At 19:02 20-09-2002 -0400, Robert Chassell wrote: > >I should point out that inspectors have *never* before been used as > >*detectives.* > >"J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Oh come on, do you really expect us to believe that? When the US > gets a chance to send some people into Iraq to inspect military > facilities (with Saddam Hussein's permission!), do you really > believe the CIA would not make use of that opportunity? > >Jeroen, your comments do not respond to John at all. Obviously, >spying has a long history. But the point that John is making is that >*legitimate* search is new. Remember, in the 1980s, Soviet troops >were posted in the United States. Their job was to keep track of the >number of trucks and other vehicles going into and out of certain US >weapons factories. However, those troops were not supposed to >investigate what was in the trucks. They could not be detectives.
It did give them an opportunity to look around, though -- just like the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Do you really believe that when those Soviet troops were sent to the US, the Soviets did NOT send a couple of KGB officers with them? > >Thus, all of these proposals for the return of inspectors are essential > >proposals to have a certain group of people carry out a task for which > >they have not been initially trained, for which they have little > >experience in, and for which they are ill-suited. > > Then give them the training and equipment they need -- it is a lot > cheaper > than waging war (it costs less money, and inspectors are less likely to > return in a body bag than soldiers). As for experience: the only way to > gain experience with inspections is by carrying out those inspections. > >The problem is that according to the Iraqi government (I recently read >a BBC translation of its statement), the Iraqi government does not >intend to give the inspectors the experience necessary. It intends to >prevent inspections as it did before, by requiring several hours air >traffic notification for helicopter travel, and by `respecting rooms >in Presidential palaces'. That does not sound all that unreasonable. Certainly those Soviet troops in the US were not exactly allowed to go everywhere either. >Obviously, there is no reason to believe either the Iraqi or the >United States government. But if both make similar statements that >increase the likelihood of war between them, then perhaps there is >something to what they say. It is all a matter of judgement: to what >extent to do you believe statements by both the US and Iraqi >governments that the Iraqi government does not intend to permit >inspections? Last I heard (sometime last week), the Iraqi government was willing to let weapons inspectors back in (albeit with certain not entirely unreasonable restrictions). The US (after first demanding just that) responded with more warmongering talk. Personally, given Bush's plans, I think the US is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. Bush has announced that the US will attack anyone and anything it suspects of supporting anti-American aggression; I seriously doubt Iraq will start sending its troops al over the world, attacking anyone and anything that supports anti-Iraq aggression. Jeroen "Bush Administration Delenda Est" van Baardwijk __________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
