View Single Post
  #12  
Old 02-25-2003, 02:10 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,298
Default Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

"I might have given a serious response, but since all the pro-war guys jumped in"

Blatent manipulation. Apparently Annan, Blix, France and Germany fit your definition of pro-war too given their support of UN Resolution of 441. Just for the record I don't prefer war, I much prefer Iraq's voluntary disarmerment.

An encouraging headline:

Blix Says Iraq Signals New Cooperation

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...un_iraq_blix_1

It's encouraging until you actually read the article to find such paragraphs as:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Blix said one letter from Iraq informed inspectors that "they have found an R-400 bomb containing liquid in a site which is known to us at which they did dispose of biological weapons before."


He gave no details, but R-400 aerial bombs can be filled with biological agents. Among the outstanding issues which Iraq has not answered is providing documentation about the filling of R-400 bombs with aflotoxin.


"There is another letter that tells us they have found some handwritten documents concerning the act of disposal of prohibited items in 1991," Blix said. "Now all these have to be followed up, but these are new elements."

------------------------------------------------------------

and this

------------------------------------------------------------
Blix said he has received no reply from the Iraqi government to his order to start destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components by Saturday for exceeding the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.


Iraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks.


But when Blix was asked whether the issue was open for debate, he said, "not between us and Iraq."

__________________________________________________ _______

It's clear the Iraq doesn't want to comply with UN Resolution 441 and any compliance that is forthcoming has been through overt threat of military action. So far Iraq is refusing to comply with the Blix directive to dismantle the missles. What good is passing a resolution if you don't enforce it? I don't know why those who oppose Bush policy hate the UN and it's processes so much.
Reply With Quote