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 18:23:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> More misdirection.
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..."
> 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...
>
> The US has provided some info.. lots in fact. Just not such info that would,
> when immediately leaked, result in compromising (read, killing) sources.
>
> It DEMANDS Iraqi compliance with previous resolutions, notes that Iraq was
> already in material breach, and gives it one last chance to fix things up.
>
> The report is in. It's over. Iraq failed. What now, are the serious
> consequences?
>
> Answer the question.
Asked *and* answered--it's up to the UN to decide what the 'serious
consequenses' will be. After all, it was a UN resolution in the first place
that started this, so why wouldn't the UN follow thru.
Now let us look at this as a possible issue--
The US has ulterior motives.
It hasn't helped the inspection process until the rest of the world
basically got on its case and asked for the 'proof' the US claimed it had
*or* the US, wanting to get more folks on-side to their war effort,
'compromised' its intelligence by giving a very good presentation via
Powell. Still, though, whichever way you cut it, if you're right, why do so
many countries disagree? Why do so many countries want to find a united
solution to this problem?
The US tried to tie Iraq to Osama to show that their 'war on terror'
logically led them to Saddam. Not proven at all in any way, yet alone
concretely. Allusions to people receiving medical care and training
camps--'the enemy of my enemy is my ally'? Fundamentalist extemists don't
ally themselves with *anyone* unless they are on the same page as
themselves. But that's a tangent, I'll admit.
N korea has, or soon will have, the ability and whereforall to send nucs
almost anywhere. They are building up and testing deployment packages and
yet basically ignored by the US. Iraq has the ability to send weapons of
less destruction 150 to 500 miles outside their border. Which one is
threatening the US more at this time?
The difference? Oil? And who's in charge of the US at this particular
time? Oil barons? And whose papa was part of the team that sold these WoMD
to the Iraqis in the first place? K, well, hypocrites.
"We shall take such steps that are necessary to defend our country." Iraq
isn't threatening the US at this time, nor can Iraq threaten the United
States--Rather, it is the US that is threatening Iraq. I don't have to go
into who attacked you--you know who did--this tangent on your "war on
terror" is a sham and what's more, you know it. You know it 'cause you
haven't actually invaded Iraq yet--if it were a legitimate target, you'd
have gone in already.
The US is using, and not helping 1441, as a pretext to invasion pure and
simple. When the rest of the world is trying to find a peaceful solution,
the US is 'chomping at the bit' to invade, building up the military in the
region and 'daring' Saddam to do something wrong.
I'm 'on-side' with a military intervention *should one be required*, as are
the other countries listed earlier. Who decides that? Again I ask the
question that you haven't answered yet--who decides? The US? Or the UN?
When Iraq is foound in breach of 1441, should the US invade? Should there
be a resolution from the UN stating that war is imminent? Or should there
be a resolution laying out a way to go in and peacably disarm Iraq?
I know what my answer is.
>
> > It's an interesting state of affairs when I'm on the same team as Scott ;)
>
> If I were you I'd be worried about that. It's usually a sign that your
> reasoning or argument isn't sound. As in this case.
I worry about many many things, but my ethical and moral reasoning are
probably well down on my list of things I stay up nights thinking about.
Not to say I don't think about my morals and how I can be a better person--I
do these things. I'm always looking for ways to improve myself. I know I'm
not perfect and I like to thing I'm not tied down to some dogma of
righteousness that can keep me from seeing a bigger picture.
Rather, folks who believe in 'war, not peace', and 'guns, not lend-a-hand'
are probably the folks that cause me the most concern.
The US, at this time, is acting 'righteous', but it isn't right.
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
