Ex-chief weapons inspector slams Iraq war as 'tragedy'

wvpeach · #11 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 03:47 PM

Thanks for the article Jan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan

Ex-chief weapons inspector slams Iraq war as 'tragedy'

LONDON (AFP) - Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector, slammed the Iraq war as a "tragedy" and blamed it on leaders ignoring the facts, in a comment piece published Thursday.

Writing in The Guardian on the five-year anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, Blix, who clashed with Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war, described the war as "a tragedy -- for Iraq, for the US, for the UN, for truth and human dignity."

In the sub-headline to the comment piece, Blix, who headed the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, wrote that responsibility for the war "must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago".

At the time of the Iraq war, Blix accused the US and Britain of exaggerating the threat from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" -- traces of which have never been found.

In his comment piece, he said the war was a "setback in the world's efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states" and added that in 2003, "Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody."

Blix wrote that had coalition troops not deposed Saddam, "he would, in all likelihood, have become another Kadhafi or Castro; an oppressor of his own people but no longer a threat to the world."

He said that one positive sign to emerge from the conflict was that "it may be that the spectacular failure of ensuring disarmament by force, and of introducing democracy by occupation, will work in favour of a greater use of diplomacy and 'soft power'."

Source

Flanders · #12 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 04:59 PM

Neither Blix nor the powers that be were about to discover WMD and kill the Oil-For-Food program that was pouring tens of billions into the pockets of UN parasites. It’s a safe bet that that UN weapons inspectors were on Saddam’s payroll from day one. Remember how the weapons inspector used to take a pleasant drive every day going wherever Saddam’s security forces led them. A million or two for each inspector was a drop in the bucket when compared to the billions going through UN headquarters. Saddam was no fool when it came to bribes. He made sure that everybody got a taste.

Saddam’s mistake was in trusting UN-loving Democrats to protect him. Democrats, especially Senator Clinton, have repeatedly said that they voted for the war resolution because they thought Bush would let UN weapons inspectors “finish their work.” Their “work” was supposed to go on indefinitely, or so long as the Oil-For-Food money kept coming in. Bush outsmarted the Democrats and defended the country when he invaded Iraq.

Hans Blix is, and always was, a clown. Even in retirement he deliberately distorts no WMD and no WMD found.

Also, Blix always blurred the line between nuclear and non-nuclear WMD. Blix seems to think that his reputation is so sterling he can get away with denying Saddam’s non-nuclear WMD. To now hold up Hans Blix as a reliable source on Saddam’s weapons programs is absurd. Once a clown always a clown.

In one sense Blix might be doing a good thing by reminding Iraqis just who their enemy was during Saddam’s final years in power.

Blix doesn’t have sense enough to enjoy his fat UN pension, and whatever else he squirreled away, and keep his mouth shut. The last thing today’s UN wants is to have their former star clown reminding the world of the Oil-For-Food scandal during Goofy Annan’s regime.

Blix, and others, are sick because the war is against Islamic fundamentalism. It is not a war against nuclear proliferation as the UN would like it to be.

Bush did the right thing by invading Iraq without waiting for the UN’s final approval. Bush’s mistake was in delaying the invasion long enough to give Saddam time to remove or hide his nuclear WMD. Nor was Bush’s public relations on Iraq something to write home about.

kgpoolerev · #13 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Ken,

No reason to go slowly, buddy....so, you have been reading my comments, huh?

No one doubts that Saddam had an active WMD program in the 80s; in fact, you could argue the US was complicit in this program...especially where the Iranian victims were concerned. The key questions in 2003 were 1) Does Iraq have a viable and active WMD program and 2) does it pose a threat to the US and its allies.

The answer to both questions is a resounding NO. And these 500 random old shells don't affect these answers one iota. You can keep trying to imply by claiming that "WMD "was found in Iraq (Hey, Bush was right all along!) that the answers to the above questions are yes...., but, it doesn't make it so.

Different argument.

Huh? I'm not following this statement. WMD found in NYC? From where??

Let us see the intelligence reports you have from the 2003.

If you do not have intelligence reports then you are wishing that there was not a threat. I am not arrogant enough to say that there was a threat. I am demanding enough to say that IF there was a threat THEN the Congress and the president had to act.

Hundreds of Democratics read the intelligence reports and determined that Saddam did pose a threat. You seem to want to lay all the responsibility at Bush's feet. Why do you fail to mention the hundreds of Democratic Congressmen/women who DEMANDED they vote on sending trooops to Iraq? At the time is was projected the initial invasion would cost the lives of tens of thousands of coalition troops and the Democratics still voted to go into Iraq. Also go read up on the WMD found in Iraq, some of weapons were still viable. Others had decayed to the point that they were a minimal risk.

There were lots of errors in the intelligence. There were problems with dealing with the aftermath. I can certainly understand where you are coming from but you should at least get the facts correct. Right now it seems more that you want to deny reality to prove you are correct. The truth is that you lack the intelligence reports to know why we did what we did, just as I lack the intelligence reports. I can only speculate which is why I use 'if' and 'then'. You come across as if you have all the information and can speak as an expert.

Go to the two websites I listed. You will learn a lot.

IcyPeaceMaker · #14 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 05:08 PM

Flanders, I have a gripe about this stmt: Bush outsmarted the Democrats and defended the country when he invaded Iraq.

Can you tell me how Iraq had anything to do with defending America?

jan · #15 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgpoolerev

I will spell it out for you slowly. Jan was saying Blix is an expert on Iraq or he/she would not have quoted him, she was saying that no WMD was found. Both are lies. The truth is what is, not what Jan wants it to be.

If you want to say the last 5 years are not worth it, then that is a viable arguement as it is an opinion. You cannot base your opinion on falsehoods that there were not WMD in Iraq. You can say there was no new WMD being produced, you can say that some of the WMD found had decayed to the point were it was not a dangerous. WMD was found so to say it was not is a lie.

We can look into the future and determine that simply withdrawing right now would lead to long term disasters for American civilians. Even Clinton and Obama say they cannot guarantee to be out of Iraq by the end of 2012.

edit: If the WMD found in New York City was not lost due to gross imcompetence by Blix and his inspectors then was it there as part of a terrorist plot.

Blix was probably "THE" leading expert on the subject of WMD's in Iraq.

kgpoolerev · #16 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan

Blix was probably "THE" leading expert on the subject of WMD's in Iraq.

Unfortunately for the world and the U.S. for some reason Blix and his team managed to miss 500 WMD. Much more ominous was the WMD in their office in New York City where they could not find the WMD there. Where the inspectors so incompetent that they simply brought back trophies and forgot about them, or were they employed by Saddam to smuggle in WMD to be used in the U.S.? Believing the simplest solution is normally correct, I am going to say the weapons inspectors were simply incompetent.

Unfortunately we do not know what happened, we lack the access to the intelligence reports that lead hundreds of Democratics to vote to go into Iraq. You are against us being in Iraq, that is your perogative, but at least be truthful. Cite the sources that show there were WMD. Then say you do not believe Saddam was a threat. As we, you and I, lack the access to the intelligence reports I would have to concur that we do not KNOW Saddam was a threat. I will say what I have said since before we went into Iraq, IF Saddam is a risk to the lives of U.S. citizens THEN Bush would be guilty of treason if he did not act to provide for the common welfare of the country.

I will say that you should listen to your girl Clinton and your horse (I cannot say boy due to Obama being black) Obama. They both have said they cannot promise to be out of Iraq by the end of their first term. So they both see the U.S. still being in Iraq in 2013. Our politicians need to all get on the same page so we stop sending mixed messages about foreign policy. That way we can get Iraq stabilized so we can get all of our troops over there back home ASAP. Sending mixed messages and slandering the troops simply emboldens the enemies delaying stabilization and thus the return of our troops.

edit: Blix can be seen as 'the' leading expert on WMD in Iraq, but that does not make him an expert on what Saddam was going to do, and specifically what Saddam was going to do with the 500 WMD found in Iraq since the coalition went in there.

IcyPeaceMaker · #17 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 06:50 PM

Bullshit outdated crap that was useless from the 80s, get the hell over that bullshit. THERE WERE NO WMD!!!

kgpoolerev · #18 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPeaceMaker

Bullshit outdated crap that was useless from the 80s, get the hell over that bullshit. THERE WERE NO WMD!!!

Icy, before I linked the site so you could educate yourself you kept saying there were NO WMD, now you complaining that some of them had decayed to the point they were no longer effective where as others were still effective.

Maybe we should not have gone in. I do not have the intel to prove one way or another, not do you. What I can say for certain is that your girl Clinton and your horse (do to PC reasons I cannot say boy here) Obama have both said they cannot promise to be out of Iraq by 2013. Clearly they know something you do not know. Clearly you should listen to what they are saying instead of lying about there being no WMD.

StormanNorman · #19 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgpoolerev

Let us see the intelligence reports you have from the 2003. If you do not have intelligence reports then you are wishing that there was not a threat. I am not arrogant enough to say that there was a threat.

Well, I am

...based on my knowledge and accesses in this area.

Quote:

I am demanding enough to say that IF there was a threat THEN the Congress and the president had to act.

None of the pre-2003 intel reports have been released to the public as far as I know. There have been unclassified versions of reports of studies conducted after the war.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...004/chap5.html
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf

These more or less confirm what I've been saying.

Quote:

Hundreds of Democratics read the intelligence reports and determined that Saddam did pose a threat. You seem to want to lay all the responsibility at Bush's feet.

Not at all....although I do place a large chunck at the Administration's feet....as they clearly led the charge for this endeavor. Much of the rest falls at the feet of those in Congress including the Democrats who voted for this shit.

Quote:

Why do you fail to mention the hundreds of Democratic Congressmen/women who DEMANDED they vote on sending trooops to Iraq? At the time is was projected the initial invasion would cost the lives of tens of thousands of coalition troops and the Democratics still voted to go into Iraq.

Who said this....cuz I never saw any such assessment. Anyone who didn't think that the conventional force on force fight was going to be a massive blow out was on crack. Iraq was very weak...far weaker than the were in 1991....and getting weaker.

Quote:

Also go read up on the WMD found in Iraq, some of weapons were still viable. Others had decayed to the point that they were a minimal risk.

Who cares?

Quote:

There were lots of errors in the intelligence.

I know...trust me.

Quote:

There were problems with dealing with the aftermath. I can certainly understand where you are coming from but you should at least get the facts correct.

What facts do I have wrong, Ken?

Quote:

Right now it seems more that you want to deny reality to prove you are correct. The truth is that you lack the intelligence reports to know why we did what we did, just as I lack the intelligence reports.

I don't have them handy, Ken...but have seen some of them.

Quote:

I can only speculate which is why I use 'if' and 'then'. You come across as if you have all the information and can speak as an expert.

Well, I can. First of all, I was in the Gulf in 1999 and 2000 analyzing Iraq's capabilities....and I went to Bahrain and Qatar after the invasion for different reasons.

Quote:

Go to the two websites I listed. You will learn a lot.

I don't need to.