Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/9/2003 2:24:36 PM EST
What in the Sam Hill is our media doing, listening to this idiot??? Like his stupidity actually means something...."we can't find anything...so they must be ok", What is that? .N. weapons inspectors said Thursday they have not found any "smoking guns" but have discovered that Iraq violated U.N. sanctions by importing parts for its missile program. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, complained that his inspectors haven't been able to conduct private interviews with Iraqi scientists who may have knowledge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. "We are not able to have interviews in Iraq in private and that does not show the proactive cooperation we seek," ElBaradei said after briefing the U.N. Security Council on the progress of inspections and assessments of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the council that Iraq has not made a "serious effort" to respond to his request for the names of Iraqi scientists who were involved in weapons of mass destruction programs. But both men stressed that the inspections process needs more time. "The absence of a smoking gun and the prompt access which we have had so far, and which is most welcome, is no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites, whether above ground, underground or in mobile units," Blix told the council. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte called on Iraq to admit to weapons programs "it maintains, even today." "Anything less is not cooperation and will constitute further material breach," Negroponte said, using diplomatic language that could pave the way for war. In Baghdad, Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer to the inspection teams, said that a U.N. inspector had raised the possibility without making a formal request of taking Iraqi scientists to Cyprus for questioning. He said scientists could decide for themselves whether to go but that they were expected to refuse. Blix told reporters earlier that he hadn't heard of such a request but planned to conduct interviews in the near future. Negroponte said the United States expected inspectors to "to begin out-of-country interviews." "The burden remains on Iraq to demonstrate compliance," Negroponte said, adding that inspectors are there to "verify Iraqi disarmament, not to serve as detectives working to overcome elaborate concealment mechanisms." During Blix's briefing to the Security Council, he said Iraq had admitted in its weapons declaration to importing missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel. "This import has taken place in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq." I am so sick of this U.N. crap. [rail]
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 2:33:53 PM EST
By no means am I an Iraq lover... But how exactly do you prove an negative??
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 2:45:40 PM EST
Blix has been failure from day one. he wa on the previous inspector team that found nothing the last go round. he has not visited [b]ONE[/b] military site..plus, Sec. Powell has given him a heads up. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said that Washington had begun to pass on “significant” intelligence in recent days. But he cautioned that the details were carefully selected, and that the US was holding on to its most sensitive information and incriminating details, waiting to see whether inspectors “are able to handle it and exploit it”. “It’s not a matter of opening up every door we have,” he said. Mr Powell’s comments, in an interview with the Washington Post, highlight the tightrope that the Americans are walking in trying to guide the inspectors. If the inspectors fail to turn up any sign of banned weapons, the UN security council is highly unlikely to authorise military action, despite the acknowledged shortcomings in Iraq’s weapons declaration. Without a second resolution, the US would also lose the support of some of its most crucial allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, and access to their bases. Even America’s staunchest ally, Britain, which has said that it would like to see more explicit UN authority before going to war, may get cold feet, something that would fatally damage America’s authority for war. But if the US releases its highly prized intelligence information to the inspectors, it would signal to Baghdad what it knows. US officials do not entirely trust the UN inspection team, and are wary that leaks to Iraqi officials would give them vital time to hide or destroy evidence. It could also betray the Iraqi “moles” who had passed on such information, meaning instant death for them and their families, but also the loss to the US of an important source of vital information. Disclosure could also jeopardise any military mission by giving Iraq advance notice of sites that the US was planning to attack, a fear voiced by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, this week. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, reiterated yesterday that the US knew that Iraq possessed the weapons it denied having. “We know they have weapons of mass destruction of a chemical nature — we know they have weapons of mass destruction of a biological nature,” he said. The danger for the US is that such pronouncements may sound increasingly hollow without proof. Like their counterparts in Britain and the UN, US officials have been playing down the significance of January 27, the date on which Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, is due to give his report to the 15-member UN security council.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 2:51:56 PM EST
I've read that Hans has a history of looking the other way and rubber stamping. The author suggested that he was purposefully choosen to do just this in Irag. The previous American inspector is very good at it, but he can't handle thinking beyond his short-term emotions. That is his handicap.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 2:55:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By Stormbringer2: By no means am I an Iraq lover... But how exactly do you prove an negative??
View Quote
Thank you. That's been a question I've had for a while. It seems like if they do what they consider an "adequate" search and find nothing, then they are going to conclude that Iraq has no WMD. It's kind of like if you search 6 rooms of my house and find no weapons I must not have any. (Just don't check the BR closet and the study!)
Top Top