uncleb
  • uncleb
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
22 years ago
Hans Blix says Iraq probably destroyed most WMDs long ago

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) — Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a military attack.
In an interview with an Australian radio station broadcast Wednesday, Blix said it was unlikely that the U.S and British teams now searching for weapons in Iraq would find more than some "documents of interest."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found."

Blix indicated he thought the U.S.-led coalition had backtracked on the issue of Iraq's weapons.

"In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs. Maybe they'll find some documents of interest," he said.

Blix, who spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said Iraq might have tried to fool the United States into believing it had weapons of mass destruction over the years in order to deter attack.

"I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,' without having a dog," he said from his home in Sweden.

The United States and its allies Britain and Australia invaded Iraq in May after saying Saddam Hussein's regime was developing nuclear arms as well as chemical and biological weapons.

However, a search by the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group — which is made up of some 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts — has failed to uncover any weapons of mass destruction since the conflict ended.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have come under increasing pressure to prove that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jdrabinski
22 years ago
Somebody remind me why it was a good idea to invade Iraq...
tarheel4lyf
22 years ago
because I needed the extra money
usahog
22 years ago
Reminder;
HALABJA, Iraq, Sept. 15 -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell asserted today that a 1988 poison gas attack that killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds in this farming town nestled in Iraq's barren northern mountains was ample evidence that former president Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction and justified the U.S. decision to go to war.

In an emotional defense of the invasion of Iraq, Powell visited a mass grave site, toured a new museum commemorating the attacks and listened as Kurdish political leaders proclaimed that the Halabja massacre provided sufficient legitimacy to go to war.

"If you want evidence of the existence and the use of weapons of mass destruction, come here now to Halabja today and see it," Powell said after walking through the museum. "What happened over the intervening 15 years? Did [Hussein] suddenly lose the motivation? Did he suddenly decide that such weapons would not be useful? The international community did not believe so."

Powell's three-hour visit to this town near the Iranian border, which required him to fly in a convoy of UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, brought him face to face with scores of Iraqi Kurds who praised the U.S. invasion and held aloft signs lauding President Bush. The sentiments on display here were far more ebullient than those generally expressed by Iraqis in parts of the country Powell did not visit.

"Today it is perplexing and rather painful indeed for the people of Halabja to hear voices in the international community that continue to insist on proof for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction," said Barham Salih, the prime minister for the western part of Iraq's Kurdish region. "Here is the proof. Halabja is the proof. . . . This mass grave in Halabja and the other 170 so far discovered mass graves in Iraq should dispel any doubts about the legitimacy of the American and British liberation of Iraq. These mass graves vindicate the moral imperative of your intervention to protect the people of Iraq."

Powell was joined by Iraq's top Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who preside over a swath of northern Iraq that had been autonomous since it split from Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The two leaders, who sit on the country's interim Governing Council, expressed opinions similar to those of Salih. "The tragedy of Halabja gives them the legitimacy for going to war," Barzani said.

The attack on Halabja occurred in the waning days of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran. Furious that Kurdish militiamen in the area had allied themselves with advancing Iranians, Hussein ordered his cousin, Ali Hassan Majeed, to carry out a retribution campaign against the Kurds starting in 1987 that included forced relocations, the destruction of villages and the killing of an estimated 182,000 people.

At about noon on March 16, 1988, after two days of conventional bombing, the Iraqi air force dropped sarin, tabun, VX and mustard gases on Halabja. The toxic cloud drifted over the town, killing an estimated 5,000 people and harming 10,000. Those who survived did so by running into the hills or by hiding in their basements.

"It was such a great tragedy," said Esmail Abdulrahim Saleh, an English teacher, who said nine of his relatives died in the attack. "It is impossible to describe."

Although the United States condemned the Iraqi government's use of chemical weapons as a "grave violation" of international law, the Reagan administration did not sanction Hussein, who was regarded as a U.S. ally because of his war against Iran's Islamic revolutionary government. At the time, the State Department said there were "indications" that Iran had used chemical artillery shells against Iraqi positions in the area.

Asked today about the U.S. response, Powell, who was Reagan's national security adviser, told reporters that "there was no effort on the part of the Reagan administration to either ignore it or not take note of it." But when speaking to about 250 relatives of victims, Powell said there should have been a more aggressive response.

"I cannot tell you the world should have acted sooner," he told the relatives. "You know that."

Standing at the mass grave site in front of rows of gravestones aligned in perfect diagonals with the precision of a military cemetery, Powell said the toppling of Hussein would prevent such atrocities in the future.

"What I can tell you is that what happened here in 1988 is never going to happen again," he said, noting that Majeed, the alleged architect of the Halabja attack and better known by his nickname, "Chemical Ali," had been detained by U.S. forces.

"Chemical Ali is in jail," he told the relatives, many of whom were clutching brightly colored bouquets of silk flowers and holding framed photos of dead family members. "He will stay in jail until an Iraqi court decides his fate. Saddam is running and hiding. . . . Beyond that, the system that spawned them, a system of coups and plots and assassins, is smashed and will never return."

Powell did not meet with any of the 1,200 American specialists who are scouring Iraq for evidence that Hussein had an active banned-arms program in recent years. At a news conference Sunday, Powell said there "was no particular need" to meet with them because the director of the search effort, former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, will soon issue a report.

After touring the museum, which contains a life-size diorama of a dozen dead villagers complete with fake gas produced with liquid nitrogen, Powell had private talks with Barzani, Talabani and other Kurdish leaders before he flew to Kuwait. The leaders pressed Powell for assurances that Kurdish areas would be given continued autonomy under a new government.

just thought I would throw this in as some Proof...

It Was good enough during WW2 to go against Germany for their Holocost on the Jews... does that make these people a different from them?
most of us had Fathers/Grandfathers who fought for the Freedoms in 1941-45... I would have dropped my Gas bill off and headed Over Sea's to see to it Freedom was Possible for the Iraqi Folks just like my Ancestors did for me!!!!

Hope this was a good enough Reminder John??

Enjoy...
Hog
usahog
22 years ago
Oh I forgot and left out the Part about Clinton Sending us into the Balkins just a few years back to quel (sp) the Mass Killings there from a Tyrant...Melosovitch (sp)??? it was even OK there...

Hog
jdrabinski
22 years ago
If that is the reason--that he was cruel to his people--then we have A LOT of work to do around the world. Iraq is not unique in this regard.

Besides, usahog, your story suggests we've responded in not-so-timely fashion to this tragedy...15 years! Do you really think that we went into Iraq this time because of the Kurds?

It couldn't have been because of 9/11. Bush just disavowed that link today.

John
Tobasco
22 years ago

There are 2 reasons for going in. 1 is that Iraq has been developing weapons of mass destruction. I truly believe they will be found eventually.

2, Bush said it VERY CLEARLY, You are with us or against us in the matter of terrorism. Iraq clearly was a safe place for terrorists. In fact, since saddam was paying for suicide bombing he is a terrorist.

Mag
jdrabinski
22 years ago
Mike,

You have an opinion that differs not only with the result of months of searching, but also with the head of weapons inspection in Iraq. You must have some secret knowledge! Share it with the U.N.

As for being a safe harbor for terrorists...huh? Iraq is pretty low on the list of states who welcome and facilitate folks like al-Qaeda. In fact, there is no demonstrated link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Even Bush admitted as much yesterday re: Iraq and 9/11. (He sure pulled the rhetoric rug out from underneath many of his supporters with that one, didn't he?). Why aren't we lining up to invade so many other countries, like, say, Libya or Iran or Saudi Arabia and so on? What is SPECIAL about Iraq? No one has ever explained that.

Suicide bombers in Israel are the reason we invaded Iraq? That's a new one for me. I'll add that to the ever-shifting list of reasons, few of which have ever made coherent sense. Try as it may to clean it off discreetly, this administration has about a dozen eggs on its face concerning Iraq.

John
THL
  • THL
  • Herf-A-Holic
22 years ago
So what's to be done? There doesn't seem to be an easy way out.
jdrabinski
22 years ago
THL,

I agree. We shouldn't have gotten to where we are, and now we are in deep. I try to keep the question of 'what to do now?' separate from this president's accountability. They are, of course, two different things.

I am curious to hear the Democratic candidates' take on this 'what to do now?' question. It will take some leadership and courage to set right this wrong done by Bush & company. Let's see if any of them have leadership and courage on this issue. It is not enough for a candidate to say 'this was an unjustified war.' There needs to be a clean-up plan. We wrecked the country of Iraq. We are responsible for some sort of repair.

John
sketcha
22 years ago
JD,

Because Saddam tried to kill Dubbya's daddy.

Now...

I have a request of you. I can see Mike is trying very hard to straighten up and fly right. I would hope that you could do your best not to instigate him with snide comments ala....

"You must have some secret knowledge! Share it with the U.N."

Not overly snide, but certainly bordering.

Just be cool, please.

Thank you


Now Mag,

Please don't add your $.02 to the 2nd part of this post, either.

Thanks


Now everybody play nice.
usahog
22 years ago
ö¿-
~`

Hog
uncleb
  • uncleb
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
22 years ago
The issue I have with the way the IRAQ issue has been handled is that the justification for going in was clearly stated as "Iraq has WMD and is developing WMD and we have proof. We need to invade before they use them". Then when no WMD are found, all of a sudden, the justification then becomes "we came to liberate the citizens of Iraq from this tyrant".

Hog- you state "Clinton Sending us into the Balkins just a few years back to quel (sp) the Mass Killings there from a Tyrant...Melosovitch (sp)??? it was even OK there..." I believe in this case it was clearly stated that the reason for going in was "to quel (sp) the Mass Killings there from a Tyrant...Melosovitch". We did not go in saying one thing, then switch to another.

I supported our decision to invade Iraq because I felt that I could trust our government and our intel. I now feel I cannot trust this administration or our intel and one of the major factors in my feeling this way is the constant backpedaling and waffling of this administration. I would maintian a much higher level of confidence in them if they would admit errors instead of trying to constantly redirect.

Sorry for rambling.

BTW- It is nice to see civility returning to interesting discussions. As I have said before, I learn quite a bit from these forums.... when they maintain a civil and respectful air.

B

cwilhelmi
22 years ago
uncleb - Well said!! I've tried to state the same points over and over but it has not done any good, but I think you summarized it much better than I had.

jdrabinski
22 years ago
uncleb,

You are not rambling. In fact, quite the opposite. Very concise and to the point. Well put.

John
sumguy
22 years ago
I tend to agree with the uncle. We are in for a lot of trouble because of Iraq and I dont have the faith in this administration to see it through. Good luck getting out of there. Good luck getting the UN to help us, especially after we thumbed our nose at them. Good luck trying to mantain this action with this budget. Good luck getting help from the rest of the world.

You'd think we'd learn. How many times have we used military action to enforce a change of government and have it backfire on us years later. Iran, Iraq, Afgahnistan, Panama...it's a pattern and we'd be wise to recognize it. Most likely result imo is a shiite fundamentalist group will seize power a few years after we leave and we'll have another "Shah of Iran" scenario like we did in the 80's but this time in Iraq. Another dictatorship full of hard line muslim zealots. Just what we needed. It's karma baby.
uncleb
  • uncleb
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
22 years ago
Here is an excerpt from another artical in USATODAY (9/18/03).

"Top American scientists assigned to the weapons hunt in Iraq found no evidence Saddam Hussein's regime was making or stockpiling smallpox, The Associated Press has learned from senior military officers involved in the search.
Smallpox fears were part of the case the Bush administration used to build support for invading Iraq — and they were raised again as recently as last weekend by Vice President ****** Cheney.

But a three-month search by "Team Pox" turned up only signs to the contrary: disabled equipment that had been rendered harmless by U.N. inspectors, Iraqi scientists deemed credible who gave no indication they had worked with smallpox and a laboratory thought to be back in use that was covered in cobwebs".

The whole thing can be found at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-18-iraq-smallpox_x.htm 

B.

mkraus47
22 years ago
Does anyone think that these "random" inspections before the war were a secret to Sadam? How soon we forget that he denied inspections in several key sites, but "just for a few days while we, freshen up," or some other B.S. Does anyone think that Saddam is NOT in cahoots (sp) with Syria? How much effort would it take to bring the WMD there? He had months to do it. But regardless, when stopping mass genocide is not good enough justification for Americans we are in trouble. The man was a monster. Did any of you read the British report of Iraq's human rights violations? Writen in 2001, before 9/11 and before this war. It is horrific what he did to people. His sons were even worse. Would any of you have supported this war if it were waged just to free the oppressed in Iraq? Probibly not. Dont want another Vietnam you would say. Well, to right I say, and that is why this time, when we hit them, we hit them hard. No pussyfooting, just bam and we won. To end, we will find the WMD, might not be in Iraq, but they were there. And stopping the killing of innocent human life is never something to look at negatively. And please remember above all else, we are the good guys. MK
uncleb
  • uncleb
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
22 years ago
Does the end justify the means? In my mind no. Yes I would have supported the argument that we are trying to stop the systematic destruction of a people. I do believe it is the duty of all countries to stop genocide from occurring especially after what was learned from the holocaust. I also believe that the world does not currently do enough to stop these injustices. Do you really think Iraq is the only area where this has happened? If not, shouldn’t we be invading numerous countries right now?

Just as I believe that it is the duty of all countries to stop genocide from occurring, I also believe it is the duty of all governments to be honest and forthright with its citizens. My wife and I are raising 2 children to be as good and as honest as they can be. It does not help when I have to explain to them that the highest ranking persons in our government do not act as I am trying to teach them to act. What does this say about the office of the President? I always remember that when I was a kid that the heroes were Firemen, Police Officers, Astronauts and the President of the USA. I can honestly say that it is now hard for me to justify the President as a hero with what this President and the last few Presidents have done. They have tarnished the title to the point that I want my son to be far BETTER than them. That is sad. They should be our best.

If we are the “good guys”, I believe we should act like it.

B
usahog
22 years ago
I've said enough about the whole damn thing... everyone has some good points and some bad points...

But the Major Point is... We got American Soldiers in there right now... and this ain't no small place at all... not only was the 1988 Kurds and Iranians Gased... but also in 1991 out own Soldiers were Gased when they Demo'd the Facilities that housed the WMD's....we got 160,000 Veterans who were somewhat exposed to what Saddam Shouldn't have had anyways....
Many of them are Dead... some are not being recognised as their Illness's being war related... and each year since 1994 on it has hit every one of US Americans Right in the Pocketbook... because healthcare costs keep going up...but also many of these Vets are being turned away because the Budget to help them keeps getting sliced... and it's from both sides not just whose in office right now... along with that the thinning of the military through the 90's leaves these Veterans with little or no time to spend with there Family's... but yet I sit back and read the in's and out's of each of these posts... how many have contacted their senetors and representatives to help push these bills through??

We got Brothers and Sisters in a ****hole... and their going to be in there for awhile to come... every one of them are paying a hell of a price... and some the Ultimate Price... to come home to a thank you? maybe a plaque to hang on the wall? time to kiss their kids hug their wives call the relatives gas the car and head out to another deployment somewhere's else....
all the while we got 1000's of folks bitchin about needing a difference made... but not steping up to a simple click of the mouse nowadays to help make that change!!! Voices, America Needs to Hear your Voices... thus Express your first Ammendment Rights the Right Way
Drop your thoughts and feelings in an email to your local Polititians (sp)

In the mean time... Keep watching for the findings of these WMD's... and Keep an Eye on Saddam... because he's not done yet and neither is Syria or Iran!!!

just my Buck 250
Hog
Users browsing this topic