It was a lie of omission in the oral testimony that's for sure.
I think my original speculation was correct. Blix didn't want to give the US the sound bite. Had be been on TeeVee saying, "Anthrax cannot be accounted for, cluster bomb that can deliver chem/bio weapons, drone that US said he had that could deliver chem/bio weapons" it would have knocked the legs out from under the French.
But the Puppet of Paris would never do that. He'd be out of a job one way or the other.
<strong>It was a lie of omission in the oral testimony that's for sure.
I think my original speculation was correct. Blix didn't want to give the US the sound bite. Had be been on TeeVee saying, "Anthrax cannot be accounted for, cluster bomb that can deliver chem/bio weapons, drone that US said he had that could deliver chem/bio weapons" it would have knocked the legs out from under the French.
But the Puppet of Paris would never do that. He'd be out of a job one way or the other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>He just got on Swedish TV and said the leaders at the emergency summit appeared "divided".
Whether or not you agree with war, there can be no case made that they appeared divided. They were anything BUT divided.
Blix has revealed himself to be nothing more than a political tool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Plus he was on MTV shooting his mouth off about "unilateral" US actions. On things unrelated to terrorism, WOMD and Iraq. He mentioned Kyoto. Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?
Plus he was on MTV shooting his mouth off about "unilateral" US actions. On things unrelated to terrorism, WOMD and Iraq. He mentioned Kyoto. Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I forgot about that. It was f*ucking ridiculous. I thought: "MTV???.....wow, this has gone too far". ROCK THE INSPECTIONS 2003.
bunge:
[quote] For the interview, he was just a well informed citizen. <hr></blockquote>
But that is NOT what he is here. He was making a political statement. He shows his true colors more by the day. At first, it was subtle. Now, it is blatant. He shouldn't be doing things like that, even if for his own sake and reputation. He is the chief UN inspector and he gets on TV and calls a security council member "unilateral"??? Then, he goes on to say today that the summit attendees were "divided"? You call that impartial?
He was making a political statement...You call that impartial?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he's entitled to a political position in this. He's hired by the U.N., and the U.N. Charter does have guidelines for conduct which include, for all practical purposes, avoiding war whenever possible.
If the U.N. Charter is rewritten to read 'go to war whenever possible', I imagine we'll have some talking head spouting off about how Resolution 1441 was broken before it were even written.
I think he's entitled to a political position in this. He's hired by the U.N., and the U.N. Charter does have guidelines for conduct which include, for all practical purposes, avoiding war whenever possible.
If the U.N. Charter is rewritten to read 'go to war whenever possible', I imagine we'll have some talking head spouting off about how Resolution 1441 was broken before it were even written.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.
That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I definitely see your point, I just mean that he was hired by people that are trying to avoid war.
It's definitely not his call, but what he says outside of his job definitely isn't indicative of his job either. Were he to have made these statements in front of the Security Council, it'd be a mistake. In an interview, I don't think it holds much weight.
That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I definitely see your point, I just mean that he was hired by people that are trying to avoid war.
It's definitely not his call, but what he says outside of his job definitely isn't indicative of his job either. Were he to have made these statements in front of the Security Council, it'd be a mistake. In an interview, I don't think it holds much weight.
Comments
<strong>Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week! Tip your waitresses!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great Work.... Hey? What can you do with "Captain Crunch" ?
That one I have to hear
Fellows
I'll have to think a little more about one for the Cap'n. Nothing comes to mind at the moment.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Hey, you got the number to that party line? Sweet...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it's Scott's own line : 1-800-MEME
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
But it just occurred to me that we can't really hold it against Saddam that he doesn't really have a democratic mandate to govern his country.
After all, neither does George Bush. More people voted for Al Gore than they did Bush in the last American election, if I remember right.
He got less votes.
More people wanted the other guy.
So obviously, democracy's not all it's cracked up to be.
God bless, and best of luck with your war,
Hassan
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, democracy is not all it's cracked up to be. So why you here?
Holy thread hijack! This thread seems to have gone way off topic.
Back to the original topic of the drones, Iraq is showing what it believes to be the drones that Colin Powell mentioned.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16626-2003Mar12.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16626-2003Mar12.html</a>;
Summary: It's practically a model plane, with a 5 mile range limit, well under the UN regulated 93 mile range.
Of course, they could be lying... but I think SDW001's original accusation that Blix is a liar might have been a bit harsh?
<strong>....but I think SDW001's original accusation that Blix is a liar might have been a bit harsh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A bit harsh? No, it was just reactionary jibberish.
I think my original speculation was correct. Blix didn't want to give the US the sound bite. Had be been on TeeVee saying, "Anthrax cannot be accounted for, cluster bomb that can deliver chem/bio weapons, drone that US said he had that could deliver chem/bio weapons" it would have knocked the legs out from under the French.
But the Puppet of Paris would never do that. He'd be out of a job one way or the other.
Whether or not you agree with war, there can be no case made that they appeared divided. They were anything BUT divided.
Blix has revealed himself to be nothing more than a political tool.
<strong>It was a lie of omission in the oral testimony that's for sure.
I think my original speculation was correct. Blix didn't want to give the US the sound bite. Had be been on TeeVee saying, "Anthrax cannot be accounted for, cluster bomb that can deliver chem/bio weapons, drone that US said he had that could deliver chem/bio weapons" it would have knocked the legs out from under the French.
But the Puppet of Paris would never do that. He'd be out of a job one way or the other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God you're so on top of things!
<strong>He just got on Swedish TV and said the leaders at the emergency summit appeared "divided".
Whether or not you agree with war, there can be no case made that they appeared divided. They were anything BUT divided.
Blix has revealed himself to be nothing more than a political tool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Plus he was on MTV shooting his mouth off about "unilateral" US actions. On things unrelated to terrorism, WOMD and Iraq. He mentioned Kyoto. Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?
<strong>
Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?</strong><hr></blockquote>
For the interview, he was just a well informed citizen.
<strong>
Plus he was on MTV shooting his mouth off about "unilateral" US actions. On things unrelated to terrorism, WOMD and Iraq. He mentioned Kyoto. Is Blix a weapons inspector or running for office?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I forgot about that. It was f*ucking ridiculous. I thought: "MTV???.....wow, this has gone too far". ROCK THE INSPECTIONS 2003.
bunge:
[quote] For the interview, he was just a well informed citizen. <hr></blockquote>
But that is NOT what he is here. He was making a political statement. He shows his true colors more by the day. At first, it was subtle. Now, it is blatant. He shouldn't be doing things like that, even if for his own sake and reputation. He is the chief UN inspector and he gets on TV and calls a security council member "unilateral"??? Then, he goes on to say today that the summit attendees were "divided"? You call that impartial?
<strong>
He was making a political statement...You call that impartial?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he's entitled to a political position in this. He's hired by the U.N., and the U.N. Charter does have guidelines for conduct which include, for all practical purposes, avoiding war whenever possible.
If the U.N. Charter is rewritten to read 'go to war whenever possible', I imagine we'll have some talking head spouting off about how Resolution 1441 was broken before it were even written.
<strong>
I think he's entitled to a political position in this. He's hired by the U.N., and the U.N. Charter does have guidelines for conduct which include, for all practical purposes, avoiding war whenever possible.
If the U.N. Charter is rewritten to read 'go to war whenever possible', I imagine we'll have some talking head spouting off about how Resolution 1441 was broken before it were even written.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.
<strong>
That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I definitely see your point, I just mean that he was hired by people that are trying to avoid war.
It's definitely not his call, but what he says outside of his job definitely isn't indicative of his job either. Were he to have made these statements in front of the Security Council, it'd be a mistake. In an interview, I don't think it holds much weight.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
That's just so wrong, bunge. His job is not to avoid war at all costs. His job is to DETERMINE IF IRAQ IS TOTALLY COOPERATING. We all know it hasn't. He shouldn't make a political statement at this delicate stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I definitely see your point, I just mean that he was hired by people that are trying to avoid war.
It's definitely not his call, but what he says outside of his job definitely isn't indicative of his job either. Were he to have made these statements in front of the Security Council, it'd be a mistake. In an interview, I don't think it holds much weight.
I disagree. I think it destroys his credibility.