Quote:
|
Later, the Iraqi Survey Group (of David Kay fame) was able to go through the Iraqi documents that Blix was never allowed to see and interview people UNSCOM was never allowed to interview.
|
You realize that offering a link to the isg report isn't proof for this theory, right?
Quote:
|
The final ISG report details how Iraq hid plans and proscribed imports. It details improved production methods in the chemicals industry, a covert network of laboratories for testing chemicals and poisons. Hidden stores of biological "starter kits" and a covert uranium enrichment programme.
|
I'm feeling really lazy today, so I will shamelessly ask you to provide some references to those various claims.. and, I want to see some text that explains what the grounds for the claims made by the isg are - hopefully this'll be something other than guesswork and careful analysis of Saddam's brain(like the isg often seems to rely upon almost exclusively). You know, this is a perfect opportunity to suprise all of us, because I know for a fact that Blix and Ekeus never used the kind of analysis that the isg uses to determine whether the disarmament mission was successful or not, when reporting to the UN. That doesn't mean they did not know of the different claims or that they did not suspect the intent of the regime in some general manner. Actually it is very likely, if you carefully check the sources for the isg specially regarding the defectors and the chemical programmes, that there is very few examples of new factual or semi- factual information (like inside information with at least some kind of supporting data) since 1998. Why is that? To me this means that the isg report is primarily a rehash of old factual sources augmented by rejected or insubstantiated sources fitted together in a new set of clothing? Old interviews taken out of context? See, every paragraph I've read of the report rests upon facts from the 90's we do know of, and then claims that there were something still going on in the research and development area. It claims such things as "..was destroyed.... would then later resurface when the unmovic regime was no longer in place". This becomes a fact due to their apparently clairvoyant view of how the Saddam regime and Saddam's brain worked. They even know which particular programmes that were continued. But it seems that there is nothing besides that which might substantiate the claims. This strikes me as odd, since the wording suggests that the claims are proven beyond doubt.
Great one, really - "thoughts and intents, clearly proven beyond doubt". How?
Quote:
|
All of these, and more, constitute violations of at least one of the 17 UNSCRs on Iraq.
|
Which would sanction an act of war, fatboy? I'm sure you know that unless Iraq was an imminent threat, an action of war must be sanctioned by the security council to be legitimate.