Originally posted by bbarr
Sure, he could have delivered documents in a couple hours. Did he not give the weapons insepctors the documents that were requested? I thought he gave the weapons inspectors all sorts of documentation. What did he fail to provide?
Read the resolutions and you will see what were the things the UN was asking. It is really too much to write down.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI read 1441, and I know what documents that resolution asked for. My point is that I thought Iraq provided the documentation mentioned in 1441 (I remember Iraq providing all sorts of documentation, and that folks in Washington complained that a lot of it wasn't related specifically to weapons programs, but some of it was). If this is incorrect, could you provide a source that documents that fact?
Read the resolutions and you will see what were the things the UN was asking. It is really too much to write down.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1, you are confusing two things
Blix's full report of March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
I urge everyone who is interested to read it. It lends no support to the UK/US/Spain Resolution and says full completi ...[text shortened]... ts; read the report in full (it only takes a few minutes) and see.
1. The attitude of complying and cooperation asked for by the UN
2. The completion of the inspectors mission.
The second resolution did not ask for the completion of the inspectors mission within ten days. That would have been ridiculous and impossible. The resolution asked for a change in attitude. The desired attitude of cooperation and compliance that was asked so many times by the UN. Not a kind of cooperation to be able to be stating a formal "we cooperate". But cooperation in real actual and factual disarmament of Iraq and dismantling all ABC weapons developing and production programs.
The Blix report was written before the second resolution was draughted and Blix himself said that it was written in such a way both sides could use it to back up their positions.
I'll try this again: Blix's entire report on Iraqi compliance given March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Bbarr, it won't take five minutes for you to read; Ivanhoe, I'm sure someone can read it to you in a few minutes. It's specific, talks about what has been done and what needed to be done. The fact is the US government never expected for Saddam to cooperate so fully and when he did it took away their primary rationale for war at the UN. Since they couldn't get the UN to go along, they spent February and March, 2003 belittling the UN saying it would be "irrelevant" if it didn't go along with the war. By the way, you're both off-topic; where is Ivanhoe's PUBLIC proof that the French lied to the US concerning Iraq in January, 2003?
EDIT: The 2nd resolution was drafted prior to the March 7, 2003 report as it was submitted immediately following the reading of the report. Please cite your source that Hans Blix made statements that said his report could have been used as support for that resolution.
Originally posted by ivanhoeReminds me of what happened here in New Zealand about twenty years ago. A new government said " No nukes" - we will not let any militry vessel unless they declar themselves free if nuclear weapons. It was a clear policy - but somehow the Americans decided the new Prime Minister would sidestep the policy and not ask about nuclear weaposn on US ships as a result of pressure applied. Evidentally they believed they had a secret deal - and when they found they didn't they got very angry indeed.
..... Instead, de Villepin stayed behind at the U.N. and announced to the world that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam Hussein.
... Even the Washington Post, which highlighted international opposition to the Bush administration's position on Iraq, called de Villepin's performance heatrical.
... Powell and d ...[text shortened]... French policy of forming a counterweight to the US ? What is your opinion about these issues ?
France made no secret of its opposition. Why would you believe a French president would promise one thing to his citizens and something else to a diplomat?
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "Please cite your source that Hans Blix made statements that said his report could have been used as support for that resolution.[/b]"
I'll try this again: Blix's entire report on Iraqi compliance given March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Bbarr, it won't take five minutes for you to read; Ivanhoe, I'm sure someone can read it to you in a few minutes. It's specific, talks about what has been done and what needed to b ...[text shortened]... s Blix made statements that said his report could have been used as support for that resolution.
First of all Blix's report was written in such a way both parties would find the things they needed to support their position. Blix did not make a statement about finding support for the second resolution in the report. There is a difference. Blix said it in a television interview. Maybe you can find it somewhere on the net.
Originally posted by bbarr
I read 1441, and I know what documents that resolution asked for. My point is that I thought Iraq provided the documentation mentioned in 1441 (I remember Iraq providing all sorts of documentation, and that folks in Washington complained that a lot of it wasn't related specifically to weapons programs, but some of it was). If this is incorrect, could you provide a source that documents that fact?
Please read the Blix report.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " I'll try this again: Blix's entire report on Iraqi compliance given March 7, 2003 is at:
I'll try this again: Blix's entire report on Iraqi compliance given March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Bbarr, it won't take five minutes for you to read; Ivanhoe, I'm sure someone can read it to you in a few minutes. It's specific, talks about what has been done and what needed to b ...[text shortened]... s Blix made statements that said his report could have been used as support for that resolution.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm "
This site does not present the "entire report". It presents the "Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC" by Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix before the Security Council 7 march 2003. It is not the report itself. You can find the entire report at;
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/2003-232.pdf
By the way I don't think it is correct to call the report or the oral introduction "the report on Iraqi compliance". That's called "leading the witness" I guess.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "where is Ivanhoe's PUBLIC proof that the French lied to the US concerning Iraq in January, 2003?"
I'll try this again: Blix's entire report on Iraqi compliance given March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
Bbarr, it won't take five minutes for you to read; Ivanhoe, I ...[text shortened]... id his report could have been used as support for that resolution.
Maybe in a hundred years when all the relevant archives have opened their gates we will be able to present the proof. For now we will have to rely on witnesses and our own observations and analyses.That's what makes politics so interesting and exciting. You just never know, do you ........
First, ivanhoe is still using or quoting from sources using misleading words (e.g. never), even though he knows the wolf-pack wont let that "honest mistake" rest.
Secondly, the title of this thread is "french lies", yet at no time does ivanhoe discuss any stated mistruths by the french. This is incitement to those who have previously been "defending" the french.
Thirdly, ivanhoe is talking about "interpretation". As soon as a debate becomes about "interpretation" it's going to go nowhere. Listing the facts and placing them in the correct context will make interpretation unnecessary.
Referring only to facts which back up one's own interpretation (especially without discussion of the context) will only end up in disagreement (except with those who agreed in the first place). This is also incitement.
Now, since this has swerved off to ye olde compliance aspect...
I dont have to look at the reports/resolutions to guess that the list of requirements were going to be large and that compliance wasn't going to be easy (even if it was doable). To a certain extent, that's understandable. You dont let someone like saddam off the hook lightly.
However, even if we didn't have it then (my "interpretation" is we didn't need it), we now have access to "hindsight". From the very beginning the US insisted that iraq had several thousand tons of chemical/biological weaponry unaccounted for. To comply to the US's satisfaction, saddam had to either possess it or have evidence of it's destruction. To date this material remains "unaccounted" for...
So that's one compliance that apparently iraq could never meet and therefore "full compliance" was impossible. However that's a lawyers debate...an argument over "interpretation".
Did iraq disarm? That's the real question. Current evidence suggests that they did...
Homework assignment:
1) Who was pushing for which interpretation prior to the war?
2) How did each side attempt to justify their interpretation?
3) What is significant about the US response to the failed second resolution? (Aside from their stated reasons for not bothering to put it to the vote)
If you understand and answer these correctly, you'll have the context.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by Mayharm
First, ivanhoe is still using or quoting from sources using misleading words (e.g. never), even though he knows the wolf-pack wont let that "honest mistake" rest.
Secondly, the title of this thread is "french lies", yet at no time does ivanhoe discuss any stated mistruths by the french. This is incitement to those who have previously been "defendin ...[text shortened]... the vote)
If you understand and answer these correctly, you'll have the context.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Mayharm: ".... the title of this thread is "french lies", ..... "
I'm afraid the thread's title is: "Did France lie to US during Iraq Crisis ? "
Please take note of the question mark ....
Originally posted by ivanhoeHey, you got me on one, congratulations! Blix's oral presentation on March 7, 2003 did include items not covered in the February 28, 2003 report so it was supplemental as well to cover developments in the preceding week, but the full report is where you stated. Nice work!
No1: " I'll try this again: Blix's entire report on Iraqi compliance given March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm "
This site does not present the "entire report". It presents the "Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC" by Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix before the Security Counci ...[text shortened]... tion "the report on Iraqi compliance". That's called "leading the witness" I guess.
I called it the Iraq compliance report because that's what Resolution 1441 called for in its paragraphs 11 and 12. the report is replete with instances of Iraqi cooperation and there is very little in the report saying Iraq wasn't complying fully. Of course, if you look hard enough you can make any document try to support your pre-existing point of view (I get paid for that) but please site anything from that report that would justify an interpretation that Iraq was in such flagrant non-compliance that it justified immediate war. The French position was consistent and I see no evidence they ever "lied" to the US. And if there were diplomatic documents saying differently, this administration would have leaked them (they leaked the name of a covert CIA operative for political reasons).
Anyway, I guess I'll check back in 100 years when you have some "proof" of your assertions. Until then, Au revoir!
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "Of course, if you look hard enough you can make any document try to support your pre-existing point of view ...... "
Hey, you got me on one, congratulations! Blix's oral presentation on March 7, 2003 did include items not covered in the February 28, 2003 report so it was supplemental as well to cover developments in the preceding week, but the full report is where you stated. Nice work!
I called it the Iraq compliance report because that's what ...[text shortened]... check back in 100 years when you have some "proof" of your assertions. Until then, Au revoir!
We agree on that one.
Originally posted by bbarrClearly, he failed to deliver those missing documents that proved he had those missing WMD's. 🙄
Sure, he could have delivered documents in a couple hours. Did he not give the weapons insepctors the documents that were requested? I thought he gave the weapons inspectors all sorts of documentation. What did he fail to provide?