Possible smoking gun?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm having a hard time believing Blix would intentionally leave a "smoking gun" out of his report. He has no real reason to.

Well, except that he's an inept buffoon.

-=Mike --- Remember, Iraq AGREED to him as an inspector.

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm having a hard time believing Blix would intentionally leave a "smoking gun" out of his report. He has no real reason to.

So, he forgot. And if he forgot something so important, he obviously as SOME kind of mental illlness, making him unfit to fulfil his duties. Remove him.

 

Because it's simply an undeclared weapon, and as far as I know, that's about the only violation in this whole discussion.

 

And reporting violations hs absolutely nothing to do with his job description.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

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?

One LITTLE difference:

 

Iraq agreed to COMPLETELY disarm. They signed the documents.

 

12 years ago (it was SUPPOSED to be done in 60 days, mind you).

 

It's violated, what, 17 resolutions?

 

Iraq is not ALLOWED to build weapons.

-=Mike -- What the U.S and Britain does is highly irrelevant

[Guest SP-1]

Also, the US and Britain aren't run by madmen who kill and murder their own families and countrymen while trying to shadily build weapons of mass destruction to likely try and gain control of their entire respective regions.

 

Just sayin'.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'm having a hard time believing Blix would intentionally leave a "smoking gun" out of his report. He has no real reason to.

So, he forgot. And if he forgot something so important, he obviously as SOME kind of mental illlness, making him unfit to fulfil his duties. Remove him.

 

Because it's simply an undeclared weapon, and as far as I know, that's about the only violation in this whole discussion.

 

And repring violations hs absolutely nothing to do with his job description.

He reported it. It's in the... GASP! REPORT!

 

And he didn't "forget" anything, he just didn't mention it. I doubt the United Nations would hire a mentally ill person to pretty much determine whether a country is reduced to rubble or not.

 

Iraq agreed to him in order to buy themselves more time. They would have agreed to Bush himself being the chief inspector if it'd give them a few more months before being invaded.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Also, the US and Britain aren't run by madmen who kill and murder their own families and countrymen while trying to shadily build weapons of mass destruction to likely try and gain control of their entire respective regions.

 

Just sayin'.

No, they just want to wipe out a country, with weapons of mass destruction if needed, in order to install their model government and indirectly gain control of the region with a lengthy occupation after cessation of hostilities.

[Guest Anglesault]

And he didn't "forget" anything, he just didn't mention it.

So he intentionally left it out. For reasons known only to him.

 

I doubt the United Nations would hire a mentally ill person to pretty much determine whether a country is reduced to rubble or not.

 

 

How does a person of sound mind decide that a blatant violation isn't important enough to crack his oral report?

[Guest Austin3164life]

Let's take this with a grain of salt and let's say Blix actually hid this information of no smoking gun in his oral report. Perhaps he was trying to keep it to himself and the inspectors to avoid social unrest. The same reason why all governments, especially our own, keeps information they know to themselves, that can turn the tide in an oncoming onslaught. Blix has absolutely no reason to side with Iraq, and just because he didn't mention one bit of information (albeit significant), doesn't mean he's hiding anything. I think I've talked this issue to death with what seems like hundreds of people, so I'll leave you boys to your debate.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

And he didn't "forget" anything, he just didn't mention it.

So he intentionally left it out. For reasons known only to him.

 

I doubt the United Nations would hire a mentally ill person to pretty much determine whether a country is reduced to rubble or not.

 

 

How does a person of sound mind decide that a blatant violation isn't important enough to crack his oral report?

Is the oral report what the countries voting are supposed to use? No. The 173-page report is what they are supposed to go over extensively (and with ten days, they've got plenty of time) and base their vote on.

[Guest SP-1]

Also, the US and Britain aren't run by madmen who kill and murder their own families and countrymen while trying to shadily build weapons of mass destruction to likely try and gain control of their entire respective regions.

 

Just sayin'.

No, they just want to wipe out a country, with weapons of mass destruction if needed, in order to install their model government and indirectly gain control of the region with a lengthy occupation after cessation of hostilities.

Blair and our government have both stated that the only goal post-war is to set up a democratic government with representation equal to the countries population and to let the people of Iraq live in freedom. Blair even went so far as to state that as far as oil goes, he wants Iraq oil to be set up in a trust fund of sorts that Iraq controls and nobody else can touch.

 

They want to let Iraq be Iraq, and be a free Iraq at that. After watching an Iraqi refugee breakdown and nearly beg Blair to promise him that he'd make sure Saddam was removed from power, I personally see absolutely no problem with going in and taking the bastard out with or without the rest of the world's backing. We don't want to control them, we want to give them a taste of freedom and let them decide how to drink it freely from that point on. The US and Britain don't profit from that. The only people that profit from that will be the next generation of free Iraq people.

[Guest JMA]

I wonder how the public would feel about the war if they knew the Reagan administration gave them weapons during the Iran-Iraq conflict. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" indeed.

[Guest Anglesault]

And he didn't "forget" anything, he just didn't mention it.

So he intentionally left it out. For reasons known only to him.

 

I doubt the United Nations would hire a mentally ill person to pretty much determine whether a country is reduced to rubble or not.

 

 

How does a person of sound mind decide that a blatant violation isn't important enough to crack his oral report?

Is the oral report what the countries voting are supposed to use? No. The 173-page report is what they are supposed to go over extensively (and with ten days, they've got plenty of time) and base their vote on.

But what is the Oral report then? A detailed description of his shopping list? Why even do a report if you REFUSE to report violations in it? Just say "I refuse to give an oral report on the grounds that I have a smoking gun and I want to make things a little more complicated by forcing you to read through a huge report instead of outrigtht stating it."

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Also, the US and Britain aren't run by madmen who kill and murder their own families and countrymen while trying to shadily build weapons of mass destruction to likely try and gain control of their entire respective regions.

 

Just sayin'.

No, they just want to wipe out a country, with weapons of mass destruction if needed, in order to install their model government and indirectly gain control of the region with a lengthy occupation after cessation of hostilities.

Blair and our government have both stated that the only goal post-war is to set up a democratic government with representation equal to the countries population and to let the people of Iraq live in freedom. Blair even went so far as to state that as far as oil goes, he wants Iraq oil to be set up in a trust fund of sorts that Iraq controls and nobody else can touch.

 

They want to let Iraq be Iraq, and be a free Iraq at that. After watching an Iraqi refugee breakdown and nearly beg Blair to promise him that he'd make sure Saddam was removed from power, I personally see absolutely no problem with going in and taking the bastard out with or without the rest of the world's backing. We don't want to control them, we want to give them a taste of freedom and let them decide how to drink it freely from that point on. The US and Britain don't profit from that. The only people that profit from that will be the next generation of free Iraq people.

No, we might not be going out for profit, a stance I never supported anyway, but by simply having an occupation while we rebuild the country from scratch will heavily influence its tendencies and such in the future. I'm not saying that indirectly controlling how the country would be for the foreseeable future is bad, it's actually genius, but in that region, having a west-backed Moslem democracy is really really walking on thin ice, and I'd fear for them after we pulled out.

[Guest Anglesault]

I wonder how the public would feel about the war if they knew the Reagan administration gave them weapons during the Iran-Iraq conflict. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" indeed.

I'm pretty sure that the public IS aware of that, JMA. It's no huge secret.

 

And so what?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

And he didn't "forget" anything, he just didn't mention it.

So he intentionally left it out. For reasons known only to him.

 

I doubt the United Nations would hire a mentally ill person to pretty much determine whether a country is reduced to rubble or not.

 

 

How does a person of sound mind decide that a blatant violation isn't important enough to crack his oral report?

Is the oral report what the countries voting are supposed to use? No. The 173-page report is what they are supposed to go over extensively (and with ten days, they've got plenty of time) and base their vote on.

But what is the Oral report then? A detailed description of his shopping list? Why even do a report if you REFUSE to report violations in it? Just say "I refuse to give an oral report on the grounds that I have a smoking gun and I want to make things a little more complicated by forcing you to read through a huge report instead of outrigtht stating it."

First and foremost, there are whole TEAMS for each country going over this and all UN documents line by line. They're diplomats, it's THEIR JOB, since you love to use that argument so much. Wouldn't these people ignoring the report and just sitting on their asses for ten days doing nothing be slacking off and not doing what they're supposed to do? Who cares if the public knows? Once again, this isn't going to sway many people on their feelings about this situation, and they aren't the ones voting anyway. It's all in the hands of these fifteen countries on the Security Council, and if they're too fucking lazy to read through a document that they're SUPPOSED to examine, then they don't deserve their seat on the Council.

[Guest SP-1]

Yeah but I fear for them more if we go in drop some bombs and then just say,

 

"Well, okay guys. Uncle Saddam's head is secure on a cryogenic platter, and we're gonna head on back home now.

 

. . . you kids play nice now, okay? And best of luck on that new government thingy!Call us when you figure out how to get yourselves together and all that jazz, and we'll see about a sweet spot in the UN. Laterz!"

 

They're gonna need somebody to help them get back on their feet. Otherwise they're a bombed out country with no central government and that's just ASKING for somebody to get ballsy and take them over.

[Guest JMA]

I'm pretty sure that the public IS aware of that, JMA. It's no huge secret.

 

And so what?

The general public? I think they'd be a little less gung-ho if it was presented to the general public. You think someone on TV would have mentioned it by now. I don't see why we didn't just let Iran and Iraq take each other out. Two birds with one stone.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Yeah but I fear for them more if we go in drop some bombs and then just say,

 

"Well, okay guys. Uncle Saddam's head is secure on a cryogenic platter, and we're gonna head on back home now.

 

. . . you kids play nice now, okay? And best of luck on that new government thingy!Call us when you figure out how to get yourselves together and all that jazz, and we'll see about a sweet spot in the UN. Laterz!"

 

They're gonna need somebody to help them get back on their feet. Otherwise they're a bombed out country with no central government and that's just ASKING for somebody to get ballsy and take them over.

No doubt, and I really hope they can rebuild and become prosperous again. They should be able to, since they've got a better foundation for it than, say, Afghanistan did. It really depends on how much we have to destroy before they surrender or Sadaam is killed. If it lasts a week or two, the process should be fairly painless. However, we'll still have to stick around for about a year or so to help them get back on their feet.

[Guest Anglesault]

And he didn't "forget" anything, he just didn't mention it.

So he intentionally left it out. For reasons known only to him.

 

I doubt the United Nations would hire a mentally ill person to pretty much determine whether a country is reduced to rubble or not.

 

 

How does a person of sound mind decide that a blatant violation isn't important enough to crack his oral report?

Is the oral report what the countries voting are supposed to use? No. The 173-page report is what they are supposed to go over extensively (and with ten days, they've got plenty of time) and base their vote on.

But what is the Oral report then? A detailed description of his shopping list? Why even do a report if you REFUSE to report violations in it? Just say "I refuse to give an oral report on the grounds that I have a smoking gun and I want to make things a little more complicated by forcing you to read through a huge report instead of outrigtht stating it."

First and foremost, there are whole TEAMS for each country going over this and all UN documents line by line. They're diplomats, it's THEIR JOB, since you love to use that argument so much. Wouldn't these people ignoring the report and just sitting on their asses for ten days doing nothing be slacking off and not doing what they're supposed to do? Who cares if the public knows? Once again, this isn't going to sway many people on their feelings about this situation, and they aren't the ones voting anyway. It's all in the hands of these fifteen countries on the Security Council, and if they're too fucking lazy to read through a document that they're SUPPOSED to examine, then they don't deserve their seat on the Council.

We DID read through it, an we DID find it.

 

And you STILL haven't told me why someone would give an oral report on how his search for violaions in Iraq is going and OMIT THE VIOLATION HE FOUND. That is bizarre behavior. If he didn't mention this, WHAT THE FUCK did he say?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Wasn't it the Inspections are working, but Iraq needs to fully cooperate. Pretty much what he always says.

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm pretty sure that the public IS aware of that, JMA. It's no huge secret.

 

And so what?

The general public? I think they'd be a little less gung-ho if it was presented to the general public.

I'm the general public. So are you. We know.

 

And why would they beless gung-ho? Because we gave them weapons twenty years ago, before they were ordered to destroy them?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

We DID read through it, an we DID find it.

 

And you STILL haven't told me why someone would give an oral report on how his search for violaions in Iraq is going and OMIT THE VIOLATION HE FOUND. That is bizarre behavior. If he didn't mention this, WHAT THE FUCK did he say?

 

Having not seen the address myself and only reading articles about it, he pretty much said everything else besides this, from what I read. Like I asked earlier, how much of a no-no is it for Iraq to have this? If it's only a violation in that they didn't declare it but could have had it legally if they had declared it, then that's pretty good reason not to bring it up.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I wonder how the public would feel about the war if they knew the Reagan administration gave them weapons during the Iran-Iraq conflict. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" indeed.

That MIGHT be the LEAST relevant point out there.

 

We armed him because Iran was a bigger threat to us at the time.

=Mike

[Guest Anglesault]

A violation is a violation. We're now leaving it up to this man to decide the degree of violation.

 

This is out of control. We HAVE to get the fuck out of the UN. They are useless.

[Guest JMA]

That MIGHT be the LEAST relevant point out there.

 

We armed him because Iran was a bigger threat to us at the time.

Why didn't we just let them destroy each other? The winner would be too weak to carry out any assault.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

That MIGHT be the LEAST relevant point out there.

 

We armed him because Iran was a bigger threat to us at the time.

Why didn't we just let them destroy each other? The winner would be too weak to carry out any assault.

Hey JMA, did anyone lose that war?

 

And yes AS, the UN is pretty bloody useless, but if we withdrew they'd fold really quickly afterward, not to mention digging ourselves into an even larger hole in the eyes of the world.

[Guest JMA]

Hey JMA, did anyone lose that war?

Was there any point to that, Kotz? I was asking Mike a question. That's all. Get off my back.

[Guest Anglesault]

That MIGHT be the LEAST relevant point out there.

 

We armed him because Iran was a bigger threat to us at the time.

Why didn't we just let them destroy each other? The winner would be too weak to carry out any assault.

Hey JMA, did anyone lose that war?

No.

 

And yes AS, the UN is pretty bloody useless, but if we withdrew they'd fold really quickly afterward

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of that.

 

not to mention digging ourselves into an even larger hole in the eyes of the world.

 

We'll never satisfy them anyway.

[Guest SP-1]

You know something, though? The rest of the world has turned on us pretty fucking quickly in light of us finally waking up about protecting ourselves after a huge national atrocity. If they won't stand with us then it isn't really in our best interests to deal with them to protect ourselves anyway. Trade, economic matters, sure, deal with anyone and everyone if possible.

 

But I see no reason we should let the rest of the world have a say in how we conduct the business of protecting ourselves.

[Guest DrTom]

The general public? I think they'd be a little less gung-ho if it was presented to the general public.

Only myopic moral relativists would become "less gung-ho" after being reminded that we provided arms to Iraq in their fight against Iran. Iran was the bigger threat at the time. Russia has also heavily stocked Iraq's military, much moreso than we ever did, so I fail to see what your point is. Besides, it's not like giving Saddam weapons 20 years ago is going to hurt us now. Twenty year-old weapons against our new technology. I scoff.

 

Not that there are any myopic moral relativists here, or anything...