Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (119154)	11/11/2003 11:06:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Seems to be a size limitation to posts. Here's part 1 to my response to your Part 3: That wasn't what I heard in England. Blair is being accused as much or more than Bush was for spinning the truth and rigging the intelligence estimate. Yeah.. overall estimate maybe, given the plagiarism controversy related to the MIIS analysis. But I have YET to see MI-6, or MI-5 for that matter, altering their analysis of their Niger information.. Thus, with regard to Bush's SOTU speech, he cannot be accused of having been dishonest since he was merely quoting British intelligence (and directly stated as such) and not the CIA. He CAN be rightly criticized for citing foreign intelligence sources in his speech, but given the cooperation between US/UK intelligence agencies (such as NSA/GCHQ), it's questionable whether that point is valid. But what is discernible is that there is politicization within US intelligence circles and oversight committees. This is certainly evident with the blatant attempt to use intelligence to political advantage by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (and he should be heavily censured for this). A few months ago. There was a survey of Brits where 60% thought Blair should resign. And that would be a shame. Tony Blair is one of the more eloquent and persuasive leaders the UK has had since Maggie Thatcher. I don't always agree with his politics, but I definitely agree with his foreign policy.

To: jttmab who wrote (119154)	11/11/2003 11:07:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Part 2: The conservative party leader at the time, Ian Duncan Smith, was quite vocal about Blair lying. And who wound up resigning in the end? The US was quite clear that we were not welcomed when UNMOVIC did exist and the US was not interested in extending the life of UNMOVIC. Who's the "we" your are referring to? And no.. the US was not interested in creating another open-ended "inspection" program that found itself constanting embarking on "sneak and peak" surprise "inspections" which were really investigations. It was clear that, from it's inception, the UNSCOM inspection process was suppose to merely affirm, account for, and oversee the destruction of, Iraq's WMDs and long range missiles. The minute the UN permitted the inspection process to become a game of Iraqi "hide and seek", the UNSC resolutions had been violated and the Iraqi "tail" was now wagging the UN "dog".. The entire process had lost credibility.

To: jttmab who wrote (119154)	11/11/2003 11:07:42 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Part 3: There was a UNSC mandate for Iraq to FULLY ACCOUNT for its WMD/missile programs and inventories. There was a requirement to never recommence either again. Failing to comply with either conditions would violate the principle of restoring international peace and international stability, as called for in UNSC 678. And with a material breach of those UNSC conditions, the situation would naturally "default" back to the previous existing UNSC resolutions "all necessary means" contained in UNSC 678, which removed any UN prohibition related to using force to enforce its binding resolutions. When the discrepancy of 6,000 chemical warheads brought "inspections" to a halt in July, 1998, the UNSCOM and UNSC demanded that Iraq provide the document (which the "minder" had confiscated from the inspection team), as well as fully accounting for the disposition of those 6,000 warheads. The disposition of those 6,000 weapons HAS NEVER BEEN ACOUNTED FOR. And "losing" 6,000 weapons is more than just an "oversight". So when UNSC 1441 was passed, 15-0, by the UNSC and declared Iraq in material breach, Iraq was obligated to resolve those material breaches, including accounting for those 6,000 warheads and was provide 90 days to come into compliance. That's all they had to do.. account for those weapons and FULLY cooperate with the UNMOVIC inspection team (not make them have to "hunt them down").. So after 90 days passed, there was NO AUTHORIZATION for UNMOVIC to continue existing. If Iraq continued to be in material breach, severe consequences would result, not a perpetual continuation of the "hide and seek" game.. any measure UNSCOM/UNMOVIC was far more successful in finding shit, then the US is. And herein lies the problem with perspectives such as yours. You "lay down the law" to Saddam to reveal everything, and then provide more than ample "wiggle room" for him to thumb his nose at the UN (not just the US) and turn the inspection process into an utter farce. UNSCOM/UNMOVIC's responsibilities were NOT to "find things"... That's not an inspection.. It's called an investigation. Hawk