Blix to Iraq: Give Evidence or Face War

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix says Iraq must provide new evidence about its nuclear, chemical and biological programs or face the possibility of war.

"I think they only need look around their borders and they should realize the seriousness" of the situation, Blix said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press and Associated Press Television News, alluding to the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf and neighboring Kuwait.

Blix said the inspectors need months to finish searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but they may not get the time if the Security Council decides to stop inspections — or the United States takes military action.

The world wants Iraq to disarm peacefully, Blix said. But to do that it must provide documents, allow U.N. inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists in private, and show physical evidence of what facilities and weapons have been destroyed.

"What the show of force demonstrates to Iraq is that here is the other alternative," he said.

Blix said the key message that he and Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will deliver to Iraqi officials when they visit Baghdad on Sunday and Monday is that Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration submitted to inspectors last month did not contain any new evidence to verify its claim that its weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2003

Answers

"We need to have more evidence supplied to us. There are a great many open questions as to their possession of weapons of mass destruction and the Security Council and the world would like to be assured that these questions be sorted out," Blix said.

In remarks aired late Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said Baghdad is ready to answer any questions by U.N. inspectors, but insisted the arms report was comprehensive.

"The declaration answers everything, but ... if they have any questions they would like to present to Iraq or issues that they want clarified from the Iraqi side, we welcome them in the meetings that will be held in Iraq," Sabri said.

Blix stressed that a peaceful solution is far less costly than war.

"We are perhaps 250 or 300 people on the inspection side. We cost about $80 million a year. If you take the armed path, you are talking about $100 billion, you're talking about 250,000 men, you're talking about a lot of people killed and injured, a lot of damage. So I think the whole world prefers a peaceful solution if you can have one that is credible," he said. More - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=2&cid=514&u=/ap/20030114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_inspections

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2003


Sullivan THE DELAYING GAME: No surprise that Hans Blix wants more time; that January 27 is now seen as the "beginning" of the arms inspection; or that other countries are quite happy to see the process drawn out indefinitely. This was always the danger of the U.N. route. The administration, as is its wont, seems to be saying almost nothing about its plans, which worries people like me. We can only hope that its a way to out-psyche Saddam. But it's beginning to look like Saddam is out-psyching Bush. The question will therefore soon arise: can we wait until the autumn? My own view is that this would be a disaster. There is absolutely no guarantee that any weapons of mass destruction will be found by Blix's merry men by then; and the long summer and fall will be a golden opportunity for other rogue states to take advantage of the U.S.'s preoccupation in the Gulf. Those who oppose the war now will oppose it then. And there will be further opportunities for terrorist attacks on the West. Moreover, nothing would galvanize our enemies more than to see how timorous Washington is when dealing with a murderous dictator who has violated the terms of the 1991 truce and continues to thumb his nose at the world. Our perceived weakness toward Saddam has already emboldened the North Koreans (whom it appears we are now willing to appease as well). It will embolden others - from the meddlesome French to the American left.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2003

What Bush is in danger of drifting into is Clintonism - dragged along by events, rather than determining them, acquiescing in evil rather than confronting it, and coming ever so close to appearing easily knocked off course. That hasn't happened yet. But the danger signs are there. Saddam was right. Time is on his side. As we wait and wait for a conclusion we cannot even know will come, the anti-war lobby in this country will gain strength; and the remarkable success we have so far enjoyed in preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack will merely serve to lull Americans into another false sense of security. I'm not panicking - yet. But a question keeps nagging: Are we at war or not? If we are, when on earth are we going to get serious?

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2003

it's like they said in the beginning, just after 9-11. This war on Terror will be mostly unseen. That makes for forgetfulness on the part of the citizenry.

Rest assured, another attack of major porportion is coming. If the government manages to stop it, everything will be allright and Bush's approval rating will be higher than any other president in history. if the government fails, however,....

The real key in stopping the next attack is doing it in a way that will get the most out of it. Arresting a bunch of terrorists as they cross thru a border checkpoint isn't as convincing as catching them setting explosives at a power plant with 3 seconds left on the clock before the explosion.

We're gonna need some James Bond type stuff to get the anti-war people to quiet down. Not that I want war, but I also don't like this living day to day wondering when we're gonna have suicide bombers start going off around the country, or more plane attacks type stuff. Or those pesky biologicals...

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2003


Arresting a bunch of terrorists as they cross thru a border checkpoint isn't as convincing as catching them setting explosives at a power plant with 3 seconds left on the clock before the explosion.

Absoeffinglutely.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2003



Moderation questions? read the FAQ