Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago

[kage69]

You might think that spying on a country that is a member of UN is ok or even "necessary", but I don't and I am pretty sure international community doesn't either. This is another example of how some Americans think their country is above everything and will try to rationalize each and every of their misguided ventures.

You obviously have more respect for the UN than I. When it can be nullified by the fiscal interests of France, has countries with few or no human rights heading councils for human rights, and refuses to backup it's own resolutions...well, it's a shame someone has to step around convention to get the job done.

Yeah Saddam was bad, Saddam didn't care about his people, but if you put sanctions in place and than say that the sanctions will not be removed no matter what than what is the point of the sanctions? How are the sanctions to be effective?

I already answered that. ANY obstacle between Saddam and his 'toys' is a boon. The UN wasn't actively denying the Iraqi people sustenance, just materials that could be used, and sources of income that could be used, to obtain military hardware. I can't blame Washington or London for not being naive enough to think that Saddam would just all of a sudden say 'Sorry, ok I'll be good now.'

Whatever "funny" spin you try to put on it I was never in support of Saddam and I'm glad his gone. I simply don't agree how it was done...by a cowboy from Texas who thinks he is above the international law. So put your contemptuous accusations you know where...

Siwy, you need to btfu. I commend you for NOT being one of these childish Bush-flaying twits and then you go and say I tried to paint you as a Saddam supporter? Please read what I wrote again, and then, if you could, cite these "contemptous accusations" I made of you. You're coming off sounding like a split personality wrote that last paragraph, but I shall give you the benefit of a doubt and allow you to clarify...

 

[Rockhound]

 

[Rockhound]

Excuse me one minute here, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we find weapons or the capacity to make/deliver these weapons oh around 1995 or 1996 (maybe 1997 as well)? Weren't we shocked to find that he (Saddam) was much further along in his nuclear program at that time than we thought before during the first Gulf war? If so, then Blix's entire timeline seems a bit off. 2003 minus 10 years = 1993. Inspectors finding stuff in ~ 1996. Weren't teams also sent in to destroy or watch them being destroyed around those years as well?

 

[Siwy]

You obviously have more respect for the UN than I. When it can be nullified by the fiscal interests of France, has countries with few or no human rights heading councils for human rights, and refuses to backup it's own resolutions...well, it's a shame someone has to step around convention to get the job done.

I guess I must have. I simply think that the world without UN would be a much more dangerous place and any country (especially a country as powerful as US) undermining it is a bad thing.
You keep bringing up France as this evil nation that wanted to keep Saddam for it's own profit. Well that is just as valid of an argument as saying that US attacked Iraq for oil and control of Middle East. War for oil or peace for oil? I chose the latter. US didn't make it's case for war and now on daily basis it is coming out how poor of a case it really was.

I already answered that. ANY obstacle between Saddam and his 'toys' is a boon. The UN wasn't actively denying the Iraqi people sustenance, just materials that could be used, and sources of income that could be used, to obtain military hardware. I can't blame Washington or London for not being naive enough to think that Saddam would just all of a sudden say 'Sorry, ok I'll be good now.'

When you want a bad guy to comply you give him an option, a reasonable way out. Otherwise, if you corner him without any alternative he will continue to be a bad guy. That is what Washington did, they left him without alternative while saying right before the war that for 12 years Iraq had a chance to comply. Well of course he had 12 years, but why would he comply if he had nothing to gain by it? In my mind that is not how you deal with independent countries....so let's agree to disagree.

Siwy, you need to btfu. I commend you for NOT being one of these childish Bush-flaying twits and then you go and say I tried to paint you as a Saddam supporter? Please read what I wrote again, and then, if you could, cite these "contemptous accusations" I made of you. You're coming off sounding like a split personality wrote that last paragraph, but I shall give you the benefit of a doubt and allow you to clarify...

Haha my bad, I mistook your previous comments for sarcasm. 🙂