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 18:19:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
386 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> More misdirection.
>
> Herewith is a link to 1441 (one of many out there) full text. Go read it.
>
> http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/11/02-11-08.shtml
>
> The resolution REQUESTS assistance from member states in providing info on
> Iraq's non compliance. It makes no statement about what happens if they
> decline to do so...
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 more and I won't fault them for it (after all, this is
Bush, for heaven's sake), but they should have written it up differently,
then. It specifically refers to the ceasefire only being in effect if Iraq
is in full compliance (which means no hiding anything, full disclosure, no
moving stuff, etc.). Proof of weapons of mass destruction are not required,
only the proof that stuff has hidden or moved. It could be the phone number
for Saddam's mistress. Doesn't matter: Iraq is in violation.
Of course, why bother with Iraq if the UN is so spineless it won't enforce
its own resolutions? Further, why go it alone? I think these are more
important questions (at least to the US).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
