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 18:00:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
418 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
\>Again, demeaning the point of the other side by belittling it with terms
> like 'rhetoric'--the truth is still the truth, no matter how you try to
> belittle it--Your country is in direct violation of the same resolution that
> you're holding Iraq to--how 'bout that?
Would the (alleged) US violation have any meaning without the Iraqi
(alleged) violation? Further, you didn't answer Larry's question: since you
seem to believe that Iraq is in violation, what do you believe should be
done? Feel free to add what you believe should be done to the US for its
violation if you like, but don't hide the one behind the other.
>
> >
> > And if your answer is "more inspections" you fail. The inspection phase is
> > OVER. It did its job. It found evidence of material breach. Now what?
>
> No, because the *inspectors* haven't found much. The resolution calls for
> the inspectors to go find stuff and to prove conclusively, one way or the
> other, that WoMD exist, and the US has been holding back this info that the
> inspectors could have used. Going by the US sayso isn't what the resolution
> calls for--going by what the inspectors find, is what the resolution calls for.
Does the resolution require the U.S. to reveal all it's information? Does
the resolution place the burden of proof on the inspectors or on Iraq? I
ask because I don't know. But yes, if we want to operate under a UN
sanction, we must follow the rules of it, or otherwise we'll never get the
spineless to go along (witness the current game).
>
> Now when such evidence is found, then the *United Nations* should, and will,
> decide what to do--a united decision from all parties concerned.
It would be *wiser* for the United States to present a convincing argument
that even the cowardliest and most weasel-like nation could not avoid.
Otherwise the UN will dodge actually doing something with great determination.
I must note why we are bothering with this, right or wrong, is beyond me.
If the world is too gutless to do anything about Saddam, I don't see why it
should be our problem. The link to anti-US terrorism is the only one that
I'm concerned with, and on that count, I am *not* convinced. As to "weapons
of mass destruction", that's the problem of Iraq's oil-pumping neighbors and
those who depend on that oil.
>
> And the message from John--once again the arrogant 'US above all' comes thru
> loud and clear. What makes you think that an American life is worth more to
> the world than, say, a person from Madagascar? What gives you the right to
> flaunt international law and convention as you see fit? It just boils down
> to bullying.
I suppose you meant flout, not flaunt. Interesting selectivity on who you
call a bully, especially in defense of Iraq. Rather ironic. Scratch that:
*extremely* ironic.
>
> It's an interesting state of affairs when I'm on the same team as Scott ;)
And that doesn't send you alarm bells that perhaps you may wish to rethink
your position? :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
