The United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday accused hawks in Washington, who are bent on going to war with Iraq, of conducting a smear campaign against him.
The extent of the tension between Mr Blix and elements of the US administration burst into the open on the day that he led UN weapons inspectors back to Baghdad for the first time in four years to renew their search for chemical, biological and nuclear-related weapons.
Washington's alarm over Mr Blix intensified after a recent speech in which he said he favoured cooperation with the Iraqis rather than confrontation.
Right. Now to add Mr. Blix's name to this growing, distinguished list of ex-UN officials who have all undergone the personal smear campaign courtesy of the US admin.:
Graf Hans von Sponeck --> 32 years with the UN
Denis J. Halliday --> 34 years with the UN
Jutta Burghardt, former head of the World Food Programme in Iraq
Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM inspector
As i have been parroting like a fool in this Forum, regardless of whatever Iraq does to comply vis-a-vis its legal disarmament obligations, nothing will satisfy Washington's hawks short of an invasion; God Forbid, as Blix has so arrogantly done, should anyone detect a whiff of Iraqi cooperation. To implement a smear campaign against a distinguished individual such as Sweden's Hans Blix, a chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency during the 1980s and 1990s, truly exposes the level of desperation and warmongering --- all, in turn, begging the question: How can there still be individuals who believe a US-led military assault against Iraq will possibly further regional stability and global peace.
Why not just let Blix do his job in the absence of such critical remarks by Pentagon hawks? For goodness' sake let the man do his job in peace.
The dimmest thing Ive heard from Washington lately is about how Iraq's firing on US/UK planes is a breach of this UN resolution.
Someone tell them the no-fly zones are not UN authorized.
ANd the only reason they are anti-Blix is because he has clearly vowed to kick out spies.
Re: Hans Blix accuses Washington of...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ZulfiOKC: *
The United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday accused hawks in Washington, who are bent on going to war with Iraq, of conducting a smear campaign against him.
[/quote]
US accused Hans Blix because he ain't allowing US Spies in Disguise[Inspectors], which means Saddam actually kicked out US Spies in 1998. ;)
Errr....Oil Oil Oil Matters.
"Why not just let Blix do his job in the absence of such critical remarks by Pentagon hawks?"
What, the guy can't take criticism? There's nothing wrong with encouraging this guy to be skeptical. The threat of a US attack is probably the only thing that will ensure continued cooperation w/the inspections. There's plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Iraq's cooperativeness.
And pardon me Nadia, but I recall last week that you were encouraging non-cooperation on Iraq's part. This "parroting like a fool" (your words), sure sounds like you would rather have had the situation escalate. That's no different - in my view - than the stance of the Wahington hawks.
Akif, Couldn't agree more.
Stu, IMHO there's a very clear distinction between being "skeptical", versus being deliberately provocative - the latter so as to absolutely ensure that Iraq is claimed not to be complying by its disarmament obligations.
For starters Blix doesn't need lessons on how to do his job, this guy has decades of experience with him in this particular field; this strikes me as being a bit of a paternalistic attitude - give the guy a break, he's 70 years old, he knows the ins and outs of the IAEA better than Bush, he can do this job better in the absence of smear campaigns courtesy of Rummy et al.
>>And pardon me Nadia, but I recall last week that you were encouraging non-cooperation on Iraq's part. This "parroting like a fool" (your words), sure sounds like you would rather have had the situation escalate. That's no different - in my view - than the stance of the Wahington hawks.<<
Sorry to disappoint but i still maintain my original view. Compelling Iraq to disarm, in my opinion, is arrogance of the highest order for various reasons that i have delved into before (one of which is paragraph 14 of SCR 687). My personal belief is that nothing Iraq does vis-a-vis disarmament will satisfy the US, which exclusively wants an invasion - therefore the return of these weapons inspectors under Blix's supervision was inevitable (in order to provide the "cover" of acting through diplomatic channels). And yes, call me a conspiracy nut.
But now that Blix as well as his team have arrived in the country, for goodness' sake let them do their job without adding the two cents' of opinion from Rumsfeld and other Bush admin. members. Funny how Mary Robinson (that former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) was pressured to leave her job subsequent to some critical comments she had made vis-a-vis particular policies - seems like a repetitive pattern. Who ever criticizes US policies is immediately branded as unsuitable for the job, or too 'soft'. Same thing occurred with Denis Halliday, with Hans von Sponeck, with Jutta Burghardt, and now with Blix.
i apologize if i sound like i'm ranting in this post. Just my personal opinion here.
The good news about Blix is that he will be viewed as an honest broker. If HE says that there are deceptions and witholding of information, then it will be a clear signal that Iraq has been exposed. Time will tell.
Now for the life of me, I do not know why people choose to believe bald face liars. The Weapons Inspectors were lied to for years. Until defectors told of hidden sites, they were not disclosed and not revealed. As far as I am concerned, if you sign an agreement to stop a war that says that you disarm, then you do it or the war is back on. Pretty simple, unless you are dealing with a wimpy UN. In any other avenue of endeavor a proven liar would be dealt with as such, even though Han Blix is choosing the high road by allowing them to take what ever posture they may. Let's hope that he is tough when he needs to be.
As far as the UN inspection team having "spies", who cares? When Iraq signed a cease fire agreement there was no language saying that they will inspected by inspectors of their choosing. They can send Mickey and Minnie Mouse for all I care and Iraq has nothing to say about it.
As far as the no-fly zones, Good people should realize what value these zones have. Saddam committed Genocide, the real thing, not something for a Guardian or Independent headline, there were over 100,000 brutally killed, and five times that marched off to REAL concentration camps. Who knows how many were killed in supression of the people in the south. The UN resolution DEPLORES the treatment of ethnic minorities in the North and South. Those aircraft are the only thing preventing another bloodbath. You people ought to THINK about the lives that have been spared rather than some high minded debate on whether the UN specifically authorized them..
Now the reality is that the US did not march to Baghdad after the Gulf War, in large part because it had no UN mandate to do so. Colin Powell helped to stop that war by convincing Senior Bush that Saddam could be contained, and that his own people, particularly the military, would bring him down without US help. The terms of the ceasefire, seldom quoted unlike the UN Resolutions, are just as valid in a legal sense as any other document and Saddam has been in constant violation of those terms.
Now my opinion is that Bush has launched the most elaborate ruse known to man. When the history of this moment is written, it may become very clear that Bush never really had any intention of invading Iraq. But a resolution with Saddam can only come at the point of a gun. The only acceptable Saddam is a defanged Saddam. He has committed genocidal slaughters of his own people, he should be on trial for his life, or should be torn to shreds in the streets by the people that he has brutalized and supressed.
Perhaps most of all, we ought to listen to the Iraqi's in who have escaped. Much like Cuban speaking of Castro they speak of unending horror, unspeakable brutality, and they are united in wanting Saddam gone from thier country. that is what we should all be wishing for.....
I am personally of the opinion that the US will settle for a Saddam without weapons. But what a pathetic outcome for all involved. The UN allows a genocidal murderer to remain in power. The Iraqi people remain powerless under a dictator. Worse, His sons will assume the mantle of Dictators upon Saddam's death. Muslims, particularly those who espouse freedom and democracy, should demand better for these oppressed people. Given Saddam, the ways of ridding the country of him are limited. No coup has succeeded, elections are a farce, his small clan of wealthy elite bask in Saddams oil wealth as they sell their souls to his domination.
I am a little embarrassed by the American people in all this. Saddam has never been shown to be a threat to the American people. Yet it is only with the fear of a direct threat that we will send our sons to be killed. We ought to do it for the people of Iraq. We should do it because we believe in democracy and the respect for human dignity. We should truely liberate the people of Iraq, because it is the right thing to do. In our Revolution against the British, the French were of great assistance. They did not do it because they believed in the people of the colonies, they did it because they hated the British. Yet for whatever reason they did the right thing. America needs to do the right thing, but also for the right reasons. A little Democracy in the Middle East would be a good thing.... Democracy is what we should stand for....
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**As far as the UN inspection team having "spies", who cares? *
The world minus US and Israel cares.
The UN is not a spy agency of the US, and it must not be turned into one. That is a huge slap to the legitimacy of the UN and its credibility, if it is allowed to function on america's whims....something that it is already doing for the most part.
As far as the no-fly zones, Good people should realize what value these zones have. Saddam committed Genocide, the real thing, not something for a Guardian or Independent headline, there were over 100,000 brutally killed, and five times that marched off to REAL concentration camps.
The same genocide that was previously allowed/ignored by the US, so long as Saddam was marching to their tunes in the Iran-Iraq war.
US does NOT have the right to unilaterally impose such buffer zones anywhere they want. This is a job for the UN. Iraq has full right to fire on US planes. Its called self defence.
Those aircraft are the only thing preventing another bloodbath. You people ought to THINK about the lives that have been spared rather than some high minded debate on whether the UN specifically authorized them..
America ought to THINK, period.
It is a country that allowed bloodbaths in Iraq, when it suited them, and now attacks them, not because they are against the bloodbaths, but because they want to maintain a military presence in the mideast....nothing else.
There are other genocides going on in the world which US continues to ignore, so this single-faceted self-interest based policy doesnt carry any moral backing.
Sure Id love to see Saddam disarmed, and even removed from power....but if this current scenario is to serve as a precedence, then we will see other bullys of the world repeating the same scene over against other weaker opponents, all in the name of peace, that doesnt exist.
Akif,
Then Anfal campaigns were largely done by troops on their way back from the battlefield from the war with Iran. The full impact of the campaigns were not known until after the Gulf War when rooms full of documents were seized. The US did not hesitate to kick Saddams butt when it had the chance two full years later, the end and the worst of the campaigns coming in 88 and 89, and of course the Kuwait invasion was in 91.
The UN inspectors are not the “UN inspectors”. They are professionals on loan from various governments, and may have a temporary loyalty to the UN, but virtually all of them have a larger loyalty to their governments. Blix is now requesting various resources from US “spy agencies” to help with his assignment, so the distinction is somewhat moot. Iraq gave up the right to have these weapons, and agreed to dispose of them. After years of lies, millions of dollars spent chasing around the desert, I care little about Iraq’s sovereign dignity with regard to these weapons.
Self defense? How many ethnic Iraqi’s in the North and South would have been slaughtered by Saddam, THEIR defense is more important than Saddams. Or does the slaughter of innocent muslims contribute somehow to Iraq’s self defense?
If you really want to see Saddam disarmed and removed from power, then how would you pretend to do this? Wishful thinking? Nobody likes Saddam, but no one has the backbone to really do anything about it. As far as “genocide”, that word has been abused and politicized way to much. It demeans the real instances when it really applies. Read about the Anfal campaigns and tell me why Saddam should not be removed, forcefully if necessary. Please show me another political leader who has slaughtered 100,000 of his own people.
http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
Cowardice
Unfortunately, governmental cowardice and opportunism have stymied past attempts to indict Saddam, as Human Rights Watch learned during its intensive efforts to bring him to justice in the 1990s. At the top of any indictment should be Saddam’s 1988 genocidal Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, described by Jeffrey Goldberg in this week’s New Yorker. Named after a Koranic verse justifying pillage of the property of infidels, the Anfal campaign unfolded as the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was winding down. Iraqi Kurds had taken advantage of Saddam’s preoccupation with Iran to seize control of parts of mountainous northern Iraq. But as soon as Iraqi troops could be withdrawn from the Iranian front, Saddam shifted them to the north.
Several thousand Kurdish villages were destroyed, forcing residents to live in appalling camps. In at least 40 cases, Iraqi forces under Saddam’s cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, used chemical weapons to kill and chase Kurds from their villages. Then, during the Anfal campaign from February to September 1988, Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared “prohibited zones.” Some 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote sites and executed. Only seven are known to have escaped.
The full scope of the Anfal horror became known only after Saddam’s defeat in the Gulf War. The Iraqi military’s withdrawal from the region in October 1991 after the imposition of a no-fly zone made it feasible for the first time in years for outsiders to reach the area.
Human Rights Watch investigators took advantage of this opening to enter northern Iraq and document Saddam’s crimes. Some 350 witnesses and survivors were interviewed. Mass graves were exhumed. And Kurdish rebels were convinced to hand over some 18 tons of documents that they had seized during the brief post-war uprising from Iraqi police stations. These documents were airlifted to Washington, where Human Rights Watch researchers poured through this treasure trove of information about the inner workings of a ruthless regime.
With this extraordinarily detailed evidence of genocide, Human Rights Watch launched a campaign to bring Saddam to justice. At the time the U.N. Security Council was creating special tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, but there was no consensus for similar action on Iraq. France and Russia, each with extensive business interests in Iraq, threatened to wield their veto. China, worried about analogies to its treatment of Tibetans, was disinclined to support an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq. With no International Criminal Court then in the works, and the Pinochet option of exercising universal jurisdiction in national courts not yet widely recognized, the prospect of criminal prosecution was remote.
Human Rights Watch thus turned to the only available remedy – a civil suit before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, commonly known as the World Court. The relevant U.N. treaty – the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – assigned the World Court the task of adjudicating disputes under the treaty. We hoped for a declaratory judgment that the Iraqi government had committed genocide, damages for the survivors, and an order that the perpetrators be prosecuted.
The problem was that only governments can bring suit before the World Court. Washington was a logical first choice, and ultimately the Clinton administration endorsed the case. But restrictions in the U.S. ratification of the Genocide Convention stood in the way of a successful suit.
Human Rights Watch staff then circled the globe trying to convince another government to bring the suit. None would. At best, a couple of governments said they would join a coalition to bring the case, but only on the condition that at least one European government joined as well. Several European governments gave the matter serious consideration, but in the end none would take the plunge.
There were many reasons for this reluctance, some stated openly, others only hinted at. Governments feared the loss of business opportunities when Iraq emerged from U.N. sanctions. They feared a loss of influence in the Middle East for suing an Arab state. They feared terrorist retaliation by Iraqi agents. And they feared the expense of bringing the lawsuit (although offers were made to raise the funds).
This frustrating experience highlighted the importance of an International Criminal Court – that is, a global tribunal that does not depend on the political courage of individual governments or the vagaries of consensus among the veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council. But the ICC will apply only to crimes that are committed after the treaty takes effect in several weeks. Many governments are ratifying the ICC treaty as an insurance policy against future Saddams. But the court cannot act retroactively on a crime such as the Anfal genocide.
Security Council
The best option remains Security Council action to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq, since the council would be free to grant the tribunal jurisdiction over past crimes. But council action depends on overcoming the veto of Russia, France and China. To date, that obstacle has been insurmountable, although no effort has been made in the post-Sept. 11 climate.
Saddam could also be prosecuted by any government that has given its courts universal jurisdiction for the crime of genocide, although in this case the actions of a single government would probably carry less weight than the pronouncements of an international court. Finally, one or more governments could sue in the World Court for a declaration that Iraq had committed genocide.
Regardless of the approach, formal condemnation of Saddam for such a heinous crime would signal definitively to Iraqis and Saddam’s international sympathizers that he is beyond the pale – not simply because of the threat he poses to others, but also because he has flouted the most basic norms on the treatment of his own people. That delegitimization would not guarantee his ouster, but it would certainly help build consensus that he is unfit to govern, and thus that something must be done to end his rule.
Dear People,
I think it would be nieve to think that there aren't spies...of many countries..that have affiliates or contacts within the U.N. Not that the U.N. is a spy agency for any governments. Seems logical that there would be spies of many Nations, especially, trying to associate themselves with U.N. privilaged information or whatever.
Shucks,...I bet Iraq even has spies in the U.S., Russia too. Heck..I would guess that even allied countries spy on each other...(Think James Bond:) ), just because the cold war ended doesn't mean there aren't spies? ya think? Probobly spies are just something one has to expect, a given hazard of an international job.
So who cares if there are spies? Be silly not to expect a couple dozen or so, (and have your own spies, so ya know which ones are spies:) )
If ya didn't expect em, or have your own spies? (Think Iraq.) How would you even know who was spying on who? hmmm?
AvgGirl
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
What, the guy can't take criticism?
[/quote]
It's about United States dear, not Hans Blix :)
>>The full impact of the [Anfal] campaigns were not known until after the Gulf War when rooms full of documents were seized.<<
Ohio Guy,
The US was fully aware, at the time that the gassing campaigns were occurring, of precisely what was going on. ABC’s Charles Glass issued reports from a few of the chemical sites; manifestly, all of the reports were embraced with silence on the part of the US State Dept. During this time, the US Senate even attempted to block exports to Iraq on the basis that the Iraqi govt. was undertaking such chemical attacks. i am sorry but the argument that the US was unaware of what was occurring, is not at all reflective of the facts. They darn well knew what their buddy Saddam was upto and chose to ignore it because that approach was more compatible to their long-term interests of keeping Saddam on their side.
If one searches up articles regarding Kurds in some media sources (i THINK LA Times, Guardian and Observer have published articles regarding this), you will notice that even many of the most ardent pro-US Kurdish groups will invariably express fear of a hypothetical post-Saddam situation; they state they have fears of what will occur subsequent to Saddam because they do not wish the US to abandon them again - as it did during the 1980s.
>>The US did not hesitate to kick Saddams butt when it had the chance two full years later…<<
Sorry, which year are you referring to here?
i assume you are NOT referring to the Gulf War because of course we know how Bush senior treated the rebelling Shiite groups who were told to “rise up” against Hussein, only to be mercilessly slaughtered under the full knowledge of “stormin’ Norman” (Norman Schwarzkopf) by Hussein’s elite Republican Guard. This is not some contrived propaganda i am using here - it is all well documented including amongst western sources.
>>The UN inspectors are not the “UN inspectors”. They …] may have a temporary loyalty to the UN, but virtually all of them have a larger loyalty to their governments.<<
i am sorry, but i beg to differ - they do not have a “temporary loyalty” to the United Nations. For as long as they are working under the mandates of UNMOVIC, their primary responsibility is to work within the stipulations of UNMOVIC. Their main supervisor will NOT be Rumsfeld or Condi but Hans Blix. The conclusions that they develop deriving from their inspection processes will be incorporated into a final report which Blix would be responsible for preparing and submitting to the Security Council. Blix in turn is not responsible for submitting this report to any governmental administration, on the contrary exclusively to the Security Council.
>> Blix is now requesting various resources from US “spy agencies” to help with his assignment…<<
Sorry, but do you have any references for this?
Here is an interesting BBC article regarding Blix and his stance on spies within UNMOVIC: UN chief inspector ‘will sack spies’
>>Iraq gave up the right to have these weapons, and agreed to dispose of them. After years of lies, millions of dollars spent chasing around the desert, I care little about Iraq’s sovereign dignity with regard to these weapons.<<
Iraq has agreed to dispose of those weapons, but under what context? This proves no one listens to what i am ranting about here in this forum :crying: Does regional disarmament signify nothing? Does Israel’s nuclear arsenal serve to comfort us with thoughts of regional (and global) stability? Does the entire arming of the Middle East (to say nothing of the world) pale in comparison to the supposed arms that a country like Iraq - with an economy barely afloat subsequent to 12 years of sanctions - possesses?
>>Or does the slaughter of innocent muslims contribute somehow to Iraq’s self defense?<<
If the US moves forward with its plans to militarily attack Iraq, then it is a surety that there will be losses of civilian Iraqi lives. How does the slaughter of innocent Iraqis contribute towards the US’s self defense?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**The UN inspectors are not the "UN inspectors". They are professionals on loan from various governments, and may have a temporary loyalty to the UN, but virtually all of them have a larger loyalty to their governments. Blix is now requesting various resources from US "spy agencies" to help with his assignment, so the distinction is somewhat moot. *
Ohioguy.
The inspectors maybe on loan, but they are on to the UN, and if they ask the CIA for assisstance, they are asking for it only in areas that would be helpful in finding and destroying Iraq's weapons, for the sake of world peace and stability. What we had in the past was US spies working for US interests, under the umbrella of the UN. That was a desperate and sad act by the US.
Nobody likes Saddam, but no one has the backbone to really do anything about it. As far as "genocide", that word has been abused and politicized way to much. It demeans the real instances when it really applies. Read about the Anfal campaigns and tell me why Saddam should not be removed, forcefully if necessary.
Lets not talk about backbones, since the US has lacked one when it came to much worse case scenarios. You will chew me up for derailing the thread, but case in point is Israel and Ariel Sharon, and Bush calling Sharon a man of peace. If the US had any backbone, they would realize that in the context of true world security, disarming and eradicating Sharon and the current Israeli right is far more important than dealing with Saddam. Israel is what is defined as the clear and present danger. Once he is dealt with, Saddams turn should be right around the corner.
As we have it now, Saddam doesnt have the ability to threaten anyone, owing to the country's guttered economy, thanks to the UN. On the other hand, Sharon has the ability, and is actually endangering the short and long term stability of the middle east. He needs to be taken care of first and foremost. America should show some backbone here.
As for the HRW references to Saddam, I never disagreed with those. The man is an idiot and a criminal, and needs to be driven from power. But he is not a current threat.
I know many hate us with a passion.
I know.
'During this time, the US Senate even attempted to block exports to Iraq?" May have been trying to stop attacks? Possibly?
May it possibly be humanely pssiible? THAT ?
people in the u.s. are semi? nice???
Think it's humanely possible that the last thing we would want to do is hurt somebody?
ya think?
Akif,
First, the analogy to Sharon and Saddam is relevant. Like it or not Israel is a democracy. You may disagree with it, and you may disagree with it's leaders, but those leaders were duly elected, and as you can currently see, free and fair elections are the norm. The current labor party candidate is very open to negociations with the Palestinians and very anti-settlements. If the Israeli's do not elect him it will be because they believe they need a strong man to protect them from the Arab countries that surround them. At any rate the democratic process is alive and well, and Israelis can make their own decisions.
Not so with Saddam. There are no opposition parties. There are security services that spy on each other. There is torture and summary execution, and anyone speaking ill of Saddam is prone to end up in prison or worse. Yet everyone is worried about Iraqi sovereignty. Saddam took that from the Iraqi people long ago. Saddams economy is in shambles. But as long as he sits on top of the Iraqi oil pile he can reconstitute his weapons and army and become a threat very quickly. There are no elections, and Saddam has multiple doubles and has suvived numerous plots to kill him, long before the US was involved. His people have no practical way of getting rid of him. That is the difference between Saddam and Sharon. He holds his own people hostage.
Perhaps the thing that I find myself thinking about more, is Saddams' need for revenge. Sept 11th changed a lot of tactical thinking. Scud missles are the least of it. Artillery shells filled with VX and spray aircraft with germs are the least of the worlds worries. The terrorist is now the delivery vehicle of choice. Chemical weapons or biological weapons could kill hundred or thousands and no one would be able to trace where it came from. That is what is new and different. And those who have used chemical and biological warfare are immediately suspect. That is an exceedingly short list....
All things considered, Saddam should not be suprised that we spy on him. Just like the cold war with Russia, it is the way of the world. No one deserves it more. And do you not think that Saddam has a legion of spys monitoring the moves of American war games in Kuwait? Do you not think that he uses his smuggling money for his own intelligence apparatus? And did he not foil the attempts at legitimate inspections for YEARS?
All this suffering for one power-hungry blood-thirsty dictator.
Nadia:
Please reread the HRW discussion on the Anfal campaigns. Roth is very clear in noting that the full horror of the genocide WAS NOT fully known until after the Gulf War. He also goes to great lengths to discuss the STILL existing (!) resistance to bringing a known Genocidal dictator to justice from the likes of China and Russia and countries in the EU! Perhaps you anger is a little misplaced. for certainly these countries know today of Saddam's horrors but are too interested in their debts owed, or their business interests to act in a courageous way.
Your Anti-US bias is blinding you to today's situation, and the proper solution.
Next, please cite to me the UN resolution that gave Stormin' Norman the OK to go in and liberate or even protect the Shiites. But NOW when we do protect them, our pilots are not protected in anyway, nor even advocated for by the UN. So would you like us to protect the most vulnerable minorities who have been victims of genocide or not? They have had 10 years of protection at a cost to the US taxpayer with very little support from the rest of the world. If the US were to cease those patrols the slaughter would begin in days. Yet all the armchair critics scream bloody murder that the US is not allowed to violate sovereign territory of Saddam, and Iraq is simply defending itself. The hypocracy is pretty thick on these points.....
And Nadia,
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 9 – Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, has appealed to senior Bush administration officials to substantially increase U.S. intelligence assistance to U.N. inspectors operating in Iraq, saying it is “crucial for the success of the inspections,” according to U.S. and U.N. diplomats.
Blix, executive director of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), made the request in a meeting Friday with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz. He also asked the administration not to “micromanage” the information it provides or to expect the United Nations to return the favor by supplying the United States with intelligence gathered in the course of its inspections.
Blix’s appeal for new evidence of Iraqi efforts to conceal its weapons comes as the Swedish disarmament expert is urging Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to permit the United Nations to use U.S. intelligence equipment in Iraq.
In a letter Tuesday to Gen Amir H. Al-Saadi, a senior adviser to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Blix said he may need clearance for American U2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft. He also said the United Nations would use advanced sensors, surveillance cameras and communications equipment, including satellite telephones.
The pursuit of new intelligence assets underscores the inspection agency’s dependence on foreign intelligence, especially from the United States, to ensure credible inspections of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But it also points to Blix’s challenge of enticing U.S. intelligence agencies to cooperate with the inspectors while ensuring they do not compromise the agency’s reputation for impartiality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3771-2002Oct9¬Found=true
And lastly Nadia, How many genocides does one dictator get before he should be removed? Are the first 100,000 free? If the US picks up and leaves, do you doubt that Saddam would slaughter another 100,000? Will people be hurt if Saddam is removed? Yes, but at least the reign of terror will stop. Perhaps the next 30 or 40 years under Saddams sons will convince you that the Iraqi people are enslaved and deserve liberation.
Ohioguy.
How can you give credence to Israel just because its a democracy. Arafat is a democratically elected leader too, and you have seen how the US has called for sidelining him. And I wont list for you the countless despotic regimes that the US has actually supported at one time or the other, and the democratic governments that the US has opposed, or forced out. The list is long, and quite clear.
PS.Saddam was a dictator back in the 80s as well.
And about your last post regarding Hans Blix requesting more intelligence information, well, you fail to see the difference intelligence information and spying.
What Blix is requesting is the information US has of the locations and hiding spots which would warrant a search, since the US has access to technology that gives them this information quite easily.
Spying is when the US fits in its own agents in the inspection team, who are there not just to find weapons, but to take advantage of the UN cover to grab any other unrelated secrets and information, that is not covered under the UN Resolution.
Oh please, Israel ain't a Democracy at all. With the essence of the United States, you betcha.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
I know many hate us with a passion.
I know.
[/quote]
....and why would you wanna skip the bright picture of that passion?