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 18:17:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes (after rearrangement):
> I ask because I don't know.
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 in formal terms that you have to wade
through. You, gentle readers, may find that you interpretation may vary
somewhat from mine, but it can't vary by *much*, unless you've got weasel
(or ostrich) in your family tree somewhere. It's pretty unequivocal.
> Does the resolution require the U.S. to reveal all it's information?
No. It requests assistance but does not require it and does not specify any
penalty if the US (or anyone else) doesn't help or doesn't reveal
everything. (the US has nevertheless helped, and helped lots... Blix said so.)
> Does the resolution place the burden of proof on the inspectors or on Iraq?
It is placed squarely on Iraq. It was worded that way on purpose.
Game's over. Whether further inspections might delay things is not the
issue. The issue is the conditions of the resolution for "serious
consequences" have been satisfied. Now what happens?
Repeating what I said earlier... I'm rooting for "nothing".
Why? because it takes the UN down another notch. If the US (or whoevever)
acts to enforce this resolution, that strengthens the UN, which is bad, in
my view, and strengthens the perception of the US (or whoever) as the worlds
policeman, which is worse.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
