XPost: rec.travel.air, alt.travel   
   From: dkf747@junk.net   
      
   You're wasting your time.  We went over and over this a year ago with   
   'nobody' aka JF Mezei.   
      
      
   On 13 Jan 2004 09:45:52 -0800, eglamkowski@angelfire.com (Edward   
   Glamkowski) wrote:   
      
   >nobody  wrote in message   
   >> Edward Glamkowski wrote:   
   >> > forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all   
   >> > necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and   
   >> > all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international   
   >> > peace and security in the area;"   
   >>   
   >> If you read this as "authorizes any country to invade Iraq without UN   
   >> support", then you really need to take a grade school reading course.   
   >   
   >The UN support is the resolution itself.   
   >   
   >"All necessary means" is pretty strong language and can mean   
   >a number of things, up to and including the use of force.   
   >   
   >Now, if ANY member state had EVER introduced a new resolution   
   >revoking the "all necessary means" clause, you'd have an   
   >argument.  But NOBODY did.   
   >   
   >   
   >In Alabama, there is a law on the books that says it is illegal   
   >to play dominoes on Sunday (I believe this is actually a real   
   >law there!).  I'm sure everybody today would find that law stupid   
   >and objectionable, but if a police officer cared to, if he saw   
   >someone doing it he could arrest them.  Nobody can prevent the   
   >arrest from occuring - it's the law!   
   >   
   >Of course, the government could change the law at any time, but so   
   >far they haven't.  So if you insist on playing dominoes on Sunday   
   >in Alabama, you'd better keep looking over your shoulder for a   
   >police officer...   
   >   
   >And while you can whine all you want when you do get arrested about   
   >how stupid the law is and it shouldn't be enforced and yada yada yada,   
   >you still broke the law.  You're still going to jail.   
   >   
   >   
   >> > Iraq failed to comply with even resolution 660, which is why   
   >> > Saddam got his sorry butt kicked out of Kuwait at that time.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > 8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,   
   >> > removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:   
   >>   
   >> WHERE ARE THE WMDs ? Are you aware that from 1992 onwards, the UN inspectors   
   >> did exactly what is detailed in point 8 ? Are you aware that the UN had   
   >> inventoried some weapons and were not able to VERIFY THEY HAD BEEN DESTROYED   
   >> by the time the USA decided to evist the inspectors from Iaq because Iraq   
   was   
   >> complaining about some of the inspectors being CIA spies ? (whether true or   
   not).   
   >   
   >You are aware that the eviction occurred in 1998, 7 YEARS after   
   >the 15 day deadline.  Why was it taking 7 years to inventory and   
   >verify?  Why did Iraq refuse to meet the deadlines that had been   
   >set out?   
   >   
   >That alone is reason enough to do whatever.   
   >   
   >Trying getting a speeding ticket and then not paying it by the   
   >time the fine comes due.  A warrant for your arrest will be   
   >issued the very next day.  You just try telling the police   
   >officer that you'll have the money tomorrow.  Then the next   
   >day.  Then the next week.   
   >   
   >Nope, you'd be going to jail right away.   
   >   
   >Why are you so happy to give Saddam a break that you wouldn't   
   >get yourself if you yourself failed to comply with legal deadlines?   
   >   
   >   
   >> Have you already forgotten that at the time of 1441, Iraq was FULLY   
   complying   
   >> and that this had been stated in February 2003 by both Blix and Baradei ?   
   >   
   >Actually, Blix was very clear that he could not be satisfactorily   
   >certain whether Iraq had fully complied or not.   
   >   
   >If you actually read the entirety of my post, I made that exact   
   >point.   
   >   
   >   
   >> WHERE ARE THE WMDs ?   
   >   
   >Ask Saddam.   
   >Let us know what he says.   
   >   
   >   
   >> And yes, 1441 does need clarification because either you have selective   
   >> memory, or your media have not informed you about the realities of 1441. Why   
   >> was there unanimous agreement on 1441 ? Because the USA buckled to the   
   >> pressure from the rest of the world to remove the right to inavde Iraq and   
   >> only put in "serious consequences", and more importantly, to require another   
   >> resolution to confirm those consequences and more importantly, to confirm   
   that   
   >> Iraq had not begun to comply with 1441.   
   >   
   >Did you actually read the text of 1441?   
   >By getting unanimous agreement on it, it means all member states of   
   >the UN agreed to what was written there.  And since you apparently   
   >weren't willing to take a few seconds to copy & paste the link into   
   >your favorite web browser, I'll save you the trouble (see below).   
   >For those who want just the highlights:   
   >   
   >   
   >"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions   
   >and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range   
   >missiles poses to international peace and security,"   
   >   
   >Non-compliance.  Everybody agreed Iraq was not in compliance.   
   >   
   >   
   >"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to   
   >use   
   >all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990)   
   >of   
   >2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution   
   >660   
   >(1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"   
   >   
   >There's that ALL NECESSARY MEANS clause again.  If that doesn't   
   >include war, then nothing does.  So, everybody agreed that it is   
   >ok to use all necessary means!   
   >   
   >   
   >"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full,   
   >final, and   
   >complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all   
   >aspects of   
   >its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic   
   >missiles   
   >with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all   
   >holdings   
   >of such weapons, their components and production facilities and   
   >locations, as   
   >well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims   
   >are for   
   >purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"   
   >   
   >Ok, so everybody in the UN apparently agreed that Iraq had NOT   
   >provided   
   >a FULL, ACCURATE disclosure of its weapons.  You said they did, but   
   >here   
   >are the member states fully avering that they did not.   
   >   
   >   
   >"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with   
   >its   
   >commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to   
   >terrorism,   
   >pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian   
   >population and to provide access by international humanitarian   
   >organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant   
   >to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or   
   >cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals   
   >wrongfully   
   >detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)