He put soldiers in harms way, and some are coming home in a box. I want to be wrong for them. If I am right, there needs to be a hell for leaders who send men to kill and be killed for their own selfish agendas. Prove me wrong UQ. Please.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

Some would probably like to be proven wrong. I would like for every word Bush to have uttered to be true, every accusation valid, every suspicion reasonably supported. Unfortunately, the way it seems to be playing out at best he was inept, and at worst he was deceitful in justifying this war. Either is inexcusable. But of course, if we don't ask the question, we'll never have to face that.

Then lets round up all these "unnamed sources", "former intelligence analysts", " senior intel officials" , "senior gov't officials" and the various other supposed experts, the guys from the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc., get 'em in front of Congress, put 'em under oath and lets find out what the fsck happened. If we have to close part because of classification, fine. If we need to appoint a special prosecutor, let's do it. If we were wrong, then we need to unfsck ourselves. If we lied, then somebody(s) needs their guts stomped out. If there were honest differences of opinion about what certain intel meant, then that's something altogether different. The constant quoting of newspaper articles as undeniable proof and certain posters claiming they know for certain what happened is growing tiresome. The news media, more often than not, is exaggerating what they know in order to sell commercial time and up circulaltion. The posters here who "know" what happened are as ignorant as everyone else. There is a process to get to the truth and we need to avail ourselves to it. All I am asking for is the same "proof" that is required in every court in the land. Nothing more and nothing less.

JMAO.

:beer:

 

[BOBDN]

Ultra Quiet

Here is another one of those newspaper reports you refer to. This one is undeniable.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Ultra Quiet

Here is another one of those newspaper reports you refer to. This one is undeniable.

That is a completely different subject than the one being discussed in this thread. The one you link to has more to do with the egomaniacal asshole named Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in country to really do what needs to be done.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Ultra Quiet

Here is another one of those newspaper reports you refer to. This one is undeniable.

That is a completely different subject than the one being discussed in this thread. The one you link to has more to do with the egomaniacal asshole named Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in country to really do what needs to be done.

The nuclear material that was looted and is now MIA was previously secured by Mohamed ElBaridei and the International Nuclear Energy Commission. He along with Hans Blix were conducting inspections to determine the existence of, and if found, the destruction of WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq.

This thread began with Blix' statement highlighting the irony of Bush's rush to war which has now become a request for patience while we search for WMD which it seems does not exist.

I would suggest this is a facet of the same subject.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
First you say:

There was no intel to suggest he was planning to attack any other country

or something similar and then you say:

party C (many people) now (reasonably I think) want to see the evidence Party A had (past tense)

Again I say, "Why bother?". You clearly are positive you already know all the answers and your mind is already made up. Why are you even asking for evidence?

Some would probably like to be proven wrong. I would like for every word Bush to have uttered to be true, every accusation valid, every suspicion reasonably supported. Unfortunately, the way it seems to be playing out at best he was inept, and at worst he was deceitful in justifying this war. Either is inexcusable. But of course, if we don't ask the question, we'll never have to face that.

Then lets round up all these "unnamed sources", "former intelligence analysts", " senior intel officials" , "senior gov't officials" and the various other supposed experts, the guys from the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc., get 'em in front of Congress, put 'em under oath and lets find out what the fsck happened. If we have to close part because of classification, fine. If we need to appoint a special prosecutor, let's do it. If we were wrong, then we need to unfsck ourselves. If we lied, then somebody(s) needs their guts stomped out. If there were honest differences of opinion about what certain intel meant, then that's something altogether different. The constant quoting of newspaper articles as undeniable proof and certain posters claiming they know for certain what happened is growing tiresome. The news media, more often than not, is exaggerating what they know in order to sell commercial time and up circulaltion. The posters here who "know" what happened are as ignorant as everyone else. There is a process to get to the truth and we need to avail ourselves to it. All I am asking for is the same "proof" that is required in every court in the land. Nothing more and nothing less.

JMAO.

:beer:

I agree. And I think it needs to be pointed out that people on both sides of the issue seem to be confusing evidence and proof.