Before anyone forgets, WMD's revisited...

[Nubclear]

1. Graves are not weapons of mass destruction
2. Never ask the Russians what they think of Americans. Never ask the Kurds.....

[rev]

and evidence that Iraq was misleading the inspectors, from what i have heard.

You'll have to be more specific. There was a lot of thought that the Iraqis were misleading inspectors, yes, but post-war investigation has shown that many of their claims about WMD have proven correct (e.g., the "winnebagos of death" ).

Of course, you may know of some specific example that I don't.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
1. Graves are not weapons of mass destruction
2. Never ask the Russians what they think of Americans. Never ask the Kurds.....

do you think we could at least ask the Kurds about the legitimacy of what goes on in Iraq? Rather than say, the French?

[Sandman]

then why is blixie even proposing the "beware of dog theory"?

He is not 'proposing' it.

'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.

'Over the years' suggests that it was a ploy used by the Iraqis during the nineties. I doubt Blix is correct, however, since there is a total lack of a convincing 'beware of the dog sign' on the part of Iraq; their behaviour can be explained in other, more likely ways. Even if Blix is correct, the Iraqis certainly abandoned this ploy during the run-up to war (they could hardly have missed the troop build-up), only to meet a classic series of ever-escalating demands, at least one of which was virtually impossible to fulfil.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rev


You'll have to be more specific. There was a lot of thought that the Iraqis were misleading inspectors, yes, but post-war investigation has shown that many of their claims about WMD have proven correct (e.g., the "winnebagos of death" ).

.

what postwar investigation has proven them correct on that. My understanding is that some experts have said they cant rule out that there might be a legitimate use for the alleged mobile weapons labs.

[rev]

I doubt Blix is correct, however, since there is a total lack of a convincing 'beware of the dog sign' on the part of Iraq; their behaviour can be explained in other, more likely ways.

For example -- Chalabi was behind many of those Iraqi ex-patriots who claimed to have in-depth knowledge of Iraqi WMD programs -- knowledge that turned out to be completely bunk. It's possible these are the people who exaggerated the most in order to get done what they wanted done: invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad (which Bush Sr. promised but never delivered on).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


He is not 'proposing' it.

'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.

'Over the years' suggests that it was a ploy used by the Iraqis during the nineties. I doubt Blix is correct, however, since there is a total lack of a convincing 'beware of the dog sign' on the part of Iraq; their behaviour can be explained in other, more likely ways. Even if Blix is correct, the Iraqis certainly abandoned this ploy during the run-up to war (they could hardly have missed the troop build-up), only to meet a classic series of ever-escalating demands, at least one of which was virtually impossible to fulfil.

tehy did not give it up, as they did not use their opportunity under 1441 to give a detailed documentation of their destruction of WMD. As for the troops, they obviously thought any second resolution would be vetoed (they were right about that) and that in the absence of a resolution, that the US would not act (they were wrong, but so were alot of other people)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rev


For example -- Chalabi was behind many of those Iraqi ex-patriots

how did they become ex-patriots?

[rev]

what postwar investigation has proven them correct on that. My understanding is that some experts have said they cant rule out that there might be a legitimate use for the alleged mobile weapons labs.

Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds (Observer, Guardian)

[rev]

Chalabi's family fled Iraq in 1958 when he was 13, following an overthrow of the monarchy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


'Over the years' suggests that it was a ploy used by the Iraqis during the nineties. I doubt Blix is correct, however, since there is a total lack of a convincing 'beware of the dog sign' on the part of Iraq;

1. I suggest we allow Blix to clarify the timing he meant, rather than speculate.
2. As for convincing "beware of dog sign" i presume he is referencing something he really does know about, or why mention it at all? Presumably actual interference in inspections, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rev


Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds (Observer, Guardian)

"Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "

An unnamed scientist talking to the Observer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rev
Chalabi's family fled Iraq in 1958 when he was 13, following an overthrow of the monarchy.

how did they cease to be patriots? or did you mean expatriates?

[Japher]

Blix doesn't know sqawt.

He has to say something that sounds like he knows what he's talking about every now and then to keep the pay check coming in, and since Sadman lost his country and can't afford to pay Blix anymore he really needs the money...

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Japher

Bottom line is that the US and the UK lied to the whole world...

read this again, very closely:

'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.

If your are going to believe everything Blix says then at least believe everything he says...

Uhuh... The US claimed it knew Iraq had WMD's and that they had PROOF of it...