From the FAIR website:
What a Difference Four Years Makes, Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now

That's a good and biting commentary (not really commentary - since it only quotes their own works, but you know what I mean) on the integrity of the media.

<font color="#00ccff">An interesting read, Im sure that THIS time things will be much better, Iraq has given its word after all. The UN would NEVER fall for the same trick THREE times [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Seems they left then because they were denied access as agreed to. Not much sense in staying if they couldn't do their job.

Despite the obvious "track" of this article, there were inspectors that were expelled or were expelled indirectly. I remember the American spy issue. Our inspectors were asked to leave or Iraq would deny access to any inspectors. They left and still access was restricted.

Four years does make alot of difference. It makes some think that by not following through with their post Gulf War obligations then that the Iraqis are now free from them. Of course, they're wrong. ;)

[ 10-28-2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

on a related note, for those that did not know we were using weapon inspections to spy

If Iraq hadn't denied unfettered access from the very beginning of the process, the Inspectors would have come and gone long before this happened.

Hmmm, we spied on someone who refused to live up to their post Gulf War obligations. Some one who completely overran another country, and threaten others in the region. Someone who forced the largest armed confrontation since WWII. Can't imagine why we'd want to "keep an eye" on their military dictator and his forces.

If he wouldn't allow the inspectors to inspect, it makes sense we put them to work doing something else. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-28-2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#00ccff">When did loosing a war, allow a nation the right to dictate terms and conditions? I thought the whole idea when you defeated an enemy, that YOU got to make the rules...not vice-versa. Anyone else think this a bit odd?

And exactly how can you spy on a country you defeated. By definition you won, so any secrets are yours for the taking...not that there would be anything usefull except evidence of illicit arms programs that country might have had going, or perhaps the names of the european companies that were doing business with you...namely some really notable German companies...</font>

[ 10-28-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Oh, c'mon guys, the US got caught spying. To defend it is unseemly. Why did the US spy when it had the opportunity. For the very same reason that bears s**t in the woods - nature (and no, I didn't mention wolves ;) ) Seriously, nations spy on each other because the can, and must, and would anyway.

And no, in the modern day, defeating a nation in a war does not allow you to pillage their country of ideas, secrets, property, land, people, or anything else. Especially when all you did was "liberate" another country. Technically, the world's *justified* job in the Gulf War ended with freeing Kuwait, and the push further was *only* justified to the extent that it was to keep Iraq from doing the same again. This may not be what our view of the war is, and it may not be what the soldiers on the ground thought or felt, but under the rules of warfare this was the setting.

The US gets caught spying a lot by the way. I don't know if it's because the US is worse at it, has many more spies than other nations, or is just unlucky. But, since Powers got shot down, we've had more than our fair share of getting caught in the spy game. At least having the biggest guns means never having to say you're sorry.

True, but spycraft goes on everyday, everywhere.

We spy on allies and enemies alike, and they spy on us. It's the way the game works. Too bad it's like that, but that's the world we live in.

[ 10-28-2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

</font>[/QUOTE]Um... Check the various Vienna Conventions and the UN Charter. I assure you no nation will ever take over another by use of force and have it be supported by the group of nations. I'm not being overly legalistic here, MagiK, we just don't work that way anymore. I challenge you to find me a situation where national borders have changed via force without the overwhelming majority of nations coming out, under UN sanctions, to punish the offender.

And, as I said, we drove Iraq out of Kuwait. Check the UN resolutions regarding the Gulf War - that was the extent of the US's approved use of force. You cite those same resolutions (and rightly so!) regarding Saddam, so don't throw them up as worthless when used in this vein. The US was to free Kuwait (you see- Saddam broke the rule I mentioned above, i.e. taking a nation by force) and hit Iraq hard enough to satisfy us all that it would not happen again. But, there's a reason the Stars and Stripes aren't flying in Baghdad right now - and it's not just 'cause Americans don't like deserts.

"The winners make the rules," is a rather generalized and antiquated view wouldn't you say? The ground rules of the League of Nations did not permit us to annex Japan after WWII, instead we just got to babysit it back to health - same with Germany. Those same rules form the basis of the UN.

Your idea challenges the very notion of sovereignty - which is the heart of all international law. It takes a momentous occassion and legal declaration to challenge sovereignty, and the group of nations, for years and years, has really only respected challenges to sovereignty when they came from inside a nation. Read the Declaration of Independence, because such a declaration of individual sovereignty is exactly what that document is, which should give you some clue as to how old this international law notion is.

That hardly makes it right though. If something happens all the time do you think we should excuse it, no matter how harmful? In all of the gun threads going around it appears to have been agreed that murder is quite a common occurrence, happens every day somewhere around the world...

See what I'm getting at...

That hardly makes it right though. If something happens all the time do you think we should excuse it, no matter how harmful? In all of the gun threads going around it appears to have been agreed that murder is quite a common occurrence, happens every day somewhere around the world...

See what I'm getting at...</font>[/QUOTE]Sure I see it. I said "too bad it's like that", but nations deal with each other on a different level that people do.

Yes, I understand the point. I just don't think that that is a good thing. Remember that arguing: "This is the way it is" doesn't tend to hold a lot of water with me. If it did I would hardly be a Socialist...

I see that that is how things are done and that it would be hard to change them, however I do not personally consider that fact any justification whatsoever. Unless you can prove to me the intrinsic "goodness" or "right" of the actions taken then I won't consider them such. I will, however, agree with you that they are the norm.

Edited for grammer.

[ 10-29-2002, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

(...)All in all I would say we get caught so to speak less frequently than we might. </font>[/QUOTE]For some reason, I find this exchange hilarious. [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]