OK, now for the other post, let's have a look at Bobert's cherry-picked and overly simplistic effort:

There were two inspection campaigns, the first UNSCOM set up in accordance with the Safwan Agreements and the second UNMOVIC which replaced UNSCOM. I mention this because it is important that Bobert should realise what these "teams" were supposed to do:

-       UNSCOM which stands for United Nations Special Commission (present in Iraq intermittently from 1991 to 1998)
-       UNMOVIC which stands for United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (present in Iraq from December 2002 to March 2003)

Bobert's first Question- first part: "Why the Hell did the UN send in inspectors?"

The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to:

The UNMOVIC Inspection teams were invited back into Iraq by Saddam Hussein to complete the work started by UNSCOM. As far as the United Nations were concerned, the Inspection teams went back into Iraq to monitor Iraqi disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441, verify that that disarmament and compliance with the terms of UNSC resolution 1441 had been undertaken and to inspect sites associated with WMD programmes to verify that those programmes had in fact been shut down. Saddam's reasons for inviting those teams back into Iraq were completely different - If you doubt that, fast forward to Saddam's admission while in captivity that he did everything in his power to make the Iraqi people, the international community and his neighbouring states believe that Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons, was there any reason for him to say that to get the US off the hook? I can't see one, he'd already been tried, convicted an sentenced.

Bobert's first Question - second part: "Was that just a game?"

The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to:

As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned it was just a game, a game that he had successfully played and won before, and one that he thought, and had been advised, that he could play and win again. It most certainly was not a game to the United Nations Security Council, or to the United States of America.

And by all means "lets get real here.... The world was told that Iraq had WMDs" - Who by Bobert?? I'll give you the correct answer to that before you feel moved to start throwing "Bobert Facts" about. The world had been told by UNSCOM in January and in March 1999 that Iraq had WMD the status of which could not be confirmed.

The world "wasn't told of all these "other" reasons that you say existed". Now that hardly flies does it Bobert. It was the "world" organisation, specifically the United Nations that wrote Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 (remember that final, last, last chance) detailing to Iraq what was required for compliance. In fact the verbiage of 1441 goes into the detail of Iraq's non-compliance to all previous resolutions. So take it from me Bobert the "world" was fully aware of all the reasons, it doesn't surprise me for one nano-second that you personally were not.

The good Doctor Hans Blix, Bobert, took the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams back into Iraq at Saddam Hussein's invitation purely and simply because the United States of America had made it pretty much understood that if he didn't the US were going to put boots on the ground and remove him - something that GWB's predecessor always fought shy off. Don't dress it up to anything different - the only reason the UN were invited back into Iraq was down entirely to the international pressure applied by George W. Bush. Period!!!!

You following this, Bobert???

Bobert's second Question: "Then Blix says that the Iraqis are letting the inspectors inspect where ever the inspectors want...Any argument yet, T???"

The answer that Bobert is not going to pay the slightest attention to:

Only that you present the part of the story that suits your view. You cherry-pick a couple of statements and remarks made by Blix, promote their significance way out of proportion and ignore the context in which they were stated and omit what Dr Hans Blix went on to say. Let's take a look at what Dr Hans Blix actually did say Bobert:

-       "Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active."

Remember those words Bobert - IMMEDIATE; UNCONDITIONAL; ACTIVE

-       "I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

Remember IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL & ACTIVE Bobert? Date is now 27th January, 2003, UNMOVIC went into Iraq early December 2002 and Iraq is deciding "in principle" to co-operate on matters relating to process?? Not quite what was required was it Bobert. By the bye Bobert "in principle" does not equate to "in fact". And they haven't got round to deciding "in principle" to co-operating on substance - True?? That is what the good Doctor said wasn't it?? You don't have to answer that Bobert it's there in black and white, attempt to argue otherwise you only succeed in making yourself out to be a complete and utter prat.


-       "I shall deal first with cooperation on process……..Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field……. In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations…….While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request.

Dr. Blix is registering problems in relation to the co-operation that Bobert states was flawless?? Go on Bobert have a read, that is what he is saying. Access, inspections, aerial reconnaissance, "Iraq has refused…..unless a number of conditions are fulfilled" - Hey Bobert what does the requirement "UNCONDITIONAL" mean to you? What part of it do you not understand?? Blix is quite clear on it though.

-       Cooperation on substance……..The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains…………Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

So Dr. Blix is stating that there is not the level of co-operation on substance required. That UNMOVIC are not in Iraq to play games of "hide-and-seek". Not quite the picture that Bobert wants to hear about. Well he might not want to hear about it and he can deny it as much as he likes but it does not stop it from being truth, and the truth recorded in Dr Hans Blix's Report to the UN.

Did Bush say - "Screw it, invade anyway..."?? Got a reference for that Bobert, or is this just another "Bobert Fact". UNSC Resolution 1441 stipulated that there would be serious consequences for any material breach of the terms of that Resolution. I think I noted seven such material breaches on the part of Saddam's regime. President Chirac and his Foreign Minister Villeneuve completely stalled any further action on the part of the UN and the President of the United States of America acted on the best available advice from his Security Advisors and did his job - he looked to the security of the United States of America and the protection of her interests.

Oh and of course Bobert has to round it all up with the standard outburst of emotional crap:

"Tell ya what, T-bird... Next time ya'll wnat to kill a million people hows about telling the truth as to why those million people need to be killed... Don't come back afterwards and say, "Well, we had other reasons"... That don't cut it..."

But there haven't been one million people killed, and so far, Bobert, although asked to do so many, many times, hasn't been able to come up with any substantiation for this figure that he waves about like a flag. Since May 2003, the vast majority of Iraqi deaths have been the result of in-fighting between Iraqi groups and terrorist/insurgent attacks on the civilian population of Iraq. The number according to "Iraq Body Count" provides a maximum figure of 98,729 with deaths during the invasion of 10,079. Every single one of them documented, every incident recorded with details as to name of victim, cause of death and party responsible for those deaths. Bobert's million on the other hand was only ever a "Guestimate" of who might have died based on unverified batch sampling. Once again I will point out the obvious that "might have died" does not equate to "actually died".