To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 18850
18849  |  18851
Subject: 
Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:46:27 GMT
Viewed: 
315 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:

<snip>

So we want the Iraqis to comply, but the US is flagrantly disregarding 1441.
Now I understand the reasons the US thinks it has to defy the resolution,
but it just seems to me as vaguely hypocritical.

This is laughable. Really. WE are FLAGRANTLY disregarding the resolution?
You've got to be kidding me.

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 pretty specific...  And when I kid, I usually put a ;) after it.


They're inspectors, not detectives. The obligation is on the *Iraqis* to
come clean, to open up, to PROVE they've disarmed. NOT on the inspectors to
prove they didn't. It so happens that this proves, again, the Iraqis didn't.
Just like Blix's report proved the Iraqis didn't. (and umpteen before them too)

Again, agreed--Iraq is no angel at all, and I have no doubt about the trucks
carrying stuff to make biological/chemical weapons that Powell laid out in
his presentation.  I have no doubt about the plants that were cleared out
before the inspectors got there, and I have no difficulty with the idea that
we may need force to get these WoMD out of the country

What I do have a problem with is,, contrary to your ideas of the
intelligence agency and what may happen, is that you give the info to those
that need it--the inspectors need it.  Yes they need more co-operation from
Iraq--I'll never whitewash that...

What I (and so many others) could read into this is--

America wants the war over and above any way of obtaining a peaceful resolution.

They don't want to give the inspectors more time

They don't want to give the inspectors info that'll help the inspectors find
and eliminate WoMD, so we can 'find a smoking gun' therefore opening the
door to invasion.


Apparently the US needs to rub the world's nose in it over and over before
certain apologists admit the truth. The UN is worthless. The leadership of
France and Germany are apparently also worthless. This just proves it yet again.

Some may think the UN is worthless--I was once told to hold a dollar bill in
my hand--what makes it worth a dollar?  It's not gold--it's just a piece of
paper.  One time in 'ancient history' the bill was directly equated to gold,
but now it's a collective agreement, a collective support, that makes the
dollar worth one buck.

The UN will have power if we support the UN, if we support their authority.
I'd rather have a *United* agreement on what to do than to have *one*
country unilaterally drag the rest of the world into a conflict that could
have been resolved peacably.

Furthermore, since I'm on a rant, whilst the inspectors are doing their job
they are interfering with whatever ulterior plans that Saddam may have.
While the inspectors are going from one side of the country to another, and
in doing so, these locations of production are being set up and torn down,
that will slow them down.  Now if there's a war, Saddam can do whatever he
pleases under *no* scrutiny.  Again, me thinks that peace will be a better
outcome for all involved.

But a country that throws out Kioto, ideas about international Courts, and
other things, and yet holds up some piece of paper written in 1776 as a
higher authority when today in their very streets people are dieing because
of it... then I quite understand the narrow scope of judgement that
Americans hold.

Hey FBI guys, come spy on me for a while--I'll make you some nice lemon tea
for your time sitting out there in your car.

/rant over ;)

Dave K



Message has 3 Replies:
  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 (...) (22 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. (...) (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR