Guest MD2020 Report post Posted March 10, 2003 March 10, 2003 Blix 'hid smoking gun' from Britain and US From James Bone in New York BRITAIN and the United States will today press the chief UN weapons inspector to admit that he has found a “smoking gun” in Iraq. Such an admission could persuade swing voters on the Security Council to back the March 17 ultimatum. The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting — an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war. The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm. “It’s incredible,” a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. “This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It’s a biggie.” An explicit report by Dr Blix of the discovery of an Iraqi violation would help the six swing voters — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan — to explain a change of position to their publics. Unlike the outlawed Al-Samoud 2 missile, which was declared as a purportedly legal weapon, the drone was not declared. It would be the first undeclared weapons programme found by the UN and is considered by British and US officials to be a “smoking gun”. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tim Report post Posted March 10, 2003 A drone with a 7.45 metre wingspan? I guess you got that from theonion.com. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vyce Report post Posted March 10, 2003 What's the news source on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 10, 2003 Ok, 3 months ago, Hans Blix was thought of as the only inspector on "our side" and looking out for "our interests" and now, since he has slowly waned on his original stances, he is ALL OF THE SUDDEN, "withholding the smoking gun" .....greaaaaaaat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted March 10, 2003 Source is the London Times, I found after some research. No offense, but British papers have made tabloids look good on both sides of the war lately. I'll just wait until it starts appearing over here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 10, 2003 What admission? It was in a document declassified and made available to whomever wanted to look at it. If the opposing countries still oppose it, you can't say he was hiding anything, since ten days (from the day of the meeting to the deadline set) is PLENTY of time for someone to have discovered this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MD2020 Report post Posted March 10, 2003 Hey--I just post the article. I have no comment on this one. Jobber of the Week is correct. It's from the London Times, via Drudge Report. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted March 10, 2003 Perhaps the recent inspections occurred too late for their findings to be included in the draft. Is Iraq banned from producing drone technology? Also, what's with the stuff about anthrax? This is the same old allegation that has been thrown around since the beginning of this fiasco with no proof ever offered or emerging. Oh, and if Iraq is to dust its crops ever again it will regrettably be forced to retain equipment capable of distributing biological and chemical weapons. So who tells the inspectors which sites to visit? Where do they get their list from? The reason I ask is because there seems to be a huge disconnect between the inspectors and the US. Blix says, we are destroying weapons, and Powell counters with, but they are building more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 10, 2003 I also recall seeing it on CNN.com. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted March 10, 2003 What's a drone? Is that some sort of shell? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Powerplay Report post Posted March 10, 2003 What's a drone? Is that some sort of shell? It's an unmanned aircraft that tends to be much smaller than a normal plane and either flies a predetermined path or is radio controlled. These drones are often given dangerous missions like close Recon duty in which the risk and it's smaller frame make it smarter to use them. Jobber: These are Military Drones, not crop dusters. It's not like Iraq would use Military Aircraft to help civilian crops. Plus, these drones in direct violation of the range restrictions of drone aircraft set by the UN and they can carry some sort of 'Liquid', whatever the Iraqi military would want with that ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 11, 2003 That fucking son of a bitch Blix. I just saw it on the news. Fuck him, and Fuck the UN. This is out of control now. We should get the hell out of the beyond useless UN and kick them the fuck out of OUR country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Ok, 3 months ago, Hans Blix was thought of as the only inspector on "our side" and looking out for "our interests" and now, since he has slowly waned on his original stances, he is ALL OF THE SUDDEN, "withholding the smoking gun" .....greaaaaaaat. Umm, NOBODY thought Blix would be ANYTHING but a toadie to Saddam. We knew better. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Ok, 3 months ago, Hans Blix was thought of as the only inspector on "our side" and looking out for "our interests" and now, since he has slowly waned on his original stances, he is ALL OF THE SUDDEN, "withholding the smoking gun" .....greaaaaaaat. Umm, NOBODY thought Blix would be ANYTHING but a toadie to Saddam. We knew better. -=Mike People were calling as it was being announced. Now I realize just what a piece of shit Hans is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 11, 2003 By "we," you mean jingoists? Geez, can't you people wait seven more days to start bombing the shit out of them? Once again, this was DECLASSIFIED AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. He didn't hide shit from anyone. Stop trying to make it sound like he was protecting Sadaam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Once again, this was DECLASSIFIED AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. He didn't hide shit from anyone. Stop trying to make it sound like he was protecting Sadaam. So...He just forgot to mention something that significant? And it was buried in the 173 page report. I guess that's what you call "hiding in plain sight" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Fine. Why didn't your man Hans mention it in his speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 By "we," you mean jingoists? Geez, can't you people wait seven more days to start bombing the shit out of them? Once again, this was DECLASSIFIED AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. He didn't hide shit from anyone. Stop trying to make it sound like he was protecting Sadaam. I'm forced to agree with those that blast him. Iraq having a drone like that is apparently a . . . violation. And a big one. And the chief Inspector whose oral reports can help make or break a resolution/war vote simply doesn't mention it in his vocal presentation? And then just leaves it in a huge written report to be found? What is this, a treasure hunt? It's his job to report violations like that, and to cover the serious points (like big violations) in his oral report. He failed to do that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Powerplay Report post Posted March 11, 2003 By "we," you mean jingoists? Geez, can't you people wait seven more days to start bombing the shit out of them? Once again, this was DECLASSIFIED AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. He didn't hide shit from anyone. Stop trying to make it sound like he was protecting Sadaam. The World has waited since November for Saddam to disarm, and he has JUST started, right after the deadline. I mean, seriously, Kotzen, we've waited 12 years for Saddam to disarm and he's shown us that he hasn't listened. And now we are being hasty? And I think the main problem is that, during his spoken report (Which is probably the only thing the public will care about) he failed to mention this stuff, and just kinda glossed over most of the facts. It's all declassified, but very few people are going to go through 173 page report. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Fine. Why didn't your man Hans mention it in his speech. So you're endorsing the fate of a country being based on a verbal summary of findings, not the actual findings themselves? Once again, all the countries involved in the vote would have been aware of this whether this was "uncovered" or not. I don't think it will affect things one way or another. This is simply a matter of the Hawks finding a piece of evidence finally and going apeshit about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Fine. Why didn't your man Hans mention it in his speech. So you're endorsing the fate of a country being based on a verbal summary of findings, not the actual findings themselves? I'm endorsing a man DOING HIS FUCKING JOB. How that affects the fate of a country is up to the leader(s) and (when it applies) the people of said country. Bottom Line: If Saddam didn't have this, we wouldn't be having (This rather cut and dry) debate, would we? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Fine. Why didn't your man Hans mention it in his speech. So you're endorsing the fate of a country being based on a verbal summary of findings, not the actual findings themselves? Once again, all the countries involved in the vote would have been aware of this whether this was "uncovered" or not. I don't think it will affect things one way or another. This is simply a matter of the Hawks finding a piece of evidence finally and going apeshit about it. Evidence conveniently NOT covered in the presentation in the chambers. And let's face it, as people we tend to place importance on things mentioned, and I don't think the UN is any different. Mere wording of things can sway a vote sometimes. Mentioning it adds the importance to it that is needed right now for a united front of SOME kind. Blix just kinda left everyone to their own devices to figure out it was there. For once, I'm glad the media was all over something. Blix needs to stop playing to the world and talk about what's there when he has the mic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Fine. Why didn't your man Hans mention it in his speech. So you're endorsing the fate of a country being based on a verbal summary of findings, not the actual findings themselves? I'm endorsing a man DOING HIS FUCKING JOB. Is his job to dumb shit down and make it so members of the Security Council don't have to read the report he was required to write? On a side note, any information on these drones, like range and all that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 11, 2003 By "we," you mean jingoists? Geez, can't you people wait seven more days to start bombing the shit out of them? Once again, this was DECLASSIFIED AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. He didn't hide shit from anyone. Stop trying to make it sound like he was protecting Sadaam. He didn't really put ANY emphasis on HIS job here (He didn't really empasize this, you know, direct evidence of Hussein violating his word). He's too blind to do his job well. Everybody KNEW this would be the case. -=Mike ... Not that it matters. We don't need the U.N's blessing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 11, 2003 By "we," you mean jingoists? Geez, can't you people wait seven more days to start bombing the shit out of them? Once again, this was DECLASSIFIED AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. He didn't hide shit from anyone. Stop trying to make it sound like he was protecting Sadaam. He didn't really put ANY emphasis on HIS job here (He didn't really empasize this, you know, direct evidence of Hussein violating his word). He's too blind to do his job well. Everybody KNEW this would be the case. -=Mike ... Not that it matters. We don't need the U.N's blessing. A similar case can be made for Bush dimissing Sadaam's armaments destruction as "destroying a few missiles" and millions of people around the world protesting aggression without proper routes taken as "a focus group." It's all about wording and emphasis, like SP said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 11, 2003 The media had no trouble going through the massive Starr report, 173 pages is a snap, and international diplomats are supposed to go through all official documents thoroughly. Bring the next supposed hiding of information accusation. Fine. Why didn't your man Hans mention it in his speech. So you're endorsing the fate of a country being based on a verbal summary of findings, not the actual findings themselves? I'm endorsing a man DOING HIS FUCKING JOB. Is his job to dumb shit down and make it so members of the Security Council don't have to read the report he was required to write? If you want to put it like that, then fine that's is job. And I ask you again. Why did he decide not to add this to his oral report? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted March 11, 2003 I'm having a hard time believing Blix would intentionally leave a "smoking gun" out of his report. He has no real reason to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post Posted March 11, 2003 If you want to put it like that, then fine that's is job. And I ask you again. Why did he decide not to add this to his oral report? Because it's simply an undeclared weapon, and as far as I know, that's about the only violation in this whole discussion. I could be wrong about Iraq being banned from having drones of certain kinds or a drone program period, but as far as I know, that it simply wasn't declared by them before is the only violating part. You think the UN knows about all that us or Britain or any of the other countries with substantial militaries on this planet are cooking up in our military complexes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 11, 2003 Blix didn't leave it out of his report. It was buried in the back, and he didn't feel it was necessary to mention it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
