tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post109880404611464840..comments2023-11-06T01:56:43.668+14:00Comments on Sandcastles and Cubicles: Yesterday I saidUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098891323462388862004-10-28T05:35:00.000+14:002004-10-28T05:35:00.000+14:00intresting.
i should really do more research befo...intresting.<br /><br />i should really do more research before i step on the limb and try to be a partisan hack, it would make my hacking actually worth while.<br /><br />of course the UN did not destory it, because they were not allowed to (for what ever reason), which in itself is part of the problem.<br /><br />Can the new york sun be trusted? I tend not to trust any newpaper with SUN in its name.Man of Issacharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01286646646103516828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098890065145176202004-10-28T05:14:00.000+14:002004-10-28T05:14:00.000+14:00You may have a better point than I originally thou...You may have a better point than I originally thought Cube. Charles Duelfer <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysun.com%2Farticle%2F3826">asked the U.N. to destroy these explosive</A> back in 1995.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098887192781288972004-10-28T04:26:00.000+14:002004-10-28T04:26:00.000+14:00"The US invaded Iraq illegally, as far as the UN w..."The US invaded Iraq illegally, as far as the UN was concerned. "<br /><br />have you read resolution 1441?<br /><br />If you have not, you should, because that is what you just brought up. Here is the link.<br />http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm<br /><br />The matter of it being an leagal or illeagal invasion is in dispute. I frimly belive that it was a leagal invasion, and we can aruge that all day long. That argument does have bearing on this discussion, but will remain unresolved, so i will not continute it further.<br /><br />"So when the US informed the UN that they were invading, the UN took necessary precautions for the safety of its staff and did nothing more"<br /><br />If i remember correctly, one of their envoys was killed , I am now assuming by the weapons or type of weapons that went missing did that killing. <br /><br />What if the weapons they were gaurding ended up killing one of their own? It would appear to me that they did not take all long term "necessary precautions for the safety of its staff".<br /><br />"There are regulations that dictate what the UN can and cannot do. The US has a strong voice in determining these regulations, so complaining about them is no use. "<br /><br />I have a strong voice in what my state does, but i do not control it. IS complaining about it no use? What about at my job? I don't control what the bosses do, should i not complain about it? What about at my apartment complex? i don't control what they do, should i complain about it?<br /><br />Because the US has a strong voice i should attempt to complain about areas that the UN has failed in. <br /><br />Saddam getting the explosives in the frist place is one of they things i am suggesting was a bad idea. Another idea i am suggestings is a bad idea, is just leaving the explosives unguarded. <br /><br />Of couse i am placing blame also, which no one is disputing that it is the UN's fault that Saddam had the explovies, and no one is disputing that the UN had the responsbilty to gaurd they explovise materail. <br /><br /><br />"In this case, the UN was following the regulations as determined by its constituent members, leaving the US no room to complain."<br /><br />Maybe everyone else is wrong, and it is about time the US started complaining. Secondly, they US did a little more than just complain, we actually just attacked and ened any arguemnt right there.<br /><br />American soilders are now dying in Iraq, because Saddam was allowed to have major explovise material, then that explovise materail was left ungaurded, and then america was not able to be secured in time.<br /><br />It seems to me that the UN's own rules, regualtions, and member irrsponsiblity are the one of the reasons explosives are killing Iraqies and americans alike.<br /><br />The other reanson is failure of America to secure the explovives. I am just pointing out that if the UN would have done its job (secure the explovise materail) we would not even be talking about the materail)<br /><br />Maybe some one should complain about that, but you know then again what is the use, right?Man of Issacharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01286646646103516828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098851436125535362004-10-27T18:30:00.000+14:002004-10-27T18:30:00.000+14:00Dave,
That's the best argument I've seen you make...Dave,<br /><br />That's the best argument I've seen you make. Simple, straightforward, and informative. Nice. Surpising POV, too. :)<br /><br />cube,<br /><br />The US invaded Iraq illegally, as far as the UN was concerned. That certainly didn't put them in the position of "helping their allies", because in this conflict, they took no alliances. Although the US holds higher status, the state of Iraq (Hussein's or not) is just as much an ally of the UN as any other member. <br /><br />So when the US informed the UN that they were invading, the UN took necessary precautions for the safety of its staff and did nothing more. Were they to do any more, they would be overstepping their bounds as a neutral party in this engagement.<br /><br />There are regulations that dictate what the UN can and cannot do. The US has a strong voice in determining these regulations, so complaining about them is no use. In this case, the UN was following the regulations as determined by its constituent members, leaving the US no room to complain. Which, of course, is why the administration isn't running with your argument itself.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630008489920013400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098846584553288192004-10-27T17:09:00.000+14:002004-10-27T17:09:00.000+14:00"Obviously the U.N. would be unable to keep a watc..."Obviously the U.N. would be unable to keep a watch on these explosives during our invasion."<br /><br />That is ture, but they could have removed the explovises, blown up the explovies, or even bought the explovies. Instead the UN just left the shit there, unmonitored by anyone. They took the pussy, passive, and wholy unresponsible way out of the situation.<br /><br /><br />"Obviously we could not monitor this site (other than remotely) until AFTER we had invaded and taken custody of the site."<br /><br />And even then if we got there, we might have over looked stuff because our men are not weapons inspectros (not that the IAEA's inspectors were that great to begin with)Man of Issacharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01286646646103516828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098838713594452112004-10-27T14:58:00.000+14:002004-10-27T14:58:00.000+14:00You could argue I guess that Saddam Hussein's regi...You could argue I guess that Saddam Hussein's regime should have been banned from possessing all weapons after the 1991 Gulf War. This is obviously not what happened and would be something he would never accept. Many have said we should have finished the job then, I am not entirely unsympathetic to this point of view, but regardless that is not what happened. Water under the bridge.<br /><br />Obviously the U.N. would be unable to keep a watch on these explosives during our invasion. Any U.N. personnel would have been in danger, perhaps even taken hostage. We told them to get out because we were planning to invade, they wisely agreed to do this.<br /><br />Obviously we could not monitor this site (other than remotely) until AFTER we had invaded and taken custody of the site. This also includes capturing this site, making sure their are no enemy forces in the area of the site, and securing a logistical supply line for any who are going to man this site. Certainly by the time all this was done, the stuff was gone. Perhaps it was gone before the first bombs fell in Iraq, perhaps it was gone later.Dave Justushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04139807963654242625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098830217179881632004-10-27T12:36:00.000+14:002004-10-27T12:36:00.000+14:00Frist you say.
"Actually the U.N. didn't have eit...Frist you say.<br /><br />"Actually the U.N. didn't have either the responsibility or the ability to remove these explosives."<br /><br />then you say this...<br />"they were placed under seal so the U.N. could keep track of them and Iraq could prove that they were not using them for Nuclear development. "<br /><br />how was the UN supposed to keep track of material when they left. <br /><br />To fufill their responsbility of keeping track of the materials, they would have to remove them.<br /><br />weather or not they have the actual authority is another question, but it is clear that they had the materail under control and then just left it lying around, which is shirking their responsiblity to keep track of the material. <br /><br />"Legally though (if that term can really be used, International Law being what it is), Iraq was not required to destroy this explosive and not banned from possessing it."<br /><br />that was the frist mistake, the second mistake was the UN not fufilling their responsiblity to keep track of the material (either by staying in Iraq or removing the material before the war), and the thrid mistake was American no securing the site well enough after the UN left.Man of Issacharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01286646646103516828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1098824946373561802004-10-27T11:09:00.000+14:002004-10-27T11:09:00.000+14:00Actually the U.N. didn't have either the responsib...Actually the U.N. didn't have either the responsibility or the ability to remove these explosives.<br /><br />Basically, because they could be used as a componant for making Nuclear weapons they were placed under seal so the U.N. could keep track of them and Iraq could prove that they were not using them for Nuclear development. They still belonged to the Iraqi government. <br /><br />I assume that if Iraq had a legitimate use for them, they could petition the U.N. to have some of them removed from being under the seal for the specific purpose they had in mind. For example, we need 10 pounds for this mining op. Here is where and how we will use them. I don't know whether this happened or not, but I would imagine that at least in theory it could have happened.<br /><br />Even for the items that were clearly banned, not just placed under seal because of dual use possibilies the U.N. could not unilaterally remove or destroy the items. They would have to obtain cooperation from the Iraqi government. Before the war this happened with some of Iraq's long rang missiles, although not all of them as we saw during the war. <br /><br />Even if the U.N. had wanted to destroy or remove these explosives it is doubtful that Iraq would have let them. Even if Iraq had, the weapon's inspectors could not have removed them, they lacked the logistical capabilities although I suppose they could have overseen their destruction. Legally though (if that term can really be used, International Law being what it is), Iraq was not required to destroy this explosive and not banned from possessing it.Dave Justushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04139807963654242625noreply@blogger.com