Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (10337)	5/10/2004 1:27:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Blix expressed concern that Iraq has still not accounted for many banned arms, but said disarmament can be achieved. Such as those 6,000 warheads they failed to account for in 1998 (or 1991 when they LIED about their disposition)?? Blix stated THEN (and previously) that Saddam was not fully in compliance. But he chose to violate the principle of the 17 different BINDING UNSC resolutions declaring Iraq in violation of its cease fire obligations. 90 days X... The UNSC gave Iraq 90 days to completely comply with resolution 1441 or face severe consequences.. Surely a woman of "principles" would support such a stance. "Let us give the UN weapons inspectors time," Villepin said, adding that "a premature recourse to the military option would have heavy consequences." But apparently the former French ambassador taking an 11 million barrel BRIBE from Saddam was not worthy? He said a finding "of great significance" was that many proscribed weapons '"are not accounted for.? But one must not jump to the conclusion that they exist, he added. "However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.'" This guy must be a speech writer for Kerry, considering the way he talks out of both sides of his mouth.. These are the "principles" upon which you base your claim? And if you're so "confident" in Blix's mixed opinions about Iraq's WMD status at that time, then why did UNMOVIC issue a 175 page report on March 3, 2003 related to the Unresolved Disarmament Issues related to Iraq's PROSCRIBED Weapons Programmes?? Warning: Very big file.. un.org And take a look at Page 50 of that document: "The "Air Force" document recently received by UNMOVIC introduces additional uncertainty in accounting as it indicates that 6,526 fewer aerial CW bombs (of gauges 250, 500, and DB-2 types) had been "consumed" during the Iraq Iran War. Iraq has explained that the "Air Force" document, which had been complied(sic) by one of its officers in 1995, was incomplete. According to Iraq, data on consumption of CW filled munitions positioned at three airbases was not included as the airbases had been occupied in 1991 and the records destroyed. This explanation is being reviewed by UNMOVIC. Iraq's declarations of its biological test results with bombs were inconsistent with its declared programme actions that followed these tests. Iraq was unwilling to provide the name and present location of this "officer" who produced the "Air Force document". Then take a gander at Page 54, where UNMOVIC confirmed that the 550 mission 155mm artillery shells filled with high purity sulphur mustard agent, was quite STILL VIABLE and and potent. Still waiting for your facts X.. Especially when you only present mixed comments from Blix, and I can shoot them down with UNMOVIC's own reports.. Principle X.. remember the concept of "principle" that you claim to hold so dear. We gave Iraq 90 days to come completely clean on its programmes and to provide confirmable and credible evidence that would dispel the concerns expressed in this UNMOVIC report (dated AFTER Blix's comments that you cite). The "principle" was NOT to grant Iraq 90 days to resume playing with us.. This was an inspection, not an investigation. Hawk