Shifting Sands

He "Kicked them out" initially when it was revieled that one of the Inspectors was passing information to the US... ie was a spy for a hostile nation. Every nation has the right to arrest spys and prosecute..he just kicked him out.

He kicked that inspector out, and the rest left with him as the UN demanded "all or nothing"....

Im pretty sure the citizens of any country would try and cause problems for inspectors imposed upon them, given the opertunity; its human nature..

Im not saying the Iraqi government didnt put up obstructions, however not all would have been down to them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@11 February 2004 - 01:48
J2,

We both have great respect for Biggles and this is well deserved.

My appearance in this thread was to disagree, respectfully, with this post:

Biggles:

Quote:

---

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN's instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I'll get me coat )

---

If you look at my first post in which I quoted him, you will realize that he went back and edited the post.

I never felt that the UN was malicious, just impotent.

You would have to read all of my threads to see my point.

---

Ah, now it is clear.

I think, along with the "why", a "how", and possibly an "if" were also warranted.

I have reached the point that, whenever I think of the U.N., reason and logic assume a divergent trajectory, and legitimacy beats a rather hasty retreat.

After all, this is the group that approved Libya to head it's Human Rights Council by a vote of 33-3 (albeit with 17 abstentions). ;)

BTW-Should I get me coat?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@11 February 2004 - 10:07
What did he not comply with?  There are no weapons!  He supplied a 3,000 page document detailing what they had done.  Weapons inspectors went everywhere they wanted, whether they were hindered or not. 

Quote:

---

He was not in a position to get them and kick them out, as he did not have the power to do so.

---

What does that mean?

Quote:

---

If there were no weapons and he wanted a peaceful and quick solution he would have complied totally with the resolutins, the fact that he did not raises the questions about his motives.

---

And this? What does not complying mean? That he denied they had WMD? They didn't!

What's the problem here? You just can't admit they went to war over oil!


<_<

---

I didn&#39;t discuss why they went to war, I was discussing the position with the weapons inspectors subsequent to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The inspectors were there under the banner of the United Nations and were there to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I believe he had previously used chemical weapons to attack the Kurdish people, there was certainly evidence that he had such things. The Inspectors as I understand it reported that they were not being given the proper co-operation by the regime. Which is why the inspections were taking so long.

I apologise if my post was not clear, any confusion on your part is entirely down to me. As you say the inspectors were there, subsequent to his invasion of Kuwait, which was entirely motivated by Iraq&#39;s desire to get control of more oil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@11 February 2004 - 05:48
J2,

We both have great respect for Biggles and this is well deserved.

My appearance in this thread was to disagree, respectfully, with this post:

Biggles:

Quote:

---

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN&#39;s instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I&#39;ll get me coat )

---

If you look at my first post in which I quoted him, you will realize that he went back and edited the post.

I never felt that the UN was malicious, just impotent.

You would have to read all of my threads to see my point.

---

Hobbes

I have read my original and the piece you quote and for the life of me I can&#39;t see where I changed that segment. This is not to say it is not there - sometimes one cannot see things for looking.

I tinker with my posts. I will re-read and find a phrase inelegant (or the inevitable typo). If I have changed a post and rendered someones quote inaccurate I apologise unreservedly.

As to the part you quote, well I was being a tad provocative (well for me anyway) :) It was a response not to anything on here but to something I heard on the radio where a poltician rather pathetically complained "but everyones&#39; intelligence was wrong". It is perhaps an excuse yet to aired over on your side.

With regards the UN..

I think the difference in my position is that I do not see the UN as an entity. It is not a country or a political party. It does not have policies as such. I see it simply as the meeting place of ever-changing coalitions, aspirations and alliances of real countries. The primary purpose of the UN is to provide a forum for the friction caused by all the above and allow some cooling off space. It does also, as I said, act as a mechanism whereby more uncontroversial assistance can be easily administered.

Perhaps your anger towards the UN is caused through having expectations that it could never meet. At the end of the day China is still China the US still the US etc., The UN serves a purpose in allowing issues to be aired but, as yet, no country is likely to yield its sovereignty to it.

I am not sure as to your views on Hans Blix. He perhaps has had more air time on US TV. The little I have seen he comes across as a slightly grumpy scientist type - rather than a media-hogger.

My quote came from a thread you posted, for the life of me I cannot find it. Then again, I have been standing next to something, only to ask the clerk where the hell that something is.

Excuse my comments about Blix. I watched a 30 minute interview with him and made my conclusions based on this.

If I were to admit my arrogance, it would be that I can see through the facade to the actual person. I make character judgements in this way, it is my job and I do it well.

I don&#39;t require external validation to support my observations. Since I am no-one to you web people I don&#39;t require that you acccept my observations and therefore, I withdraw any comments abour Blix, as they are irrelevant to my final conclusion.

I have no "anger" toward the UN, just very little respect.

Hobbes

You may be right about Blix. I have not enough information to say one way or the other. At the end of the day, he is simply a scientist employed to do some detective work. As far as one can tell he was proficient in this. I did read somewhere that he used to really annoy the Iraqis with his picky and fussy attitude so he must have been doing something right. Iraq certainly appears to be pretty uncontaminated with WMD. (apologies to Monty Python and the Cheese Shop sketch) :rolleyes:


Time for bed I think.

Night Night Zebedee.