Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:01:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Haven't found much--empty missles and whathaveyou
>
> That seems enough to me. Make no mistake, Iraq has WoMD, has had them for
> ages, and is doing everything in its power to confound the inspectors. The
> inspectors have the wrong task. Instead of nosing around looking for stuff
> they ought to be making the Iraqis prove they destroyed everything in
> accordance with what they agreed to when they signed the cease fire in 91.
>
> > And Dubya says that his 'intelligence agencies' have 'proof' that Saddam has
> > these things that the inspectors are looking for.
> >
> > So my question is why isn't this supposed info given to the inspectors?
> > Wouldn't this info be useful to the inspection team? "Hey, go down route 43
> > until you get to a side road, and off the side of the side road, you'll see
> > a brwn building--our intelligence agencies tell us that there's anthrax in
> > there--go have a look. See if we're right."
>
> They go... Leaks in their office mean the bulldozers and cleanup crews have
> time to swing into action, nothing's found at the location (SOP it seems). 1
> hour later Iraqi secret police show up at the doors of whoever could have
> given the info to the 'murricans and pop them... no more informers.
>
> Suddenly it gets a lot harder to get intelligence because all the informers
> realise they aren't going to have anonymity and aren't going to get
> protected from arbitrary waxing.
>
> Bush is right (for once, mark your calendar!) you don't just go releasing
> intelligence willy nilly if you want to get more. (read up on Enigma...
> Churchill let Conventry get firebombed to protect the secret, IIRC)
And I'm not saying release the info to Joe Schmo--give the intelligence to
people who will use it. The inspectors are trying to do a job for the UN to
make sure that whoever complied with whatever resolution--
This is like me going to my doctor, telling him I'm sick, and nothing
else--I know where I'm hurting but I won't tell the quack that--he has to
stumble around and find out for himself? It's a dumb way of doing anything.
That said, I would rather have the inspectors stumbling around in the dark
in Iraq 'cause every day they're there, it's another day where we aren't at war.
>
> Just to clear up any confusion here... This inspection thing is utterly
> laughable. If you accept the premise that it's America's duty to keep the
> world safe from tinpots, the US has plenty of justification already (e.g.
> they fire on planes enforcing a term of the cease fire they signed. QED...)
> to go pound Saddam and his 49 kids. No need for this charade, no need for
> more evidence.
>
> I just don't *accept* that premise (that we are necessarily obligated to
> save the world), so I oppose the war. But not because inspections are going
> to do any good in the long run or ought to be given more time to work or any
> of that folderol. Merely because we ought to stop shouldering the burden.
>
> Let the Kuwaitis and the Saudis do it, they created or fostered a fair bit
> of the mess. For that matter, let the French and the Germans defend Europe
> and let the South Koreans deal with their nuclear cousins, and stop giving
> any military aid to Israel or Egypt or anyone else.
So back to the 'Merican xenophobic tendancies where the rest of the world's
concerned? Wait 'til something like Pearl Harbour happens again before you
take any action outside your borders?
It's a small world, and it's getting smaller all the time.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
