Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, unless you can answer this now, please don't ever challenge the statement about the world believing Sadaam had WMD.

Why did the UN impose, and continue sanctions that were starving the Iraqui people if the member countries* did not believe he had the WMD's?

*I mean beyond the rulers of the French and Russian gov'ts who were receiving huge kickbacks from the "oil for food" programs.

Whatsamatter, Hank, you couldn't read the Hans Blix link he provided? Man, he included the cite right in his post!

Well, guess you're now 3-20. What were those three again?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Whatsamatter, Hank, you couldn't read the Hans Blix link he provided? Man, he included the cite right in his post!

Well, guess you're now 3-20. What were those three again?

people think I'm mean when I make fun of people, so I'll be polite this last time.

The link talks about Blix's feelings, I don't see where it touches on why the UN kept sanctions in place, killing Iraquis.

GGG. Did you know the Iraqui sanctions were one of the 3 or 4 reasons AQ declared war on the US?

How come the UN did that GGG, why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, unless you can answer this now, please don't ever challenge the statement about the world believing Sadaam had WMD.

Why did the UN impose, and continue sanctions that were starving the Iraqui people if the member countries* did not believe he had the WMD's?

*I mean beyond the rulers of the French and Russian gov'ts who were receiving huge kickbacks from the "oil for food" programs.

Read the book review (eta: stp). Blix believed Iraq had WMD until fairly soon before the war. Unlike some people, he had an open mind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read the book review. Blix believed Iraq had WMD until fairly soon before the war. Unlike some people, he had an open mind.

I will not engage in this. From now on I will simply answer this argument 3660.

confidential to Ty: Blix WORKED for the UN, he didn't have the power to impose sanctions. It sounds from your noting the quote about Blix's belief that you are conceding the UN also believed. I won't take a victory if you agree the UN believed, maybe I misunderstood you. Did the UN lie or mislead and cause men woman and children to die and bleed?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read the book review. Blix believed Iraq had WMD until fairly soon before the war. Unlike some people, he had an open mind.

I even recall Blix saying on television shortly after the war started that he had no doubt that WMDs would be found. I have grave misgivings of how the Administration handled the war, but Blix seems like an equivocator.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
GGG. Did you know the Iraqui sanctions were one of the 3 or 4 reasons AQ declared war on the US?

Not to sidetrack you, but this question started me wondering: wasn't one of AQ's goals to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia?

If so, would it be fair to characterize the US pullout of the SA troops in the wake of 9/11 as appeasement, the same way some on the board are characterizing Spain's pullout from Iraq in the wake of 3/11?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I even recall Blix saying on television shortly after the war started that he had no doubt that WMDs would be found. I have grave misgivings of how the Administration handled the war, but Blix seems like an equivocator.

from the review

"[Blix] makes no secret of the fact that until a late stage he was himself inclined to believe that Iraq might still be concealing some stocks of chemical and biological weapons, as well as some illegal missiles."

* * * * *

Saddam Hussein agreed to let the UNMOVIC inspectors back into Iraq on September 16, 2002, when the American and British military buildup in Kuwait and elsewhere was already well under way. The conclusions of Western intelligence agencies at the time were generally hedged. The agencies said that they were "inclined to believe" weapons existed or that the evidence "strongly suggests" their presence. Such qualified claims nevertheless were the basis for the dogmatic statements pouring out of Washington and London about the monstrous and imminent threat of Saddam Hussein's WMDs—statements "as firm as [they were] unfounded," as Blix puts it. UNMOVIC's mission was to find hard evidence of Iraq's suspected WMDs.

* * * * *

[Shortly before the war,] Blix still did not know for certain that Iraq had got rid of all its illegal weapons, but he saw no evidence whatever that it still had them. No one was pleased with him. He writes that he was not bothered by differences, often insultingly expressed by US representatives, over UNMOVIC's assessment of such matters as rudimen-tary drones or old cluster bombs. But, he writes, "I still find it insulting if they believed that our assessments were prompted by a wish to avoid finding incriminating evidence." The US postwar inquiry in Iraq seems to have vindicated him handsomely on this score.

On March 17, the United States asked Blix to withdraw the inspectors in preparation for the coalition attack. Despite the intensifying heat, the troops wore protective gear against chemical and biological attack. The United States had evidently given no credence either to the reports of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC or to the statements of the Iraqis themselves about the destruction of their WMDs. Later, on handing himself over to the coalition forces, General al-Saadi told them, "There are no weapons of mass destruction and time will bear me out." Blix concludes that "the UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it."

I never had a great sense of Blix either, but surely that is because no one in this country was interested in defending or explaining his work.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If so, would it be fair to characterize the US pullout of the SA troops in the wake of 9/11 as appeasement, the same way some on the board are characterizing Spain's pullout from Iraq in the wake of 3/11?

Yes. When SA asked us to leave and we have neighboring options, and we do it what, 4/5 years after 9/11 it is the same exact thing as a country voting its government out of office 3 days after an attack, for a different government who promises to "undo" the "wrong."

Its almost as bad as when Johnson appeased the Japanes warlords by mothballing much of our battleship fleet in the Pacific in '67.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

More to suggest that the election results in Spain turned on the PP's deception, and not appeasement:

• The PP knew that their antiterrorist policy (against ETA) was one of its main winning cards, and they didn't hesitate to blatantly manipulate the 11-M attack, suppressing information, calling people to demonstrate against ETA, knowing all the while that the Antiterrorist Information Brigade had as good as discarded ETA authorship a few hours after the attack. The antiterrorist police heads even threatened to resign at the madness of it all, and this was leaked to the opposition and the press.
  
  And all the while the state TVE showing documentaries about ETA activities right until late Saturday night, on the eve of the election, and failing to report live on Minister Acebes informing about the Al-Q line of investigation which he had been forced to acknowledge — forced by his own angered police heads and by the media which had all the information but was withholding it just long enough for the Minister to do the decent thing. This heartless manipulation of the dead for political gain clinched it....

linky

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

OK, let's look at what different people knew, believed, suspected, and wanted proof on prior to invading Iraq:

We all know Iraq used chemical weapons, that is, WMD, in the war with Iran.

We also all know that Iraq used such weapons in putting down their own people during the early 90s.

We know Iraq invaded Kuwait.

We know that Iraq violated the no-fly zones.

We know Iraq agreed to dismantle weapons and to UN inspections, that these inspections had ceased.

Do the above points of knowledge suggest some basis for sanctions? Wasn't a major goal of sanctions to get the inspection program back in place, and make sure there were no remaining WMD?

Now, on to belief. Many people believed WMD to continue to exist, but certainly not all did. Certainly very few Western governmnets would trust Hussein to not restart his WMD program, particularly his chemical weapons program, in the absence of inspections.

But no one knew whether he had them or not. That was kind of the point of inspections. And most of the world wanted those inspections to continue, so we would be acting on something other than a suspicion. Bush was asked repeatedly to make his case, and to show the evidence for the world to go to war. He failed to put forward enough evidence to convince anyone, and he refused to let the inspectors have enough time to do their job.

And, Hank, I'm glad you have such insight into the motivations of a.Q. Please share more wisdom with us on what motivates them and why they do what they do.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I never had a great sense of Blix either, but surely that is because no one in this country was interested in defending or explaining his work.

Agreed. But I think the Administration's position can be defended By pointing his his equivocation. From your quote:

"Blix still did not know for certain that Iraq had got rid of all its illegal weapons, but he saw no evidence whatever that it still had them."

If this after-the-fact characterization is true, why did Blix say after the war began that he had "no doubt"* that wmds would be found? If the chief UN inspector believed this despite seeing no evidence, how can the Administration be faulted for believing the same? There is plenty of evidence to support your central premise that the White House overstated the imminent threat of Iraq's wmds. I just think Blix is probably the least reliable.

* I have googled for an exact quote in the past but was unable to find it and was unwilling to search Nexis. I am reasonably certain he said "no doubt," though.

[Atticus Grinch]

Are you looking for a foreign leader willing to tell the American press that he was the one who endorsed you over Bush?

As with everything else in life, find it on eBay.

Shipping/Handing charge for this item is $15.00, we only ship to Massachusetts. Payment must be received within 3 days of auction close. We accept Paypal (Mastercard, Visa, E-Checks), Money Orders, Certified Checks, or fraudulent donations from Moveon.org in US Funds and Cash.

Courtesy Wonkette, God love 'er.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. When SA asked us to leave and we have neighboring options, and we do it what, 4/5 years after 9/11 it is the same exact thing as a country voting its government out of office 3 days after an attack, for a different government who promises to "undo" the "wrong."

In this instance I would see a crackdown on homeland terrorist networks, working with the EU to tightening the borders and inspect shipping containers, etc. to be a neighboring option. But why does appeasement refer to anything besides what AQ wants us to do? See sgtclub's posts above for a description of how they view the war on terror.

By the way, 4/5 years after 9/11 is still 18 months away.

Its almost as bad as when Johnson appeased the Japanes warlords by mothballing much of our battleship fleet in the Pacific in '67.

Good one. I like it when you're mean.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
More to suggest that the election results in Spain turned on the PP's deception, and not appeasement:

• The PP knew that their antiterrorist policy (against ETA) was one of its main winning cards, and they didn't hesitate to blatantly manipulate the 11-M attack, suppressing information, calling people to demonstrate against ETA, knowing all the while that the Antiterrorist Information Brigade had as good as discarded ETA authorship a few hours after the attack. The antiterrorist police heads even threatened to resign at the madness of it all, and this was leaked to the opposition and the press.
  
  And all the while the state TVE showing documentaries about ETA activities right until late Saturday night, on the eve of the election, and failing to report live on Minister Acebes informing about the Al-Q line of investigation which he had been forced to acknowledge — forced by his own angered police heads and by the media which had all the information but was withholding it just long enough for the Minister to do the decent thing. This heartless manipulation of the dead for political gain clinched it....

linky

I've stands all I can stands and I can't stands no more...........

Ty you post a thought piece from a guy not wearing socks in calpundit as somekind of evidence? WTF? No socks- Pete?

Show me one picture from the marches between 3/11 and the election that evidences this theory, I will counter with 10 that show the truth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If this after-the-fact characterization is true, why did Blix say after the war began that he had "no doubt"* that wmds would be found? If the chief UN inspector believed this despite seeing no evidence, how can the Administration be faulted for believing the same? There is plenty of evidence to support your central premise that the White House overstated the imminent threat of Iraq's wmds. I just think Blix is probably the least reliable.

If you misheard Blix and he was saying that earlier he had no doubt that WMD would be found, then there's no problem. I don't know what he said, but it's hard to figure out what he meant unless you've got a quote.