what would Hans blix say

[j_b]

about wmd and the justifications for war?

 

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=5083

[freeclimb9]

Who cares?

[catbirdseat]

I do. It proves that the war was not about WMD, but rather about a grudge match between Saddam and the son of the humiliated George H. Bush.

[JoshK]

I care too. Blix is completely right and his opinion on the matter is something I would like to hear. I think it makes fully clear that bushy's claims about WMDs were bullshit from the beginning. Those of you who deny this are fooling yourselves.

[Scott_J]

I'd like to see his bank accounts b/4 inspections and after he was chosen.

[iain]

Kellogg's should come out with a Hans Blix version of Trix for this occasion. It would have all different shapes of mid to long range missiles and marshmellows in the shape of anthrax spores and gas masks. I'd buy it!

[erik]

iain said:

Kellogg's should come out with a Hans Blix version of Trix for this occasion. It would have all different shapes of mid to long range missiles and marshmellows in the shape of anthrax spores and gas masks. I'd buy it!

 

silly dictator....blix is for kurds

 

 

[tomdav]

More proof

[shuksan]

CBS, I don't think it proves anything, except that Blix comes with a biased point of view and would like to come out of this looking as good as possible. Note how he sowed the idea that any WMD found in Iraq are likely a plant by the US. His certification of Iraq as nuke-free in the '80s and having been proven wrong after the gulf war shows the inherent weakness of inspections. The missile that hit a shopping mall in Kuwait showed that Iraq had undeclared proscribed weapons (it had a range greater than the "declared" proscribed system). Hans Blix is the last person to go to for an unbiased opinion on the question of WMD in Iraq. I would think that maybe Rolf Ekaeus (sp?) would be a better choice -- not sure what his ax to grind would be, other than being opposed by the countries that did the most to arm Hussein over the last 30 yrs (Russia, France, and China).

[Fairweather]

Hey j_b.

 

You were a big fan of polls in the months before the war. "x-percent of Americans are against the prospect of war...", etc. You did some pretty brutal twisting of data to arrive at the notion you were in the majority. Not that polls matter much at all, but what do you think of the current polls that show 81% of Americans supporting this war and 67% approval rating for Bush?

 

Kind of hard, even for you and SC, to twist those kind of numbers 'eh? I'm just looking forward to watching you spin these most recent figures!

[j_b]

sorry but your are off topic for this thread. if you'd like to talk about polls you should open a different thread, but i should warn you that if you want a response from me you should take it easy on the unsubstantiated inflamatory remarks. this holds for all aspects of your rant, i.e. not strictly the poll today business.

[snoboy]

Fairweather said:

Hey j_b.

 

You were a big fan of polls in the months before the war. "x-percent of Americans are against the prospect of war...", etc. You did some pretty brutal twisting of data to arrive at the notion you were in the majority. Not that polls matter much at all, but what do you think of the current polls that show 81% of Americans supporting this war and 67% approval rating for Bush?

 

Kind of hard, even for you and SC, to twist those kind of numbers 'eh? I'm just looking forward to watching you spin these most recent figures!

 

I'll bite (sorry j_b)!

 

Should we compare those numbers to the numbers of Americans who believe that Saddam was actually involved in 9/11? Or should we compare them to the number who beleive that WMDs have been found in Iraq???

[Fairweather]

j_b,

 

You regularly go off topic, so kiss my and get spinnin'. It's what you do best!

[jon]

The word on the street from a soldier that returned from over there (I don't know him, my friend does), is that Iraq has an unthinkable amount of WMD and we know where a lot of it is. Problem is that our intelligence on the matter was collected in a way that would could not present it to the UN. Also, aparently the French have been providing Iraq with lots of stuff that they shouldn't have. We could get France in a lot of shit and get them kicked from the UN, but we are afraid how other countries will react, i.e. if the now THAT MUCH about what France is doing , a US ally, imagine what they know about us.

[Dru]

jon said:

The word on the street from a soldier that returned from over there (I don't know him, my friend does), is that Iraq has an unthinkable amount of WMD and we know where a lot of it is. Problem is that our intelligence on the matter was collected in a way that would could not present it to the UN. Also, aparently the French have been providing Iraq with lots of stuff that they shouldn't have. We could get France in a lot of shit and get them kicked from the UN, but we are afraid how other countries will react, i.e. if the now THAT MUCH about what France is doing , a US ally, imagine what they know about us.

 

3rd hand references are so legit.

[iain]

See now if this is true and was presented beforehand there just might be more support for this whole shebang. Hope they figure it out before we are labeled as the global chumps

 

jon said:

The word on the street from a soldier that returned from over there (I don't know him, my friend does), is that Iraq has an unthinkable amount of WMD and we know where a lot of it is. Problem is that our intelligence on the matter was collected in a way that would could not present it to the UN. Also, aparently the French have been providing Iraq with lots of stuff that they shouldn't have. We could get France in a lot of shit and get them kicked from the UN, but we are afraid how other countries will react, i.e. if the now THAT MUCH about what France is doing , a US ally, imagine what they know about us.

[jon]

Dru said:

3rd hand references are so legit.

 

Did you know that Hans Blix is Kevin Bacon's uncle's nieces brothers son's pedaphile uncle's boyfriend!!!! That's right, Hans Blix is gay.

 

I don't see how what I heard is any better then most of the crap you guys post. You are getting it from biased news agencies with reporters who don't know their head from their ass who change around what people say to fit their own agenda.

[Dru]

jon said:

Dru said:

3rd hand references are so legit.

 

Did you know that Hans Blix is Kevin Bacon's uncle's nieces brothers son's pedaphile uncle's boyfriend!!!! That's right, Hans Blix is gay.

 

I don't see how what I heard is any better then most of the crap you guys post. You are getting it from biased news agencies with reporters who don't know their head from their ass who change around what people say to fit their own agenda.

 

i dont post news links except TOTALLY UNBIASED DISPATCHES from the cutting edge science of today, teuthology.

[iain]

the tv media is hilarious, how they have small chunks of words they rearrange all day to make the news. these words can never be broken apart, but can be rearranged to make new sentences as new news is needed:

 

"ruling baath party"

"kurdish-controlled northern iraq"

"special republican guard"

"moab"

[Dru]

iain said:

the tv media is hilarious, how they have small chunks of words they rearrange all day to make the news. these words can never be broken apart, but can be rearranged to make new sentences as new news is needed:

 

"ruling baath party"

"kurdish-controlled northern iraq"

"special republican guard"

"moab"

 

KURD CHICS FLASHING RAQ IN SPECIAL BAATH IN MOAB??? whoah

[iain]

see? works like a charm.

 

here's another:

 

CENTCOM in Doha, Qatar

A10 tank killer

 

[MtnGoat]

"There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the weapons inspections,"

 

That's what you do when you think you may need to fight a war. There are war plans for all kinds of contingencies covering nearly every possible combatant nation. Planning for a war with a nation constantly violating a ceasefire isn't a surprise, it's doubtless standard procedure and darned well should be.

 

 

"Blix said US President George W. Bush had told him in October 2002 that he backed the UN's work to verify US and British claims that Baghdad was developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."

 

I back them too. But only if they function. They did not.

 

"Blix said that he thought the US might initially have believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction"

 

Blix should certainly believe it too, since the UN detailed them before being ejected in '98.

"But I don't know - you ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things they did to try and demonstrate that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake contract with Niger,"

 

We'll see who's right about Iraq possessing nuclear materials and proscribed development facilities.

 

"That was a reference to US allegations - later denied - that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from the west African state of Niger."

 

We'll see how denial stacks up to reality very, very soon.

 

"By attacking Iraq, Washington had sent the wrong message - that if a country did not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, it risked being attacked."

 

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

"Take the announcement North Korea has just made. It's tantamount to saying 'if you let in the inspectors, like Iraq did, you get attacked'."

 

More like if you let them in, but give them the runaround and don't meet your obligations, you might get attacked.

 

"North Korea accused the United States on Sunday of using a UN Security Council discussion of its nuclear programme as a "prelude to war" and warned that it would fully mobilise and strengthen its forces."

 

Any discussion of N Korea and it's nuclear program is a prelude to war in N Koreas opinion.

 

"This security guarantee is the first line of defence against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

 

What security guarantee, Hans? The one the UN has utterly failed to provide, over and over? That's a gurantee? Tell it to the folks in Bosnia killed while the UN "peacekeepers" stood by, the mass slaughter in Africa, while the UN "peacekeepers" stood by, and the numerous other instances. Hans has an interesting view of what constitutes a guarantee. Not to mention "containment".

 

 

[iain]

Perhaps the UN should put you in charge. Clearly you have a better understanding of the situation than these weapons inspectors based on your first-hand observations and evidence in the middle east. Do you work for the Bush administration? You put up this pretense that you weigh facts rationally, yet you essentially are behaving like Ari Fleischer on this board, defending to the end everything Bush does, probably even if you believe deep down he may have made a mistake here or there. I don't care one way or the other, but that's how you come off on this board.

[RobBob]

Iain, I don't wanna speak for the Goat, but I imagine that he believes that the UN is incapable of handling the really tough issues, regardless of who's in charge.

 

The UN is in large part a group of mice, who think they can roar because they are in a group. But they can't.

[iain]

they can't roar because they all have to wear those little earpieces and the translation would be a pain in the ass.