Ed,
The proposed resolution was not "completely disarm by such-and-such a date", but
rather: completely comply with the 17 previous resolutions, which said, in
short: "prove that you have **disposed of** your weapons of mass destruction
and the means to create more such weapons". It is, by the way, not only
possible, but easy to prove that you don't have some things: I don't have a
solar system in my house. Come on over, any time and check - I have nothing to
hide. I no longer have the 1989 Honda Civic I used to drive (ironically, a
"bomb"). I have the documents to prove that I sold it. Again, come on over,
any time, and check ("unfettered access"). Likewise, tons of munitions can be
proven to have been destroyed or otherwise dispatched. The UN inspectors *were*
being hindered from (executing) their tasks, although they were not being
absolutely prevented (anymore -- Iraq "kicked them out" not so long ago, though,
and only "allowed" them back in (apparently) because of the threat of military
action from a world united against them). The US proposed no resolution where
war was an "automatic option" (whatever that is), but did finally get around to
proposing one which involved specific and terrible consequences for failure to
comply, instead of the mealy-mouthed, meaningless threats of those previous
"resolutions".
Of course, I was not personally involved in any of these decisions, so I base
all of my opinions on what has been reported in the press.
Joe
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 03:16 PM, John Sumrall wrote:
>
> > By saying that no matter what you put in that resolution we're going
> > to veto
> > it, France took upon itself to say to America, "We are against
> > whatever you
> > say". That left a bad taste in my mouth toward France, so I spit it
> > out.
>
> Maybe instead of putting it in your mouth, you should use your eyes.
> France never said any such thing. What they said they would not agree
> to is the USA-proposed notion of drop-dead dates. E.g., completely
> disarm by such-and-such a date, or war will be authorized. They have
> said all along that it is impossible to prove that you don't have
> something, and as long as the inspectors were not being prevented from
> their tasks, that war shouldn't be an automatically-invoked option. The
> US refused to submit any proposal that did not have war as an automatic
> option, and chose to withdraw instead.
>
> ___/
> /
> __/
> /
> ____/
> Ed Leafe
> http://leafe.com/
> http://opentech.leafe.com
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Joe De Ville |
