Blix "Iraqi weapons were destroyed 10 years ago"

bloggs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3118462.stm


Hmmm, who would you believe? A highly skilled, and highly respected UN weapons inspector? Or Tony B Liar, a man with an integrality that leaves a lot to be desired?

dahamsta

What's an integrality? Is it the new Lancia rally car?

adam

mike65

I have'nt read the article at this point but I trust the topic line summary....If Blix knew they were destroyed ten years ago why did he allow himself to be leading a UN inspectorate 10 months ago?

Mike.

ps I'll read the piece now!

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
I have'nt read the article at this point but I trust the topic line summary....If Blix knew they were destroyed ten years ago why did he allow himself to be leading a UN inspectorate 10 months ago?

Well, for a start, the UN weapons inspectors were technically there to show to what level compliance had been achieved. Most people spin this to its opposite, which is that they were hunting for weapons, but there is a subtle difference.

I would also suggest that Blix arrived at the "no weapons" belief partially as a result of his recent time in Iraq, so its not necessarily the case that he believed going in there that there were no weapons.

Oh, and he did say probably...so i guess bloggs is guilty of "sexing up" Mr. Blix's comments to suit his own agenda somewhat (stir, stir, stir)

jc

Originally posted by bloggs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3118462.stm


Hmmm, who would you believe? A highly skilled, and highly respected UN weapons inspector? Or Tony B Liar, a man with an integrality that leaves a lot to be desired?

I've just one problem, well two really, with that statement.

Ascertaining what was available in the line of chemical weapons was difficult under Saddam.
Whether he had them or not, Saddam was only co-operative when tens of thousands of UK and U.S troops landed on his door step.
His compliance could have still been construed as mischievous to the aims of Bush and Blair at that time, rather than a genuine attempt at being a nice member of the world community.

And second, where has Tony Blair been conclusively proven to be a liar?

When you talk of integrity, in terms of perspective, I'd have to put Saddam Hussein and Tony Blair at totally the opposite ends of the scale to each other.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
[BWhen you talk of integrity, in terms of perspective, I'd have to put Saddam Hussein and Tony Blair at totally the opposite ends of the scale to each other.[/B]

Yes, but that would by no means reflect on Mr. Blix's credibility, especially relative to Mr. Blair's....unless you were to believe that the UN team's research consisted of asking Saddam to tell them what they wanted to know.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, but that would by no means reflect on Mr. Blix's credibility, especially relative to Mr. Blair's....unless you were to believe that the UN team's research consisted of asking Saddam to tell them what they wanted to know.

jc

That is true, those that wanted this war, spun whatever bits of information that were usefull to their case.
Blix was on the other hand neutral.
A Neutral agent is always going to be higher up the scale of credibility, than one who spins.
To put it another way, considering the company he kept prior to the war ( having tea with a model member of the world community saddam:rolleyes: ) Tony Benn would be far behind Blix in terms of credibility also in my view and Blix would be light years ahead of George Galloway M.P for similar reasons.

mm