Doubts mount over Iraq resolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2845311.stm
UK BENCHMARKS FOR IRAQ
Saddam must publicly acknowledge his arsenal
30 scientists must be allowed to be interviewed abroad
Stocks of anthrax and other material must be identified
Al-Samoud missiles and their engines must be destroyed
Drones must be accounted for
Mobile bio-warfare laboratories must be surrendered
No need for lengthy advance warning
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=271674&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=271674
...A few months ago, in discussions with the Americans, Israel asked for a much longer advance warning. That justifiably made the Americans jumpy: They didn't merely say no; they wanted to know the precise reasons for such a request. It's doubtful they were convinced by the explanation, and in any case, Israel withdrew the request. ...
Do I remember correctly, it was reported that 72 hours of warning would be given?
At least you guys are using smilies. That's something, I guess.
timber
snood and tres
Both of you are posting comments quite unlike all else here. This does not speak well for either of you. Please calm down and desist.
Can't find the snicker face.
ul, There has been some "official mention" of 72 hours, and such a timeperiod has considerable precedent. I would assume this time will be little different.
timber
Having come back to the US some years back after living for a long time overseas -- and having seen enormous changes in values and manners here -- I'm still trying to figure people out! So I got drawn happily into a conversation with a total stranger this afternoon. Her husband had died recently, she wanted to talk, I listened.
On the subject of Bush and Iraq, she expressed an eagerness (very common here and elsewhere) to "get in there" and "get it over with." No other considerations seemed to matter: damage, blowback, cost, risks weren't mentioned. Above all (and this surprised me, because she's a nice person) she expressed no concern whatsoever about civilian loss. In fact, Iraq as a nation consisting of people much like ourselves seemed not to have any reality for her. Is she fairly typical? I suspect she is. In spite of the easily available TV and other media, in spite of living in an free and open country, and in spite of having graduated from high school, she was hardly different from my neighbors in a third world village who had no idea what people from their neighboring country would look like -- would they have hair and feet like theirs? What would they wear? Well, come to think of it, my village neighbors were at least curious about The Other.
I told her I'd gotten rid of my TV. She was puzzled, even stunned for a moment. What do you DO? she asked. I still (after being back here for a long time now) am astonished at what I'm finding.
As I have already hashed over in some PMs, I will redouble my efforts to refrain from that kind of profitless exchange.
Tres
The point made, or at least as I took the point to be made which Tartarin quoted, dealt not with operational contingency plans but rather with scripted lines for the President. Perhaps Tartarin can clarify.
Thanks snood, and that's the way I read it blatham, patiently awaiting Tartarin's reply:
That's the way I understood it. Bush sayings appropriate for any unforeseen atrocity... or something like that.
Thanks snood ... the more folks who are part of the solution, the fewer folks who are part of the problem. And the less busy will be my inbox. :grin:
timber
timber
If it were the Pony Express delivering PMs, my room would be knee deep in horsepoop this afternoon. I thank everyone for allowing me to finally stop shovelling.
Here's another interesting dilemma for Bush. If he goes to the Security Council to get a resolution for war, and it's voted down, he can be charged with crime against humanity if he goes to war. c.i.
Tartarin, on that woman you spoke with.
In modern war, there are no civilian casualties anymore. There is "collateral damage".
In other words, we are all equal under God, but some of them are collateral.
C.I., the laws that cannot be enforced are cheaper than the paper they are printed on. Which looney will dare to demand extradition of the President of the USA to the ICC in Hague?
I'm just sharing the dilemma for Bush, not the enforceability. c.i.
I nominate myself for this disagreeable task. But Wolfowitz, Rumsfeldt and Perel shall precede him.
Let me spell it out for you; PM Blair needs the UN resolution to get British approval. Without that approval, Blair sacrifices his political career. If Bush goes for the resolution to help his friend, Blair, and the UN turns it down, Bush losses both ways. It might mean the US go it alone on Iraq. c.i.
c.i.
