cicerone imposter wrote:McG, UN Resolutions are in most cases not enforced by military intervention. If that were so, the US and Israel will have been bombed to smithereens. We can't use one resolution against Iraq and ignore all others. They are all enforceable or all the others are of quesitonable value to the world community. c.i.
That's one reason the UN is somewhat irrelevant.
Also, I believe that 1441 also refers to all the previous resolution that lead up to it. I don't know for sure, but it would seem to me that SOME resolutions ARE enforced militarily and that not for the US's protection, Israel would indeed have been blown to Smithereens. One nice thing of having the biggest stick in town is that most people know not to mess with you.
NIMH -- I don't know how much of a chance you get to listen to US right-wing talk radio in your neck of the woods -- or polders -- but McG's general/specific bouncing style of argument is much in vogue there. Whether one calls it bait-and-switch or whatever, its purposes seem to be to obscure the fact that the arguer rests his case on a slim reed. In the cases of Rush Limbaugh, the argument often goes like this (and I'm remember a specific argument he once put forth which so stunned me that I took notes on it):
It's possible Hillary found the incriminating papers she'd been trying to hide on a table in the other room...
Now I'm not saying that the papers are incriminating, nor that she was the one who found them. I don't want anyone coming back at me accusing me of stating that the papers are incriminating, NOR that I said she found them herself specifically...
But we all know that she's the sort of person who would get herself into this kind of mess, I think we all agree... This is a woman who WOULD hide incriminating evidence... etc. etc....
Since Hillary finally turned over the incriminating papers, I think we can say that she should rightly be indicted for a felony...
Of course, the Democrats will say she didn't find the papers and they weren't incriminating and that we're just out to get her...
The UN is irrelevant...
I think the Boy Scouts are irrelevant because even though they have all this good stuff and rules and stuff, they still behave like little snots sometimes at home. Same with going to church, reading the Bible. I mean it doesn't keep people from behaving like sh*ts when they want to.
McG, I think probably partly because it's not my President and not my Secretary of State, I have a bit of a different take on that. Also because I dont have the same automatic trust in my (or anyone's) country's authorities as you have. One thing that strengthens me in my lack of a priori trust is that they often themselves disagree.
If the American president and the British PM and the Australian whatever-it-is-they-have say war is necessary right now, because Saddam might any moment pass on WMD to terrorrists who are going to use them to attack the West -- but the German, French, Finnish, Austrian, Greek, Belgian, etc presidents and PMs, the UN Secretary-General and the weapon inspectors themselves all say such immediate threat is not proven at all, and therefore continued inspections rather than war are the answer - well, then I can't easily say, like you do, I'd better trust the authorities on the matter, because which of these two groups are the authorities that I can assume to know best?
Which leaves me to make my own conlusions, in the end ... and, as you'll have gathered, they are different from yours. No offence ;-).
And to reach those conclusions, I use any material I find ... and considering the immense attention, media reporting and A2K mentions those two mobile lab trucks thingies have attracted, I think this particular news flash below is salient. I am also interested in hearing from y'all whether this story is being picked up on, or how, in your countries.
Quote:Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds
Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer
An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'
The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq.
[..]
The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.
See
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html
This president is now grasping at straws, because everybody in the world, including many republicans, are questioning the "justifications for war." I hope this is the beginning of the end of this administration and war mongers. c.i.
Well, my Prime Minister is being awful quiet about the weapons - remember Australia? We went to Iraq too - against the will of the majority of the country, if polls tell us anything. Like I said, my PM is being awful quiet...
Well, Bush simply turned around and said, Hey, I meant they had a weapons PROGRAM...
Dlowan, perhaps your PM took it on trust about the reasons for war, and is now speechless from the incomprehensible scope of what has been done on the basis of lies and willful misrepresentation.
With any luck (for the rest of us over here, stuck with the oligarch) the two PM's will decide to sing.
Nah - I mean, he might be - I doubt he was entrusted with much US intelligence - but I think he probably supported the war for other reasons - some of them strategic for Australia - ie Indonesia is looking pretty shaky and sadly developing a more and more and larger and larger fundamentalist Islamic "fringe" , the region is looking more dangerous - if we come to some of your wars, maybe you might be inclined to honour your treaties with us if we get in trouble, that sort of thing.
That last post was in response to Setanta, BTW.
I was just being silly and ironic, Cunning Coney. Yes, i'd say you are correct in your estimation. A Canadian has said to me that once in office, parliamentary government of their type is largely unanswerable. Would you say that is the case in Oztralia?
I am not sure what "unanswerable" means in this context.
Well, i've not expressed it well. I believe the individual said that the goverment can do pretty well whatever they want to do after being elected, and are only restrained by the desire to avoid a vote of no confidence, and the need to spruce up the party image before the statutory expiration of the government. This isn't intended as an invidious comparison, the same can be said of our government between congressional elections--even in the mid-term, the government is less likely to feel constrained, but rather is eager to put a positive spin on adminstration actions.
OIC. Yes - they can certainly do as they please within limits - I guess in this case they - or at least the PM and a large number of the parliamentary Liberal Party - felt that they were right, and that the public would go with them once war started - which seemed to happen pretty much, as it did in Britain - or that we would have forgotten by the next election - or both.
I have been pretty much off the air for the last month, but I have not picked up signs of the backlash being suffered by Blair. If I am right, I wonder if it could be partly because we lost no personnel? Well, unless you count a cameraman.
I must say, though, that I think the extent of the opposition to the war DID rock the PM.
Blair is getting some heat now. Are there no questions raised about your government's actions? Do you think this will be an issue when people go to the polls?
Not particularly Setanta. The ruling party here 'stage-managed' a couple of incidents involving refugees/illegals/boatpeople to whip up support for them in the last election. It shouldn't be too hard to find another threat from 'out there' (ie Asia; Australians don't like Asians very much, or Indigenous Australians, or Islanders....) to break just in time for the next election.
Ain't tv a wunnerful thing, Boss?
