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 19:03:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
428 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
This is absolutely correct (at least from the legalistic viewpoint). If the
UN is to have any credibility, it must enforce its sanctions. If its
sanctions are worthless, then the UN loses stature and encourages unilateral
action. What the consequenses are should be up to the UN, and therein lies
the game. Real consequences? Face-saving consequences for the spineless?
Therein lies the skill and credibility of the various parties involved (Bush
gets none in my opinion for threatening unilateral action).
>
> 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?
Some really do, some are just gutless and spineless, some are opportunistic.
It doesn't really matter. It's a UN sanction, and the US needs to play the
game by the UN rules, which means they have to get the footdraggers (rightly
or wrongly) to agree on the action.
>
> 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.
The "not-proven" part is not a tangent, at least not to me. I agree, the
link has not been proven, so I see no need for unilateral action. Let me
note that if Osama was in Iraq, then the UN can lead, follow, or get out of
the way.
>
> 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 UN sanctioned war with North Korea hasn't ended, it's only in an
extended ceasefire. Perhaps this is something the UN should be taking
leadership on?
>
> 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.
Ummmm, you haven't been paying attention to current rhetoric aimed at North
Korea, have you?
>
> "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.
I think he is speaking of the (highly) alleged terrorist link. If it was
true, then that's fine. But that isn't part of a persnickety UN sanction,
that's part of convincing the people of America, and I ain't convinced.
>
> 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.
Then the UN had best get a move on, and head Dubya off at the pass.
>
> 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?
In regards to the UN sanction, 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?
Do you truly, realistically believe the latter can be accomplished?
-->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
|
|
|
|
