Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Somebody watching the UN report ?

Somebody watching the UN report ?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
visual-studiosecurityquestion
26 Posts 9 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • K Kant

    Brit wrote: Your failure to even present the US/British case in any reasonable manner is simply a case of disparaging any arguement which is in opposition to what you have already decided. My point of view : War is the last option. :rose: I agree Saddam is evil. But UN Inspectors are working and producing the results too. After 12 years Iraq is cooperating (of course not 100%) with the inspectors. I agree they are cooperationg only when the threat of war is at them. What boggles my mind is what's harm in waiting few more months? Let the UN approve the war, instead of going solo. If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]

    D Offline
    D Offline
    David Wulff
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    Kant wrote: If that happens, UN will be in shambles If that happens, the World will be in shambles.

    David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • K KaRl

      Sometimes I wonder if France and US are not playing the good cop and the bad cop, the police usual tactic. JoeSox wrote: But the White House said Bush remained optimistic that Iraq would heed international calls to disarm, averting the need for the United States to lead an invasion. :cool:

      Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

      J Offline
      J Offline
      JoeSox
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      KaЯl wrote: Sometimes I wonder if France and US are not playing the good cop and the bad cop, the police usual tactic. Very awesome point:omg: French intel. is supposed to be the best in the world right? The USA and French has always been allies. hhhmmmmm. This makes me feel even better!!:-D Later,
      JoeSox
      www.joeswammi.com

      Load my Sig here.....

      K 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B Brit

        But, that's not the whole story. As Iraqi defector has said that the scientists are being intimidated by Iraq. The UNs own people have reported one case where a scientist was so nervous talking to inspectors that he didn't stop shaking for an hour. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_scientists030210.html[^] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/Iraq_scientists030210_Q&A.html[^] Interviews with Iraqi scientists: there have been three private interviews (one of the interviewees was a minder for other Iraqi scientists, so he is probably trusted by the Iraqis not to say anything). There have been no private interviews since those initial three. It smacks a little bit of tokenism - we'll give you those private interviews (but only with a handful of people that we trust). Iraqi defectors have talked about mobile weapons factories. While I'm generally skeptical of such reports, there have apparently been reports from four different Iraqis about their existence. The inspectors are simply unlikely to find much if Saddam has taken adequate precautions and as long as Saddam can intimidate Iraqi scientists into not talking (which he apparently is doing). So the end result is this: the US/Britain can dismiss reports that we haven't found any WMD simply as "we haven't found any". But, the French and the Germans have a lot harder time explaining why Iraqi scientists are scared to death and why Saddam is intimidating them. Your failure to even present the US/British case in any reasonable manner is simply a case of disparaging any arguement which is in opposition to what you have already decided. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

        D Offline
        D Offline
        David Wulff
        wrote on last edited by
        #23

        Just out of curiosity - and keep it confined to this one aspect, ingoring any relation with Iraq if needs be - what makes you give *any* credibility to a defector? They ran for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't give them any unless they could back it up with hard proof, and any proof should be treated with extreme caution because they are first and foremost out for number one. What do you think? :~

        David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

        B 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • D David Wulff

          Just out of curiosity - and keep it confined to this one aspect, ingoring any relation with Iraq if needs be - what makes you give *any* credibility to a defector? They ran for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't give them any unless they could back it up with hard proof, and any proof should be treated with extreme caution because they are first and foremost out for number one. What do you think? :~

          David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

          B Offline
          B Offline
          Brit
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          Well, defectors are certainly of questionable credibility. The few instances that I mentioned (i.e. mobile weapons) had four confirmations (hopefully, these confirmations occured BEFORE the US mentioned the idea otherwise they're pretty worthless). The other one regarding intimidation of Iraqi scientists by Iraq seemed to be confirmed by the UN when one of Iraq's scientists was so nervous that he was shaking for an hour. So, I'm always looking for ways to confirm what defectors said - that goes for all defectors in general: look for confirmation from other sources, look for outside evidence which supports or disproves the allegations, see if they know what they're talking about (i.e. if someone claims to be an Iraqi biological weapons scientist, see how much they actually know about biology and biological weapons), etc. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J JoeSox

            KaЯl wrote: Sometimes I wonder if France and US are not playing the good cop and the bad cop, the police usual tactic. Very awesome point:omg: French intel. is supposed to be the best in the world right? The USA and French has always been allies. hhhmmmmm. This makes me feel even better!!:-D Later,
            JoeSox
            www.joeswammi.com

            Load my Sig here.....

            K Offline
            K Offline
            KaRl
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            JoeSox wrote: French intel. is supposed to be the best in the world right? I thought it was the british one, till the "exquisitely detailed" dossier on Iraq :-D

            Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • K Kant

              Brit wrote: Your failure to even present the US/British case in any reasonable manner is simply a case of disparaging any arguement which is in opposition to what you have already decided. My point of view : War is the last option. :rose: I agree Saddam is evil. But UN Inspectors are working and producing the results too. After 12 years Iraq is cooperating (of course not 100%) with the inspectors. I agree they are cooperationg only when the threat of war is at them. What boggles my mind is what's harm in waiting few more months? Let the UN approve the war, instead of going solo. If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Michael A Barnhart
              wrote on last edited by
              #26

              Kant wrote: My point of view : War is the last option. I think most do agree with that opinion. What is at issue is when do you decide all other options are gone. Kant wrote: But UN Inspectors are working and producing the results too. To what degree? My personal opinion of all of the info I have seen the most credible evidence to justify war has come from what I read in the report. I have heard more than one inspector comment that they will not find what Iraq wishes to hide from them and that Iraq is only complying with the process not the intent. So what I hear from the inspectors is why spend the time. Now the answer to that is of course have we really used all of the options available. Kant wrote: I agree they are cooperation only when the threat of war is at them. And they are only agreeing to the process not the spirit. This lead me to question is this just a game to continue doing what they want. Lets see how far we can be disobedient. Take the missiles, yes just a little beyond the limits but is that a big deal. I say it show a deliberate attempt to not obey and test how far can they away with it. Kant wrote: What boggles my mind is what's harm in waiting few more months? On one hand nothing. On the other the "Allied Nations" can not keep their forces poised forever. Saddam appears to only be reacting to an imminent threat. Disarm it and see if the world has the resolve to come back. Kant wrote: Let the UN approve the war, instead of going solo. My number one frustration. IMO Legally the UN did approve in 1441. If France did not agree they should not have then. I wish I had a clear understanding of what and when France thinks action is justified. I do not. I can not accept an endless cycle of lets evaluate it again next month. I also agree doing it solo (or with just a few such as with the UK) would be a disaster. Kant wrote: If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. Agree strongly. What I fear is the UN is close to being a shambles now. It needs to be a forum where each side can be very honest about what it feels (like it or not) and not so much as a diplomatic play ground. Until it is very clear what is important to each side you

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              Reply
              • Reply as topic
              Log in to reply
              • Oldest to Newest
              • Newest to Oldest
              • Most Votes

              • Login
              • Don't have an account? Register
              • Login or register to search.
              • First post
                Last post
              0
              • Categories
              • Recent
              • Tags
              • Popular
              • World
              • Users
              • Groups