lördag 13 februari 2010

Hans Blix kritiserar Irakkriget i samband med Chilcotkommittén

Hans Blix var med i ABC News (2010-02-09) och diskuterade Irakkriget i samband med Chilcotkommittén. Han gav intressanta och kritiska reflektioner kring Blairs försvar av kriget:
"LEIGH SALES: At the Chilcot Inquiry the former British prime minister Tony Blair said that it wasn't enough to ask the 2003 question; that people should ask the 2010 question which is: What would the situation be now if the US and its allies hadn't invaded Iraq?

What do you think?

HANS BLIX: Well I think that is this kind of defence of the Iraq war that they have thought out afterwards.

Before they went there they contended with no hesitation whatever that there were weapons of mass destruction and that they were in an imminent danger and that they had to go there.

If they had gone to the British Parliament and said that, well maybe there aren't weapons but he might reconstitute them, I don't think they'd have got an authorisation from the Parliament.

Nor do I think that the American Congress would have authorised the Americans.

So I think this is a defence that has been construed afterwards.

And moreover in substance I think it is doubtful that the Iraqis could have reconstituted the weapons. In 2003 Iraq was down on its knees and the UN system foresaw that there would be continued monitoring in the future. So if the Iraqis had allowed themselves to do anything the inspectors would have been able to report that."
Rekommenderar att ni ser hela videon från ABC News, eftersom Blix fortsätter att grusa Blairs och USA:s försvar.

Pingat på intressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , , , , ,

2 kommentarer:

Ruben sa...

Slavoj Zizek har skrivit Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle som kommenterar argumentationen runt skälen att invadera Irak.

"In order to render the strange logic of dreams, Freud quoted the old joke about the borrowed kettle: (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you, (2) I returned it to you unbroken, (3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. Such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments, of course, confirms exactly what it endeavors to deny — that I returned a broken kettle to you...

That same inconsistency, Zizek argues, characterized the justification of the attack on Iraq, whereby a link between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda was transformed into the threat posed by the regime to the region, which was then further transformed into the threat posed to everyone (but the U.S. and Britain especially) by weapons of mass destruction. When no significant weapons were found, we were treated to the same bizarre logic: OK, the two labs we found don't really prove anything, but even if there are no WMD in Iraq, there are other good reasons to topple a tyrant like Saddam... "

Argumentet är egentligen att det finns för många skäl till att invadera Irak.

Ruben sa...

Länken funkade inte så bra. Testar denna.

Blogger Theme by BloggerThemes Design by