U.S. undermined weapons inspectors.

[Tricky]

In This article, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix asserts that "American officials leaked suggestions that inspectors had deliberately suppressed information to the media in an attempt to undermine their work in Iraq."

This was part of the UN discussion on whether to send the weapons inspectors back to Iraq. Of course, Washington doesn't want them there, saying:

(There is) no immediate role for Dr Blix and his inspection teams.

Gee, you would think that the US would be grateful for any help in finding the weapons, especially from people trained for just that task. It would almost seem as if they either A) don't want their failure to find weapons exposed to the world, B) don't want observers to note the US planting weapons, or C) don't want experienced people spoiling their fun when they uncover a hospital waste dump.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Isn't it a bit late?

We've got our own inspectors now.. They're called Soldiers and Marines.

 

[Tricky]

Isn't it a bit late?

We've got our own inspectors now.. They're called Soldiers and Marines.

They don't seem to be doing such a hot job (and the Marines are going home soon). Also, it is important that these finds have international witnesses, otherwise people will accuse the US of planting them. Besides, wouldn't you want the people who know the most about weapons inspection to help? If this sort of training is standard in Army boot camp, then I apologize.

 

[Richard G]

We have over 100,000 people there now, with the best weapon specialists in the world, all looking for this stuff. Do you think Mr. Blix is really going to make a difference?

 

[Bentspoon]

Blix

And let's not forget the impressive a decisive style of Mr. Blix. His impactful and just analysis is just what we need. A dynamic personality who calls the shots as he sees them with little equivocation.

Bentspoon

 

[Tricky]

We have over 100,000 people there now, with the best weapon specialists in the world, all looking for this stuff. Do you think Mr. Blix is really going to make a difference?

It will make a difference to the world. Lots of people don't trust the US. Having Blix there would keep people from saying the US planted the weapons. Wouldn't you regard that as a good thing?

(And are you saying that our 100,000 soldiers are trained in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? I thought they mostly stuck to tanks and guns.)

Originally posted by Bentspoon
And let's not forget the impressive a decisive style of Mr. Blix. His impactful and just analysis is just what we need. A dynamic personality who calls the shots as he sees them with little equivocation.

Oh, I agree it is much better to have people who run up to a hospital dump and claim the waste is plutonium. After all, personality is much more important than facts in this sort of thing. Still, we want the world to know that the US are not liars. Well, at least I want them to know that.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Isn't the U.N. inspection team compromised of multiple large teams of scientists and experts from around the world in different fields? I mean hey, I could be wrong, it really might be just Blix running around all by himself. If that's the case it's better to have 100,000 soldiers running around instead.

We have over 100,000 people there now, with the best weapon specialists in the world, all looking for this stuff. Do you think Mr. Blix is really going to make a difference?

 

[armageddonman]

Anyone remembers all the WMD sites "found" by US military since the beginning of this war? Funny how they all turned out to be not that. Please let the inspectors back in. They know what they are doing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Also, it is important that these finds have international witnesses, otherwise people will accuse the US of planting them..

So what?

There are many things coming to light regarding the ' rightness' of liberating Iraq..


Maybe the WMD issue was mostly hype.. In the end, world opinion did not govern the coalition's decision to invade Iraq.
What diference does it make, now, which excuses were good ones?
The mass graves they are finding, seem to make a good substitute for WMD.

 

[iain]

So what?

There are many things coming to light regarding the ' rightness' of liberating Iraq..


Maybe the WMD issue was mostly hype.. In the end, world opinion did not govern the coalitions decision to invade Iraq.
What diference does it make, now, which excuses were good ones?
The mass graves they are finding, seem to make a good substitute for WMD.

I'm not aware of any significant new findings about Iraq which were not already known before. If the US didn't feel these things justified intervention before, why do the justify it now?

(And the US did feel this way : they made it clear that if Saddam complied with resolution 1441 to their satisfaction there would be no war).

There was a finding of hundreds of bodies near Basra which were initially thought to be torture victims of Saddam. They have since been confirmed as people killed in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's.

Edited to add with all this frenzied goalpost-moving by pro-war people I'm almost tempted to think you guys are on the defensive.

 

[LuxFerum]

Still, we want the world to know that the US are not liars. Well, at least I want them to know that.

sorry, but that is not true.

 

[iain]

sorry, but that is not true.

Its not true that the US are not liars, or that Tricky wants you to know it?

 

[Tricky]

So what?

The US could be exposed to the whole world as liars and aggressors and you say "so what?"

I want to be proud of my country, and that means being proud of the things they do. It is hard to be proud of liars and aggressors. (It is for me anyway.)

There are many things coming to light regarding the ' rightness' of liberating Iraq..

Yes, lots of things are coming to light, including the liklihood that we may be "liberating" them right into the arms of another Islamic fundamentalist government. Iran has already started moving in.

Maybe the WMD issue was mostly hype.. In the end, world opinion did not govern the coalition's decision to invade Iraq.
What diference does it make, now, which excuses were good ones?
The mass graves they are finding, seem to make a good substitute for WMD.

So invade first and come up with your reasons later? Is that the "American Way"? How would you feel if the rest of the world adhered to this strategy?

If you don't think that people need to give good reasons for their actions in advance, then by extension, you must agree that police should be able to write up a search warrent and leave blank the part about what they were looking for.
***

Its not true that the US are not liars, or that Tricky wants you to know it?

LOL. Okay, maybe it isn't true. I guess I would have been more correct in saying that I would like it to be true.

 

[RichardR]

So what?

There are many things coming to light regarding the ' rightness' of liberating Iraq..


Maybe the WMD issue was mostly hype.. In the end, world opinion did not govern the coalition's decision to invade Iraq.
What diference does it make, now, which excuses were good ones?
The mass graves they are finding, seem to make a good substitute for WMD.

I can’t believe you said that. Bush told us we had to go to war with Iraq because they were a threat to our security. Do you really believe it was OK to go to war if this was not true, just as long as we can find some other reason after the fact to support it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I can’t believe you said that. Bush told us we had to go to war with Iraq because they were a threat to our security. Do you really believe it was OK to go to war if this was not true, just as long as we can find some other reason after the fact to support it?

Politicians lie all the time.. If you recall, we didn't get to vote on it.

P.S.

Yes, I believe it was O.K..

 

[Sundog]

Politicians lie all the time.. If you recall, we didn't get to vote on it.

P.S.

Yes, I believe it was O.K..

Your hat is still on too tight.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If you don't think that people need to give good reasons for their actions in advance, then by extension, you must agree that police should be able to write up a search warrent and leave blank the part about what they were looking for.

Why? Is that typical of your reasoning?

Frankly I'm surprised Tricky. You usually tend to show a tendancy toward fair and logical thinking.

I would also think you would understand that 'Need', ' should ' and ' do ', seldom get applied correctly in reality.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, I believe it was O.K..

If all of the US felt like it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later, then I believe that it would be in the best interests of the rest of the world to combine and destroy this dangerous, lawless beast.

Fortunately, I don't think this is the default US position. This is a simple case of being wrong and not being able to admit it, at least not yet.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Your hat is still on too tight.

Knowing you're paying attention, keeps me on my toes.

 

[Tricky]

Why? Is that typical of your reasoning?

Frankly I'm surprised Tricky. You usually tend to show a tendancy toward fair and logical thinking.

Thanks. I like to believe this is typical of my fair and logical thinking.

I would also think you would understand that 'Need', ' should ' and ' do ', seldom get applied correctly in reality.

I am usually impressed with your skills too, Diogenes. That is why it is so surprising to see you take such untenable positions and dodge questions.

Like this one:
Do you favor the use of blank search warrants?