From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The right to know: (was CNN morons.) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:16:36 +0100
Jon Gabriel wrote:
> >From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: The right to know: (was CNN morons.)
> >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:41:38 -0600
> >
> >At 10:29 AM 3/25/03 +0100, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> >>Maybe if we bring some
> >>of the horror that our ancestors must have felt whenever they had to fight
> >>for
> >>their lives we might be a little less likely/gullible to go for the all
> >>out war
> >>option when there is still some hope for a peacefull resolution.
> >
> >
> >Taking into account the way the Iraqi regime was treating its own people,
> >what scenario would have led to a peaceful resolution?
> >
>
> Apparently not UN sanctions, resolutions, condemnation, inspections or
> passivity. We have 12 years of precedent that pretty much show beyond doubt
> that wouldn't have been effective.
Yet at the first sign of any progress the US sends in the troops.
I personally fail to see how repeated attempts made by Iraq to manipulate the UN and UNSCOM inspectors over a 12 year period can be considered 'progress'.
U.N. resolutions dictated that the sanctions could not be lifted until U.N. inspectors reported Iraq had surrendered all WMD's. If Iraq wanted peace, they could have allowed the inspections to proceed unhindered from the beginning. Why wasn't this done? In your opinion, how much more time should Iraq have been given? Months? Years? Decades? Is it not unreasonable to expect that after 12 years some clear and unambiguious answers and cooperation should be _immediately_ forthcoming when requested?
Examples of how Iraq has tried to hinder progress: December 1998, Saddam Hussein threw out UNSCOM inspectors. US and British airstrikes were launched against Baghdad as a result. Inspections resumed last year only under extreme pressure and threat of military action and war from the US and Britain. Documents provided to the UN by Iraq in 2002 contained false and/or misleading information and did not fully disclose Iraq's offensive status. (ex: the Al-Samoud missiles.) Iraq was _required_ to disclose their presence to the UN. This was never ambiguous and/or open to interpretation. Additional materials, such as VX chemicals used in WMD's have never been completely accounted for in the past 12 years.
Just keeping up the pressure would have helped a lot.
How? Threatening pressure with no force to back it up is meaningless. After France made a statement which essentially said that nothing Iraq did would result in military action -- that it would veto any attempt made to militarily enforce the UN resolutions, why should Iraq take any pressure seriously? And, if the UN is now unwilling or unable to enforce its resolutions, then why did we bother to replace the League of Nations?
I'm reminded of a comment once made by Robin Williams: "In England if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun. So it's: "STOP! Or I'll say 'stop' again!" :)
I would also like to mention that until a very clear threat of military action was made in the form of troops amassed on the Kuwaiti/Iraq border Hussein kept playing games with the UN and UNSCOM.
But so would not selling arms to the region in the past have. Unfortunatly neither would have been especially rewarding.
Yep. I agree with you completely. Russia and the US should not have done so. The difference here is that the US foolishly and shortsightedly did so to support an Iraqi war against Iran and it is beginning to become apparent that Russia may have done so quite recently in violation of sanctions put in place by the UN and the opinion of the global majority. We'll see.
Am unsure if evidence has been found of French or German armaments in Iraqi possession. Does anyone know?
And call me paranoid but seen the financial state the US currently is
in, they really need to get some revenue. So while I listen to all those
financially potentially desastrous plans the Bush government cooks up, it can't
help but feel as if the government is already spending money they plan to get
from something much like the winning number of a lotery ticket.
Please be clear what you mean by this statement. Are you referring to possible ulterior motives by the US for war?
On a domestic level, many people here are concerned about our current recession as well. I personally suspect that the domestic economy will become *the* major campaign issue for 2004. IMO, if the mantra and slogan for the current administration doesn't become "It's the Economy, Stupid" next year, then we may be looking at a repeat of the 1992 elections.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
