Blix Says Iraq Probably Destroyed WMDs

[It was never about WMD. It was never about 9-11. When will the
American public wake up and demand that Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld,
Cheney and Rice explain where their tax dollars and freedom are going.
-Ed.]

---------------------------

Blix Says Iraq Probably Destroyed WMDs
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...091702041.html
ASSOCIATED PRESS

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix
believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction
10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a
military attack.

In an interview with an Australian radio station broadcast Wednesday,
Blix said it was unlikely that the U.S and British teams now searching
for weapons in Iraq would find more than some "documents of interest."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they
maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of
1991," Blix told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that
anything will be found."

Blix indicated he thought the U.S.-led coalition had backtracked on
the issue of Iraq's weapons.

"In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on
they talked about weapons programs. Maybe they'll find some documents
of interest," he said.

Blix, who spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological
and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission, said Iraq might have tried to fool the
United States into believing it had weapons of mass destruction over
the years in order to deter attack.

"I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,'
without having a dog," he said from his home in Sweden.

The United States and its allies Britain and Australia invaded Iraq in
May after saying Saddam Hussein's regime was developing nuclear arms
as well as chemical and biological weapons.

However, a search by the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group - which is made up
of some 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts - has
failed to uncover any weapons of mass destruction since the conflict
ended.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under
increasing pressure to prove that Iraq had a weapons of mass
destruction.

Meghan Powers wrote:

[It was never about WMD. It was never about 9-11. When will the
American public wake up and demand that Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld,
Cheney and Rice explain where their tax dollars and freedom are going.
-Ed.]

---------------------------

Blix Says Iraq Probably Destroyed WMDs
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...091702041.html
ASSOCIATED PRESS

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix
believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction
10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a
military attack.

In an interview with an Australian radio station broadcast Wednesday,
Blix said it was unlikely that the U.S and British teams now searching
for weapons in Iraq would find more than some "documents of interest."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they
maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of
1991," Blix told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that
anything will be found."

Blix indicated he thought the U.S.-led coalition had backtracked on
the issue of Iraq's weapons.

"In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on
they talked about weapons programs. Maybe they'll find some documents
of interest," he said.

Blix, who spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological
and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission, said Iraq might have tried to fool the
United States into believing it had weapons of mass destruction over
the years in order to deter attack.

"I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,'
without having a dog," he said from his home in Sweden.

The United States and its allies Britain and Australia invaded Iraq in
May after saying Saddam Hussein's regime was developing nuclear arms
as well as chemical and biological weapons.

However, a search by the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group - which is made up
of some 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts - has
failed to uncover any weapons of mass destruction since the conflict
ended.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under
increasing pressure to prove that Iraq had a weapons of mass
destruction.


But ofcourse!

Everybody knew it, that's why US never got a go-ahead of the aggression
and attack on Iraq - but they went ahead anyway. Now look at the total
mess and chaos they created, similar to the total fiasco in Afghanistan,
neither Osama, nor Sadam could they catch, but the murdered tens of
thousands of people and destroyed two countries.

Both wars were failures, no objective was met.

US and UK intelligence knew it, that's why they are in such a mess now,
trying to figure out any reasonably good lies to cover up.

/Anders


--
Remove the obvious part before replying by mail please!

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:07:08 +0200, Anders wrote:



But ofcourse!

Everybody knew it, that's why US never got a go-ahead of the aggression
and attack on Iraq - but they went ahead anyway. Now look at the total
mess and chaos they created, similar to the total fiasco in Afghanistan,
neither Osama, nor Sadam could they catch, but the murdered tens of
thousands of people and destroyed two countries.

Don't you just love the idiots on the left? Notice how he
conveniently leaves out the fact that Saddam's killing machine is no
longer in operation and 26 million people are now free of it. Notice
how he leaves out the fact that the Taliban's killing machine is no
longer killing off its opposition and exporting its terrorism. The
reason, of course, that Osama and Saddam haven't been caught is
because, heroes that they are, they are running like the cowards they
are. If they can't slaughter women and children, they just hide and
leak out their messages once every 3 months or so. And how does one
destroy either of these countries, when Afghanistan did not have one
or an economy and Iraq was simply being raped by Saddam and his thugs.
But then, facts and thinking have never been the forte of these types,
has it. Just ranting and blather. And, of course, note Sweden's long
history of participating in wars--like WWII where they spent most of
it allowing Nazi troops to go through the country to Norway and fed
the Nazi war machine with iron ore. Such a proud history they have.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:05:35 -0400, jb wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:07:08 +0200, Anders wrote:



But ofcourse!

Everybody knew it, that's why US never got a go-ahead of the aggression
and attack on Iraq - but they went ahead anyway. Now look at the total
mess and chaos they created, similar to the total fiasco in Afghanistan,
neither Osama, nor Sadam could they catch, but the murdered tens of
thousands of people and destroyed two countries.

Don't you just love the idiots on the left? Notice how he
conveniently leaves out the fact that Saddam's killing machine is no
longer in operation and 26 million people are now free of it.

Conveniently leaving out that half of these folks killed were killed with
the benediction of the US government?

Conveniently leaving out that that was not the reason touted by GW etc.
for an invasion of Iraq. Which was as the previous poster said, the WMD
fairy tale. (Which indeed some of us never believed in.)

Notice
how he leaves out the fact that the Taliban's killing machine is no
longer killing off its opposition and exporting its terrorism.

Careful here. I am afraid we are not quite out of the woods yet on this
one. Some folks don't seem too eager to study the history of Afghanistan,
from the 19th to the 20th century. Easy to win a battle, invade etc.

But since the 19th century, not one foreign country has truly succeeeded
at controlling the place for too long. As the Soviet Union learned the
hard way, as it turned into more or less their own Vietnam. These damn
horsemen...

The
reason, of course, that Osama and Saddam haven't been caught is
because, heroes that they are, they are running like the cowards they
are. If they can't slaughter women and children, they just hide and
leak out their messages once every 3 months or so. And how does one
destroy either of these countries, when Afghanistan did not have one
or an economy and Iraq was simply being raped by Saddam and his thugs.
But then, facts and thinking have never been the forte of these types,
has it. Just ranting and blather. And, of course, note Sweden's long
history of participating in wars--like WWII where they spent most of
it allowing Nazi troops to go through the country to Norway and fed
the Nazi war machine with iron ore. Such a proud history they have.

From an ethical stanpoint, unfortunately I now have a hard time seeing
much of a difference between these devils and the devil in the White
House. And yes, I know this is a pretty sad statement.

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix
believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction
10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a
military attack.

In an interview with an Australian radio station broadcast Wednesday,
Blix said it was unlikely that the U.S and British teams now searching
for weapons in Iraq would find more than some "documents of interest."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they
maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of
1991," Blix told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

snip

Interesting. Although it makes it difficult to explain why the UN inspectors
were kicked out for four years, and why their investigation areas were limited
by Saddam. Seems hardly necessary if the weapons that Saddam was known to
have (he didn't gas the Kurdish population with a lifelike pinetree scent
the variety of which you can hang from the rearview mirror in your vehicle)
were actually destroyed.

And events such as the finding of barrels of particularly nasty stuff that
is used when making nevre gas, buried in a Iraqis' backyard, suggests that
Saddam might not be as clean as the Blixmeister would like to have us believe.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:37:51 -0700, Holden McGroyne wrote:

Interesting. Although it makes it difficult to explain why the UN inspectors
were kicked out for four years, and why their investigation areas were limited
by Saddam. Seems hardly necessary if the weapons that Saddam was known to
have (he didn't gas the Kurdish population with a lifelike pinetree scent
the variety of which you can hang from the rearview mirror in your vehicle)
were actually destroyed.

You need to consider Saddam's domestic politics too. After all, what
ensured his survival was that he consistently managed to make the US look
like fools. Which made him a hero at home.

He did not need WMDs. He needed the US to think/believe/suspect that he
did.

In article , devil
wrote:

You need to consider Saddam's domestic politics too. After all, what
ensured his survival was that he consistently managed to make the US look
like fools. Which made him a hero at home.

He did not need WMDs. He needed the US to think/believe/suspect that he
did.

Given the militancy of these fractured factions in present Iraq. It's
no wonder Iraq had a "strong man" to keep it together. I would not be
surprised if Iraq goes on to suffer the same fate as former Yogoslavia
and gets split into multiples.

Whytoi writes
Given the militancy of these fractured factions in present Iraq. It's
no wonder Iraq had a "strong man" to keep it together. I would not be
surprised if Iraq goes on to suffer the same fate as former Yogoslavia
and gets split into multiples.

That might be the best long term solution. Present day Iraq is composed
of three very different groups of people who have never got on all that
well. They have divergent interests and cultures and perhaps should be
left to go their own way.

When the UK helped create Iraq out of the ruins on the Ottoman empire,
there was a lively debate about whether to make the three provinces
separate states.

Churchill, who was Colonial Secretary at the time, argued for a separate
Kurdistan so that the Kurds would be safe "from some future bully in
Iraq." He was overruled on cost grounds as it would be cheaper to
administer a single state. And as Britain would control Iraq forever,
its rulers would not be permitted to oppress the Kurds.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

writes
Notice how he
conveniently leaves out the fact that Saddam's killing machine is no
longer in operation and 26 million people are now free of it.

That would be the killing machine one we originally helped Saddam to set
up.

The killing machine we deliberately left in place after the 1991 Gulf
War, after encouraging Saddam's enemies to insurrect, identify
themselves, and be brutally massacred.

It's excellent that Saddam has gone, but the US and UK deserve no kudos
for getting rid of him. Especially as we have tried to pass most of the
cost, both in cash and body count, to the Iraqis.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

In article , Simon Elliott
wrote:

Whytoi writes
Given the militancy of these fractured factions in present Iraq. It's
no wonder Iraq had a "strong man" to keep it together. I would not be
surprised if Iraq goes on to suffer the same fate as former Yogoslavia
and gets split into multiples.

That might be the best long term solution. Present day Iraq is composed
of three very different groups of people who have never got on all that
well. They have divergent interests and cultures and perhaps should be
left to go their own way.

When the UK helped create Iraq out of the ruins on the Ottoman empire,
there was a lively debate about whether to make the three provinces
separate states.

Churchill, who was Colonial Secretary at the time, argued for a separate
Kurdistan so that the Kurds would be safe "from some future bully in
Iraq." He was overruled on cost grounds as it would be cheaper to
administer a single state. And as Britain would control Iraq forever,
its rulers would not be permitted to oppress the Kurds.

Maybe the best solution. But what you and I think should have no
relevance to what the Iraqis think. We don't have the necessary
cultural background of the country nor the right to judge.

Lets keep the "smart and wise" foreigners out of it this time. Let the
UN get involved and let the Iraqi decide.

Whatever Paul Bremer and Bush & Co put together would just be
considered to be a puppet government.