Reply
Sun 9 Mar, 2003 01:23 pm
Quote:Iraqi Drone Could Drop Chemicals on Troops'
From James Bone in New York
A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq's neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.
US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix's objectivity.
Link to Entire Article on Iraqi Drone
What do you think about this? Do you think that this should modify the way that the U.S. considers the benefit of theU.N. Inspections?
Phoenix,
Its just another reason why we should not delay the inevitable.
Asherman- That was exactly what I was thinking. The longer that we play patty cake with Saddam, the more time that he has to cause more and more mischief!
Mr. Blix is an "old" European, and the latter want to prevent war by all means...
Steissed- So, accepting your premise, what would you say about Blix's impartiality and objectivity? If he is NOT impartial and objective, what the hell is he doing as head of the inspectors?
He has already missed Iraqi nuclear programs in late '70s, and Israelis had to destroy the Iraqi reactor Osirak. Sometimes people do not suit their office...
With all respect. But are aircrafts suddenly WMD. When you put a bomb in a helicopter and crash it in a crowded area, i'm sure you will kill a number of people. But that doesn't make a helicopter a WMD?
No, frolic. Only if it's fitted out with the means to disperse a CBN payload. An unmanned remote controled plane is just a slow guided missile with a lot of range.
That is a problem. Mr. Blix tries to exceed limits of his competence. The latter is to search for WMD and possible carriers and reporting to the UN all his findings. He has no rights to attempt to influence the decision of the Security Council by any deliberate actions, he was not hired for this purpose. When some clerk exceeds limits of his competence in order to influence the result, such a clerk is to be fired without compensation.
What I find completely amazing, is the reaction, or better described non- reaction to these findings. When I first saw this story, my jaw dropped. To me, these drones were the "smoking guns" that the inspectors supposedly were looking for. Then Blix tries to bury the information in a sea of paper.
What is even more amazing to me is the lack of interest of A2Kers in this thread. Is it that people don't want to recognize that Saddam has been playing a cat and mouse game and making fools of all of us? Are many people in total denial, figuring that if they don't think about what Saddam is REALLY doing, it will all go away?
Bush Sr warning over unilateral action
March 10, 2003
Bush Sr warning over unilateral action
From Roland Watson in Washington - London Times
THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.
Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.
He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.
"You've got to reach out to the other person. You've got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity," he said.
The former President's comments reflect unease among the Bush family
and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions.
Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son's case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.
He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held "could be debated". The case against Saddam was "less clear" than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were "a little fuzzier today", he added.
After the Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr steered Israel and its Arab neighbours to the Madrid conference, a stepping stone to the historic Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, in much the same way that the present President has talked about the removal of Saddam as opening the way to a wider peace in the region.
In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. "The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces."
Also drawing on the lessons of 1991, he said that it was imperative to mend fences with allies immediately, rather than waiting until after a war. He had been infuriated with the decision of King Hussein of Jordan to side with Saddam rather than the US, but while criticising the Jordanian leader in public and freezing $41 million in US aid, he also passed word to King Hussein that he understood his domestic tensions.
Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany.
There are, however, signs that Mr Bush Sr's message may be getting
through.
Father and son talk regularly and it was, in part, pressure from Mr Bush Sr's foreign policy coterie, that helped to persuade the President to go to the UN last September.
I know what you mean, Phoenix. It's like, we found 11 chemical warheads, so Iraq goes ahead and declares them. Everything is fine. We discover a missile capable of delivering submunitions. Okay, now we know. Other missiles have greater range than allowed. Well, they're being destroyed, aren't they? So where's the problem? Drones - same story. Meanwhile, Mr. Blix continues to assert they are finally getting really great cooperation, and these developements didn't seem like anything we would be interested in, anyway. What would have been a smoking gun six weeks ago is now commonplace. And once it's discovered, that is almost the same as having been declared.
roger- I find the whole thing terribly sad. IMO, if this entire Saddam issue is NOT addressed, it will become more and more like a metastasizing cancer. Saddam needs to be contained, and the flow of money from the rogue states to the fundamentalist terrorists must be stopped.
The longer that we wait the more dangerous is will be for the West, and not just the US. One of the big problems is that it is now coming out (as if we couldn't figure) that France and Germany, the countries who do not want to face the problem squarely, are behaving that way because of the desire to cover their own asses.
I'm too much of a softie to actually promote this idea, but it would be poetic justice if France were to at some time get caught up in the terrorism, ask for our help, and that we should turn our backs on THEM!
By the way, I want once more question suitability of Dr. Blix as a boss of the inspectors' team. If he deliberately conceals important findings (for any reasons), it seems to me that he is not the person that should be a team leader. His mission is not to encourage or prevent war, he is supposed to check the Iraqi WMD and possible carriers. If he permits any political or other calculations to influence his reports he is to be replaced. Urgently, as possible.
Phoenix - what do you mean that France and Germany oppose war "to cover their own asses"?
I have not seen much mention of this drone elsewhere in the media - has the story been much discussed?
dlowan- I don't have any references at my fingertips, (when I find them I will post them) but there is more and more evidence that France, and Germany to a lesser extent, have been disregarding UN sanctions against Iraq by dealing commercially with them. I was going to say something stronger about the sort of commerce, but won't until I have a credible reference.
From what I have gathered, France especially, is concerned that if there were a war, a lot of information that they would not want the world to know, would be uncovered.
Be interested to see tham when you get 'em Phoenix - are we talking worse than such things as Iran/Contra scandal?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace