Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!



WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo

datan Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (837 comments)

ok do you agree that war would have happened regardless of whether resolution 1441 was passed? If yes -- then resolution 1441 wasn't what directly to war. If no -- how do you really think that having gone through all the expense of transporting troops and supplies to the Gulf the US/UK would just pull them back?
Regarding the chemical rounds found, reading the Iraq Survey Group's final report, (a)53 rounds were found and (b) the ISG thinks these were probably an accounting error. Hardly the reason to go to war...

more than 4 years ago

WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo

datan Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (837 comments)

to your first point, check out UN resolution 678 para 2.

Regarding your point that "there is some contention that 1441 did not specifically authorise war", well, if the UK and US and French ambassadors all interpret the resolution as NOT authorising war (i.e. no automaticity) then who are we to argue with them? Put it this way, I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to interpret 1441 as authorising use of force when already the main actors in this instance the UK and US already said publicly there's no embedded automaticity in resolution 1441.

Regarding your last point, firstly, you are shifting the goalposts. You initially claimed that the war was in accordance with UN resolution. You now make the point that, ok so the war wasn't in accordance with the UN...that makes them pansies. Different point.
But let's take your point as it is. What did the UN want Iraq to do? Get rid of its WMD and stop interfering with the inspection process. I recall distinctly by the time the war started (a) Iraq had already gotten rid of its WMD and (b) Iraq had let the UN inspectors go wherever they wanted. Which means Iraq had done exactly what the UN had requested. Which mean there was no need for "serious consequences". Thus the point whether the UN needed to back up what they said with action is quite moot since Iraq had already complied with what the UN wanted (no WMD and allowing inspections). So see -- the UN process worked quite well.
My third point is this: let's assume for the sake of argument that the UN had passed its resolution authorising military action on the (false) premise that Iraq still had WMD (based on the false intelligence provided by the US). Now assume the a UN coalition attacked Iraq and found ... nothing. The UN had committed to military action based on lies. What would that have done to the UN's credibility? Would it ever have the credibility to act on a member state's intelligence again? No because it had acted on false intelligence and used the false intelligence to authorize military action. Thank goodness this did not happen! Imagine the blow to its credibility if the UN had authorised military action based on lies and false intelligence. Now this thing about credibility. It's like virginity. Once lost hard to get back. I recall reading that during the Cuban Missile Crisis a certain French President (oh the irony!) decline to see the photos saying that "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me". How far we've come! The next US ambassador who stands in front of the UNSC and start talking about WMD and photos and the need for military action ... might just get laughed out of the chamber.

more than 4 years ago

WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo

datan Re:Well Regarded Warmonger (837 comments)

Resolution 1441 does NOT authorise use of force. For use of force to be legal under international law generally either a country is acting in self-defense or armed action has been sanctioned by the UNSC. UNSC resolutions which authorise use of force are very explicit and usually contain some variant of "all means necessary". 1441 does not contain such a phrase. In fact, both the US and UK ambassadors were publicly quoted as saying that resolution 1441 does NOT have any automaticity leading to armed action. In fact, the US and UK were trying to get another resolution passed when they realised they didn't have the votes so they decided to invade anyway.

more than 4 years ago

Why the Olympics Didn't Melt the Internet

datan Re:I thought it (383 comments)

who knows what else

the children marching with the flag supposedly from the 56 different ethnic groups...

more than 6 years ago


datan hasn't submitted any stories.


datan has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>