It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 10:45 AM
I've just watched Blix's report to the UN Live and realised that the US/UK position is untenable.I looked for a news story to reflect what I had seen to use as a link ,first I went to the BBC,then CNN,then Reuters,each source gave a view alien to what I had seen.
Never the less the UN must be given the oportunity to continue.

I thought whether there would be a war would be decided on Blix's report.Having watched the report France has won the day.

Please add your views of Hans Blix's report to the UN here.

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 11:01 AM
the reports that keep coming from the UN have not changed much at all over the past few months. being that it appears there is nothing to go to war over when viewing the information presented by the UN, what's next? It seems like Blix and the rest of the UN are playing it safe by trying to keep their nose as clean as possible until the US comes up with something that justifies a war

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 11:09 AM
I listened to it on NPR (National Public Radio in the U.S.) ans I have to say I agree with John Bull. Blix seemed to be saying that inspections were working but slowly and they needed more time to finish their assignment.

France then took a shot at Rumsfeld as did China.

We shall see.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:33 AM
My view is that US is exaggerating this whole Iraq thing. It's clear that Iraq is no threat for the world's safety. However America need this war, it's very important for their economy. So I'd like to see what the next step will be. Will US go to war without UN approval ? Will Bliar agree ? Does that mean the end of UN ?

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by TigeriS
My view is that US is exaggerating this whole Iraq thing. It's clear that Iraq is no threat for the world's safety. However America need this war, it's very important for their economy.

Speaking as an American, it's important for our safety. If the rest of the world doesn't want to help, screw 'em. We have to look out for our own safety first. To think that he wouldn't put WMD's in the hands of terrorists because they are enemies(when the US is a bigger enemy) is just naive, and hard to believe. Sure, may inspire more terror efforts short term, but long term it will help.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 12:31 PM
i listened to the Blix report and it was vauge at best. there was nothing new to be told. the situation remains the same. he gave a little to both. he wants more time, but he also said that Iraq isn't really giving them much effort. so both sides got what they wanted a little more ammo to argue their views on how the situation should be handled.

all and all you heard what you came to hear. the US says aha, they aren't complying and France says Blix needs/wants more time and more resources.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 01:40 PM
The issue is Iraq disarming. Showing them they have destroyed or don't have what they shouldn't. Not making inspectors hunt for them and moving things ahead of time and leading them on goose chases. That isn't what's supposed to be happening. Does anyone really think Saddam is going to ever finally after all these years comply??

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 01:49 PM
i dunno grammar in french but tha gets the point across.

have the french forgotten how many times we have saved all of europe from invasion, ended wars they appeased and lost, until we came in. everyone would be speaking german and there wouldn't be that many jews left if it wasn't for the japanese screwin up at pearl harbor, they weren't ready and never will be. that's part of why we stopped isolationism. i don't like isms but why do they always turn on each other coup d'etat this blitzkrieg that. i say nato is useless (except for tade money or whatever we get from europe through them and the EU) until they can truly payback what we had done for them in the past. maybe my ideas are a bit radical but the french at one time were are greatest ally what causes this betrayal?

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 02:06 PM
Note the reference to longevity in relation to a country survival during the most recent UN discussion 02/14/2002 (by the way happy Valentines Day to all the ladies present). The ambassador to France claiming to be a member of a country, that is much older than the United States. Despite the fact that the government of France as it currently exsit. Is not only far removed from the country it once was, but as well is a country whose basis is a response to the American revolution (this was an insult).

In relation to the context France has presented Iraq as a very old country indeed. Much older than France and or England for that matter. In relation to this issue the matter of sovereignty has been brought up. With the implication that Iraq, having been a country which formed 4000 years ago (Babylon) is unprecedented in relation to respect.

There is an inherent hypocrisy occurring in relation to this decision. And with respect to that, France seems to be playing the role of supporting the oldest nation as if it were in fact the same nation. Treating Iraq as if its not just a country thats in the same territory and uses the same name (just as France is).

Perhaps formality is less important that what is objective and maybe that is what is wrong.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 03:36 PM
So how many years this time??? I guess 12 isn't enough... Luckily, we're not going to let this dog and pony show keep on going...(at least I hope not)... It's time to go in, with or without the rest of ya...

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:48 PM
Of the record Blix asked for 6 months
I see no reason to wait that long. Beyond March the 14th is as long as is reasonable (03/15/2003). If by that time all WMD present in Iraq are not accounted for (in relation to known estimates) The UN should attack, if that is not the case (decision) the US and UK should go it alone. We can monitor Iraq until hell freezes over but that is not a realistic deterrent. Especially if the Leader of Iraq covertly moves his WMD into Russian territory and launches from there.

I personally do not give a dam about this end of the world scenarios (religious wise). What is apparent is that as long as we (US) play this game. We will do so not as the target but as affiliated to a potential target (UK, Israel, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Turkey etc.....).

Someone is going to have to make a decision in relation to what actually happened. And whoever is responsible for that is going to have to do so in real time. Was it the result of terrorist? Was it the result of a first strike, a preemptive attack of which will follow a thousand others?

Lets get something strait whoever is actually responsible for deciding that, is probably wishing this crap would stop.

new topics

top topics


log in