Oh look! Another stall!

[Reginald]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/15/sprj.irq.main/index.html

chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said it would take several days to translate a 25-page technical report on Iraq's VX nerve agent program.

Why? It's only 25 pages long. Some of it is in english anyway!


"Exactly what it contains, I cannot tell you. But they have followed up on their promise that it would come," Blix said.

Yeah right, good for them, since it hasn't been "translated" yet it could be a recipe for chocolate digestive biscuits.

Why now? Why almost the day before action against them takes place?

I mean they have had since November to put this 25 pages on the table. There is also a document following concerning anthrax.

Why was this not included in the 25,000 page (which I seem to recall said nothing) document that was thrown at the UN earlier?

I would hazard a guess that it's been either a) held back for just this purpose or b)not fabricated untill now.

How can any of this be claimed by anyone to be "immediate" as per the requirements of 1441?

How much longer are Blix et al, going to accept this pathetic stalling? They have completely lost the plot.

[demon]

Why was this not included in the 25,000 page (which I seem to recall said nothing) document that was thrown at the UN earlier?

I agree.

Why isn`t the whole document published? Along with the the references naming the US and UK companies that gave Saddam all he wanted and a handshake at the same time?.

Lets be open about this. On both sides.

[Reginald]

Good point, however just because you make an error of judgement in the past does that then disqualify you from changing your position forever?

I think not.

Edited to add.....

Us and UK companies....

And French, Russian, German, uncle tom cobbly and all!

[demon]

Hi Reginald.
I agree again.
But at least be culpable for it.
Also, wasn`t really an "error" was it? Far from it.
Those that put him there are now the very ones wanting him gone. For me that speaks volumes about the real issue here.
Saddam is a bad ass, no doubt, he is even more of one now he isn`t towing the line.
Get rid of him bt all means, I just wish we were doing it for the right reasons. If we were then I think the whole world would be onside.

[Reginald]

Demon,

I have always maintained that my view on this is humanitarian, I have to go with the people I think will bring about the change I would like to see, so I think we are singing from the same songsheet.

I see that the Iraqis have started kicking Kurds out of their northern towns again, one report on BBC last night suggested that any men who were capable of fighting against the Iraqis were "disapearing", leaving their wives and female children to flee.

Standard Iraqi OP here again. This guy wont change.

[demon]

As far as getting rid of Saddam for "humanitarian" reasons we sing from the same songsheet. No doubt about that.
However, I don`t give a fig for what Blair and Bush tell us. That`s not the reason they are doing it and I`m sure you know that too.
Thats what gets my goat about this.
It`s the old question about "Why now..why Iraq". They are covering their own asses with this debacle and it isn`t washing with most people.
But when Saddam goes, I`ll be with the rest of you guys and I won`t be crying.
What will upset me is the rest of the "humanitarian" saga that will follow.
We have already walked away from Afghanistan. Iraq will be the same but by then it will have been forgotten and our brave leaders will be basking in the glory of a turkey shoot.
This isn`t a war as I`m sure you know. It will be a massacre just like last time.

[Reginald]

• INVITATION FROM BAGHDAD: Iraq's top scientific advisor sent a letter Saturday asking the U.N.'s chief weapons inspectors to come to Baghdad "as soon as possible" to "accelerate cooperation" with inspections and "resolve pending issues" related to Iraq's U.N.-mandated disarmament, a spokesperson with Iraq's Foreign Ministry said. A spokeswoman for Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he has received the letter.

Its not funny anymore is it?

When all the game playing and stalling stops working.

When you hang a thing out, then desperately try to get it sorted at the last second like some school kid who has been lax with his homework.

Could have just put it all on the table 6 months ago......(sigh).

[Baggle]

The difference is, demon, Iraq told the UNSC that it included everything in the 25,000 page document last November. Iraq blasted the United States when we claimed that it was "woefully inadequate" and I do not believe France ever took any other position than that Saddam is fully complying. Now we find out the United States was right, and Saddam was lying about everything being in the report. How many more reports like this will there be? I feel like the French are saying, "Iraq is telling the truth! They are fully disarmed and they reported everything they have!," while a little while later Iraq releases another report documenting their WMD programs, to which France replies, "Look! See! They're cooperating for real this time! Now they are disarmed!," over and over and over. This applies for other nations and people besides France, as well. How many times does Iraq have to be in material breach of 1441 before anybody at the UN(or on this board...) recognizes it? I can understand still being against the war, but c'mon people, please stop deluding yourselves that Iraq is not in material breach of 1441 as some of your rationale(not directed specifically towards you, demon).

-Baggle

[demon]

"c'mon people, please stop deluding yourselves that Iraq is not in material breach of 1441 as some of your rationale(not directed specifically towards you, demon)"

Hi Baggle.
So they are in material breach? Does that mean we go in and bomb them? 1441 doesn`t say that.
"serious consequences" does not equate with "regime change" or "bomb your asses off".
Last Novembers resolution only really sets out to tighten the Iraqi inspections regime. The warmongers would have you believe differently. It just isn`t the case.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by demon
...."serious consequences" does not equate with "regime change" or "bomb your asses off".

What do you believe they meant by "serious consequences" if it is not military action? These "tougher inspections" would not be yielding any sort of progress or compliance if a quarter of a million troops were not sitting on Iraqs border.

[Baggle]

Well here is some progress! I have been waiting for a few days now to get an anti-war person on this forum to acknowledge that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. As I've said in my posts, you can agree that Iraq is in material breach of 1441 and still be opposed to the war. Nobody on this forum(that I've been posting to the same thread as) has been willing to take this stance, however.

Without this acknowledement, the debate can get nowhere because the anti-war person will be debating about how Iraq isn't in material breach while the pro-war person will be talking about what to do about it since they are. This seems to be the situation on this forum. However, now that we at least are on common ground with our starting point, we can have a debate over the best way to handle the situation. I've been getting very frustrated about nobody wanting to take this legitimate position, and you made my day, demon. Thanks for being more rational than many other folks on this board, and actually bothering to answer the question and be honest about it. We can continue this debate here or we can start another thread with a disclaimer about where we are starting from factually. I am personally pretty interested in getting a debate like this going, even if I am not the most contributing poster to it.

-Baggle