 | | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Leak it to the inspectors, yes. Leak it to the general media, prob'ly not. (...) How 'bout a coherent foreign policy--one that does not overlook the atrocities of some nations 'cause they're buddy buddy with the oil tycoons but comes down hard (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Neither. Leak it to the Iraqis. Do you really think the inspection team is free of Iraqi sympathisers? Why do you think the satellite photos show the Iraqis consistently busily bulldozing stuff the day before the inspection team arrives? You (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Well, I think trusting the Bush Blair duo is equally naive--"Oh we have photos of the Iraqis moving stuff the day before the inspection teams arrive!" I've been reading CNN during the slow times at work today and it's the same old stuff--it's (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Like I said, it's leaked. The US decided to present it anyway. From commentary on today's presentation by Powell: (URL) ... it's true that there was no single moment like that (Adlai Stevenson smoking gun): rather, there were several of them. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) My point was, as some folks pointed out in rebuttal to Powell's presentation, is that the US should turn over info to the inspectors. Yes the Iraqis should do more to accomodate the inspection process, but just by showing us that the US had (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) No, sorry, don't buy it. We do not have an obligation to turn over intelligence to the UN if that intelligence is going to be immediately leaked to the Iraqis and if, further, doing so is going to compromise the sources (remember what that (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'm not sure of the exact section (think 10) of 1441 paraphrased -- any country with info of WoMD must turn over that info to the inspectors for confirmation... I'd say that's (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I think Bush will be quite happy to see Saddam ousted from within. He also may be amenable to seeing him accept voluntary exile. But Bush has decided for whatever reason that he wants Saddam gone, and has no problem with the war route (ah, for (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) My point, parenthetical to be sure, is that "Oh we'll uphold a document written a long time ago--every jot and tittle--but a UN sanction (the US being one of the founding members of (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I think whatever point you may have had in mind was lost in your wording. If you wish to speak of people in the US dieing because of a 200+ year old internal document, you have left the arena of international law and diplomacy. Be that as it (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) The credibility of the UN is being destroyed by the rhetoric from Bush/Blair. (...) I agree. I'd have given more credence to Powell's little performance if Jr had not been itching bomb Iraq for most of his “presidency”. Did Powell show the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Seriously, are you really that obtuse? Do you really think the US *wants* war??? We want 1) prove that Iraq has been disarmed of WOMD, and 2) Saddam deposed. That's *all*. Unfortunately, it will probably take war to accomplish that. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) The last round of inspections were not without their "problems". Despite that, the achievements are still remarkable. Some highlights: 1. Removal of significant amounts of weapons usable nuclear material. 2. Accounted for 817 of 819 missiles (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
I snipped a BUSHEL of irrelevant misdirection. This is a question about 1441, not the US second amendment or anything else (...) OK, then, David. Stripped of all the other non topical stuff in your post, you concede that Iraq is in material breach (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Since rants often go on tangential tirades, well, sorry 'bout that. But I wouldn't call it 'misdirection', I'd call it 'selective reading' on the part of the US. (...) And now that Powell has conclusively proven that the US is in breach of (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
More misdirection. Herewith is a link to 1441 (one of many out there) full text. Go read it. (URL) resolution REQUESTS assistance from member states in providing info on Iraq's non compliance. It makes no statement about what happens if they decline (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Welcome to the moral high group; it's more crowded than you think. ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) It did its job? Was its "job" to find evidence of material breach [and so allow the war to start] or disarm iraq and avoid war? I know what I'd like it to do. Scott A (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | International Law and Enforcement
|
|
(...) This is a real interesting question to me. How do we extend the concepts of law in the US to the rest of the world? If we say that no non-US citizen has the right to enforce anything on us, then we similarly have no right to enforce anything (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Let's face facts; the US has an appalling record when it comes to respecting UN resolutions. [I see nothing that makes me think that's about to change.] Because of that, and other issues, a lot of countries [and their populations [even the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Of course we look out for our own interests-- anyone who claims they don't look out for theirs as well is a liar. (...) I don't recall making that assertion (because I didn't). (...) Because "international law" doesn't respect freedom and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: \>Again, demeaning the point of the other side by belittling it with terms (...) Would the (alleged) US violation have any meaning without the Iraqi (alleged) violation? Further, you didn't answer (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes (after rearrangement): (...) I have given a link to it elsewhere in the thread... As with any text, it's subject to interpretation, and as with any resolution of a deliberative body, it's couched (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Thanks for the link - I was curious as to what it actually said. Reading through it, no, we aren't in breach of it as far as I can tell, and all that we need prove is that Iraq is dragging its feet in any way. I understand many nations want (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I prefer the term "role model" (...) Do you think the world should respect the "freedom and liberty" of terrorists the way the US has treated Orlando Bosch: (URL) to the justice department in George Bush Sr's administration, Bosch had (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I like to be shown that I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not so bogged down in my zeal to be right that I can actually say, "Well, I'm wrong--let's figure out what right actually is..." (...) Asked *and* answered--it's up to the UN to decide what (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) This is absolutely correct (at least from the legalistic viewpoint). If the UN is to have any credibility, it must enforce its sanctions. If its sanctions are worthless, then the UN loses stature and encourages unilateral action. What the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) In my honest opinion--no--which is sad. But any force that invades Iraq should be under a mandate by a united coalition, not by the US. My prayers, however, are for peace. Dave K (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Okay, I was just trying to force a reality check. Perhaps there is some other avenue open rather than war. (...) I don't see why it would be to the United States' advantage to have it any other way. This threatened unilateral action is a load (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Oooh, pistols at 10 paces! That'd be great. Maybe jousting--Bush in a suit of armour would be an interesting picture. Possible way of resolving all future issues--let the leaders (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
