Summary of Blix's Iraq report

[everman]

Haven't the resolutions been broken by definition of what broken is as described in the resolution? Why should it take the U.N. to "say" it when their own papers already do say it for them?

 

[SlowSS]

Originally posted by: charrison
Read the pretty graphic and article

Well, I'll be damned. You mean GW wasn't wrong all this time? And, Saddam is actually a lying, manipulative, and decitful person?😛

I wonder what those Saddam's poop chute licking hollywood retards going to say now.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: everman
Haven't the resolutions been broken by definition of what broken is as described in the resolution? Why should it take the U.N. to "say" it when their own papers already do say it for them?

You got it. By what is contained in Resolution 1441, Iraq is in material breach, again.

Snappy just didn't want to admit to it.

Now the question is, What will the UN do about it this time? Iraq has been in breach of the resolutions upon resolutions that the UN has slapped on it for twelve years now. It's like a pimple in the middle east that the UN has been squeezing but never pressed hard enough to pop. Some pimples you leave alone and they get better, some you just have to pop to get the poison out. It appears that it is time to pop this one.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: everman
Haven't the resolutions been broken by definition of what broken is as described in the resolution? Why should it take the U.N. to "say" it when their own papers already do say it for them?

You got it. By what is contained in Resolution 1441, Iraq is in material breach, again.

Snappy just didn't want to admit to it.

Now the question is, What will the UN do about it this time? Iraq has been in breach of the resolutions upon resolutions that the UN has slapped on it for twelve years now. It's like a pimple in the middle east that the UN has been squeezing but never pressed hard enough to pop. Some pimples you leave alone and they get better, some you just have to pop to get the poison out. It appears that it is time to pop this one.

What can the UN do if the security counci (China, France, Russia)l going to veto any use of military action ? UN is only a paper tiger at best.

 

[lowtech1]

It hurts to listen the ignoramus here is America.

What is it with people that his hell bent on going to war to destroy Irag? Have you people thought of the consequences that will leave on your troops & the people specially the children in Iraq for years to come?

What do you all know about afraid of going to sleep because you will wake up to be alone, because your family has died or ran way to bomb shelter and left you because in the state of fear & panic they can?t find you?

You armchair generals spout about duty & glory, but isn?t man enough to work a hard day out in the field, or cry & run to the doctor when you break a nail.

Read here & see a small glimpse: Where the young learn that fear is a way of life -- "Suzanne Goldenberg reports from Baghdad on the growing number of children traumatised by the threat of war."[/1]

And now go to your church and bend over to pay your priests your repent.

 

[Bluga]

Still no eveidence.

Bah!!

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: lowtech
It hurts to listen the ignoramus here is America.

What is it with people that his hell bent on going to war to destroy Irag? Have you people thought of the consequences that will leave on your troops & the people specially the children in Iraq for years to come?

What do you all know about afraid of going to sleep because you will wake up to be alone, because your family has died or ran way to bomb shelter and left you because in the state of fear & panic they can?t find you?

You armchair generals spout about duty & glory, but isn?t man enough to work a hard day out in the field, or cry & run to the doctor when you break a nail.

Read here & see a small glimpse: Where the young learn that fear is a way of life -- "Suzanne Goldenberg reports from Baghdad on the growing number of children traumatised by the threat of war."

And now go to your church and bend over to pay your priests your repent.

Who has the power to end what's going on? Saddam. Who's been defying the international community for over a decade? Saddam. Who has been spending money on military rebuilding and personnal palaces as his citizens sink deeper and deeper into poverty? Saddam. Who has complete control of the media and feeds only lies and half-truths to his people? Saddam.


Lethal

EDIT: fixed tag

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well, I'll be damned. You mean GW wasn't wrong all this time? And, Saddam is actually a lying, manipulative, and decitful person?

I'm not sure anyone at ATOT has EVER contended Saddam is NOT a lying, manipulative, and deceitful person. But Bush and Cheney were LYING when they contended Saddam was within MONTHS of having nuclear weapons. GWB has been wrong all this time about the urgent need to strike Iraq by military means. You can't take pieces of Blix/El Baradei statements and contend they justify every rant coming from the Bush admin.

In the broader context, Saddam is no less nor no more a lying POS than before. Saddam is not a greater threat to regional or world peace than he was 6 months or a year ago. The absolute necessity to launch an invasion was not substantiated by today's report. The report did NOT substantiate claims that Saddam has distributed materials to terrorists or intends to do so in the future. The only legitimate conclusion from Blix/El Baradei is a need for Iraq to be more forthcoming and more time to do their job. Well, Blix did call Iraq FOS on Vx but we knew that already.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Well, I'll be damned. You mean GW wasn't wrong all this time? And, Saddam is actually a lying, manipulative, and decitful person?

I'm not sure anyone at ATOT has EVER contended Saddam is NOT a lying, manipulative, and deceitful person. But Bush and Cheney were LYING when they contended Saddam was within MONTHS of having nuclear weapons. GWB has been wrong all this time about the urgent need to strike Iraq by military means.

Yep this shows how much of a lying piece of crap that GW is, trying to play the emotional "nucular" card to the world when he was just talking smack out of his crack. What a piece of dung he is, a complete embarrasment to this country. :|

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yep this shows how much of a lying piece of crap that GW is, trying to play the emotional "nucular" card to the world when he was just talking smack out of his crack. What a piece of dung he is, a complete embarrasment to this country.

While it is true Bush/Blair were FOS when it came to nukes, the unresolved issue with regards to potential stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons is a legitimate international concern. Bush deserves some props for giving the UN a swift kick to impose an inspection regime on Iraq.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Where o where are hagbard and all the other U.S. hating morons? I was sure they would have been here to spew forth their idiocy by now.

How would hating Bush be "US hating"? If you care about our great country, its the most patriotic thing you can do, rather than loving a guy who's running it like a 5 & dime shop.

 

[Red Dawn]

Frankly I don't believe the American Public is ready for an all out war. If it's something like the Gulf War or even better the War in the Balkans without any casulties no problem but if it costs a couple thousand Americans Servicemen their lifes I can assure you that it will become extremely unpopular. Hell if the Iraqi's themselves aren't willing to try and oust Hussien the argument that we are doing it to help free themselves from his cruel rule won't fly and without any solid proof that Hussien had anything to do with 9/11 the Argument that he had something to do with Al Qaeda won't fly either. The only Argument that's left is that he is stockpiling WMD's. Well there are other countries that have them that potentially pose a bigger risk to Americans that Iraq so that will be a tough sell if American Causulties start to pile up. Hopefully if we do go to war it will be an extremely one sided affair and everything will work out as the Pro War Advocates seem to be assured they will, you know, those who see this as a big adventure.

We might be in the right according to UN Resolution 1441 but that won't mean squat if things don't go perfect. It would be an easier War to support if we had the majority of the world along for the fight like we did in the Gulf War.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Yep this shows how much of a lying piece of crap that GW is, trying to play the emotional "nucular" card to the world when he was just talking smack out of his crack. What a piece of dung he is, a complete embarrasment to this country.

While it is true Bush/Blair were FOS when it came to nukes, the unresolved issue with regards to potential stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons is a legitimate international concern. Bush deserves some props for giving the UN a swift kick to impose an inspection regime on Iraq.

Bush deserves a swift kick for not even wanting to go to the UN in the first place. It was international pressure that made him put this on the table in front of the rest of the world. His proof was shoddy and his judgement was pitiful. Don't get me wrong, no kudos for Saddam, but he's not running this country either.

 

[etech]

It's a dated article but has some interesting points.

NUCLEAR INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ:

"A big part of the problem is the International Atomic Energy Agency?s exaggerated claims about having eliminated Iraqi efforts to build nuclear weapons during inspections between 1991 and 1998. The Agency?s own inspection reports show that significant issues about Iraq?s nuclear program had remained unresolved. Iraq never surrendered its two complete nuclear bomb designs, bomb components it was known to have possessed, or documentation of its program to enrich uranium using centrifuges---small devices which are readily concealed.

Yet the Agency now confidently states that by 1998, its inspections had effectively eliminated Iraq?s ability to build nuclear bombs. Mohamed El Baradei, IAEA?s director-general, recently claimed that prior to 1998, ?We neutralized Iraq?s nuclear program. We confiscated its weapon-usable material. We destroyed, removed or rendered harmless all its facilities and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons production. And while we did not claim absolute certainty, we were confident that we had not missed any significant component of Iraq?s nuclear program.? Such overblown claims about the success of previous inspections undermine IAEA?s credibility, and embolden those advising the President to strike militarily without giving renewed inspections a chance.

Another danger is ?inspection fatigue.? If no smoking guns are discovered after months of new inspections, IAEA might declare Iraq to be in full compliance and throw the matter back to the Security Council, where Russia, France and China would exert enormous pressure to lift sanctions. This has happened before. As early as1991, Dr. Hans Blix---then IAEA director-general and now head of UNMOVIC, the U.N. agency responsible for conducting chemical, biological and missile weapons inspections---was prepared to certify Iraq?s compliance after only one post-war nuclear inspection and a flagrantly incomplete Iraqi declaration of its nuclear technology. Senior IAEA inspectors objected, and soon enough, Saddam?s secret bomb program came to light when, tipped off by a defector, the inspectors uncovered an enormous uranium enrichment program. "


Yes, it is the same Mohamed El Baradei who is now leading the nuclear inspections and claiming that Iraq has no nuclear program.