BLIX BLASTS US 'BASTARDS'

Scrat wrote:

.... I think that Blix did his job poorly, because he tried to serve two masters. His job was to inspect and report on whether Iraq was or was not in compliance. There is no question about it; they were not in compliance. The problem was, Blix believed he had a second job, which he gave primacy over the first; avoiding war. Towards this end he reported materials breaches without calling them material breaches, he quibbled and equivocated. ....

Scrat,

On this I don't agree with you. Blix' job was to conduct the inspections in accordance with the Security Council mandate. It became clear that the Security Council was itself divided with respect to the bias with which it should approach the problem. The U.S. and Britain adopted the view that Iraq was already in breach and for that and other reasons the regime had to go, and held that it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that intervention was not warranted. France and her allies adopted the position that no intervention should occur without proof positive in the inspection process that Iraq had WMDs. All the parties obviously had other motives and factors in mind as well behind their respective positions. It was hardly reasonable to expect Mr. Blix in his assigned capacity to resolve this fundamental issue. He faced dangers on both sides in his management of the process and overall I believe he did a good job under difficult circumstances.

0 Replies

Bravo, George, an expert analysis, and one which i had not considered, as i was distracted by what i considered to be more important issues. I've not paid much attention to this latest news about Blix, either, but if the man is displaying some bitterness, it certainly would not to be wondered at.

0 Replies

I believe just about every aspect of this issue has been overplayed by those who find aspects of it that can reinforce their various biases.

With respect to WMDs, we haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but I haven't heard anyone express doubt about his existence.

I sympathize with Scrat's reaction, but believe it is better directed at our opponents on the Security Council. I would have a very difficult time figuring out how to do the job given to Hans Blix much better than he did. Generally his public statements were fairly well balanced and dispassionate. It was the various protagonists on both sides of the issue in the media who created all the hype. I don't know of any action on the part of any administration spokesmen that could be fairly characterized as a smear campaign.

Most of the sound and fury here is in the minds of the many self-serving critics.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Bravo, George, an expert analysis, and one which i had not considered, as i was distracted by what i considered to be more important issues. I've not paid much attention to this latest news about Blix, either, but if the man is displaying some bitterness, it certainly would not to be wondered at.

Thank you. My impression from the interviews I saw was that he was not bitter at all. Rather he was bemused at all the continuing sound and fury.

0 Replies

Indeed, so then . . .

It is a tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing . . .

Teapot tempests are indeed the staff of life for the press . . . they sometimes forget that when congratulating themselves on the big scoops they sometimes actually stumble onto--and before anyone draws down on me, i consider that to apply to the press of all complexions . . .

0 Replies

Setanta,

Agreed. Not only that but they benefit from all the hype with the segment of the political spectrum they are playing up to. More or less the same on both sides.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Wanna get into circle thoughts? There is only one "fact" everything else is an opinion.

That may be your point of view, but it is not mine. (Actually, I'm fairly certain it is not your point of view, so I wonder why you write it?)

0 Replies

George - Again, I respect your opinion, and concur that much of my displeasure should be and is directed at those on the security council that made a paper tiger of the UN. As to this...

georgeob1 wrote:

I would have a very difficult time figuring out how to do the job given to Hans Blix much better than he did. Generally his public statements were fairly well balanced and dispassionate.

I disagree with this, which is why I save some fault for Blix. I will try to find time in the next day or so to go through his reports and point out why I think he did a poor job, and how I think it could have been done better.

But again, my intention in doing so is to better illustrate why I believe as I do, not to change your mind. I think you've looked at the same facts as I and come to a different conclusion. That's cool.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Wanna get into circle thoughts? There is only one "fact" everything else is an opinion.

That may be your point of view, but it is not mine. (Actually, I'm fairly certain it is not your point of view, so I wonder why you write it?)

There is only one thing we can be sure of. But for practical purposes we assume other "certainties".

Opinion vs fact falls under the same category. What you chided me for "stating as a fact" is something that can ONLY be opinion and as such I did not preface it.

Some things don't need a "this is an opinion" disclaimer (BTW, that is my opinion).

e.g.

I like beer. <- that is a statement that I do not need to preface as an opinion.

Poe is the best writer of all time. <- Again this is an opinion, but doesn't need to be prefaced.

That is an opinion that does not need to be prefaced. <- That is again an opinion that does not need to be prefaced. <- that is again.....

You get my point. It can lead to circles. :wink:

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

There is only one thing we can be sure of. But for practical purposes we assume other "certainties".

Hummmm. You sound like Ican here.

Will you share what the "one thing" is?

0 Replies

frank

Do you really want to do this? I think descartes had it right.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hummmm. You sound like Ican here.

Will you share what the "one thing" is?

Sure, "our ignorance".

0 Replies

Walter, Looking at the title of this forum that you created, the meaning can have two very different meanings. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

Well, that's intended .

(Not really :wink: )

0 Replies

Oh-kay!

c.i.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Wanna get into circle thoughts? There is only one "fact" everything else is an opinion.

That may be your point of view, but it is not mine. (Actually, I'm fairly certain it is not your point of view, so I wonder why you write it?)

There is only one thing we can be sure of. But for practical purposes we assume other "certainties".

Opinion vs fact falls under the same category. What you chided me for "stating as a fact" is something that can ONLY be opinion and as such I did not preface it.

Some things don't need a "this is an opinion" disclaimer (BTW, that is my opinion).

e.g.

I like beer. <- that is a statement that I do not need to preface as an opinion.

Poe is the best writer of all time. <- Again this is an opinion, but doesn't need to be prefaced.

That is an opinion that does not need to be prefaced. <- That is again an opinion that does not need to be prefaced. <- that is again.....

You get my point. It can lead to circles. :wink:

I get your point. I don't agree with it, is all.

0 Replies

Too bad. George and setanta had this on track, going away from the personal into the consideration of meanings. Blix made his statements - when publicly declared they are there for anyone to contemplate and comment upon.

But is seems as though some cannot let let a subject rest until they have made it into a personal attack. This is a discussion/opinion forum.

Incidentally, (hee hee!) what makes you think scrat is female? To me he gives every indication of being a he.

0 Replies

Scrat's gender has been something of a poser for me (when the name is before my eyes--it's not something i think about when away from the screen), as i've read references to both him and her. Of course, Scrat is not obliged to enlighten us--although it would make things less awkward.

0 Replies

It's funny how some people like to allude to the character of other individuals and pat themselves on the back for not "attacking" others like those "bad" other individuals.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Ma can defend herself, of course, although i would be at pains here to point out that Ma has not alluded to the character of anyone in writing:

Quote:

But is seems as though some cannot let let a subject rest until they have made it into a personal attack. This is a discussion/opinion forum.

If one takes umbrage to such a statement, it would be necessary to attach a pejorative or judgmental meaning to the words which are not implicit in the bald statement. And the old saw about wearing footwear which fits comes to mind . . . i've no claim to virtue in such a squabble, because i've gotten personal when irked with other posters. But regardless of my relative virtue on the topic, Ma's statement does not comment on the character of anyone here.

0 Replies

BLIX BLASTS US 'BASTARDS'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know