Brit / American spying at the U.N.

[numediaman]

British spy op wrecked peace move

Martin Bright, Peter Beaumont and Jo Tuckman in Mexico
Sunday February 15, 2004 – The Observer

A joint British and American spying operation at the United Nations scuppered a last-ditch initiative to avert the invasion of Iraq, The Observer can reveal.

Senior UN diplomats from Mexico and Chile provided new evidence last week that their missions were spied on, in direct contravention of international law.

Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1148623,00.html

"scuppered" ?! gotta love the Brits.

[Desertrat]

Interesting.

Just as well it turned out that way, though. Let's say we'd waited another few months, or that the effort to get more inspectors back in had failed. It would have meant our troops having the main part of their combat during the hottest part of the Iraq summer...

'Rat

[diamond geezer]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Interesting.

Just as well it turned out that way, though. Let's say we'd waited another few months, or that the effort to get more inspectors back in had failed. It would have meant our troops having the main part of their combat during the hottest part of the Iraq summer...

'Rat

Yes just as well. After all, a couple more months and Saddam would have been ready to unleash his nuclear and biological arsenals on the US via his unmanned delivery systems.

Spying on the UN, illegal invasion based on lies, yet you're more worried about the poor soldiers having to pack extra sunscreen.

Interesting, to say the least.

[Desertrat]

dg, numerous posters at this forum have stated their belief that the invasion was a foregone conclusion even before Bush' election. (Me, I don't know that.) So, if the guys gotta go, it seems to me that early was better than late.

Separately: I said from the gitgo that the Bushies were wrong to emphasize the WMD stuff. We had as much--if not more--reason to go into Iraq as we did to go into Serbia. No more BS about Iraq than about the Balkans...

Ain't that the trouble with setting a precedent for jumping on Bad Guys just cause they're Bad Guys?

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
We had as much--if not more--reason to go into Iraq as we did to go into Serbia. No more BS about Iraq than about the Balkans...

Ain't that the trouble with setting a precedent for jumping on Bad Guys just cause they're Bad Guys?


Gotta call shenanigans on this one.
Link (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040126.wrights0126/BNStory/International/)

The situations on the ground were very different between Iraq and the Balkans. We were preventing an ONGOING slaughter in the Balkans.
The war in Iraq cannot be justified as an intervention in defence of human rights even though it ended a brutal regime, Human Rights Watch said Monday, dismissing one of the U.S. administration's main arguments for the invasion.

While Saddam Hussein had an atrocious human-rights record and life has improved for Iraqis since his ouster, his worst actions occurred long before the war, the advocacy group said in its annual report. It said there was no ongoing or imminent mass killing in Iraq when the conflict began.

Where was your outrage when Saddam actually WAS slaughtering his people? Or when Rwanda was being ravaged?

[Desertrat]

That Human Rights Watch comment is about as childish as anything I've seen in a long time. It's on a par with dropping charges against a bank robber if he gives back the money. Or saying a wife-beater is now a Good Guy because he's quit beating his wife--for right now, anyway.

I've no longer see any point in being outraged at atrocities in other countries. I've learned to save my outrage for situations where I can affect outcomes.

I first seriously learned about outrage when I learned of the treatment of some of my family and of friends I made during my year in Manila, by the Japanese during the occupation. I also learned that I had to get over it.

To become outraged by man's inhumanity to man in various countries around the world is fruitless. There's just too much of it. It's ongoing and unending. Only the names and places change.

I hope it's understood that a lack of outrage does not in any way mean tolerance or approval...

'Rat

[mactastic]

No a comparable situation would be watching someone get beaten and robbed, knowing who the robber is, then walking home past the police station to get your gun, going back and shooting the guy and when the cops come, claiming self-defense. It may have been the right thing to do at one point, but that point has long past from a legal perspective.

You can't compare Kosovo and Iraq. There was an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing that got us involved there. Saddam was a Bad Guy, but he wasn't engaged in ongoing mass atrocities at the time, nor was he likely to in the near future.

Thanks for the childish comment though, I must have really gotten your goat that time! I'll take that as a compliment.

[wwworry]

There is a lot of evidence that invading Iraq was one of the top priorities of the incoming Bush administration. The evidence is from someone who was there at the early planning stages - Paul O'Neill (read the book). THere is the evidence of calls for invasion in the mid '90s from many of the now administration officials and advisors. What more do you want? They will never admit it. It is clear that the Bush administration was willing to do anything to get its way.

Now no one liked Hussein, ok.

You yourself have said that you want to limit your outrage to things you can control. My outrage in this matter is the way the American public was decieved by this administration. It is simply not acceptable for them to lie to us in order to go to war, however just the cause. Americans need to hold this administration accountable for its lies.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
That Human Rights Watch comment is about as childish as anything I've seen in a long time. It's on a par with... Or saying a wife-beater is now a Good Guy because he's quit beating his wife--for right now, anyway.

But here's how the analogy fits:

If a wife beater is in the process of beating his wife to death, the police can shoot him.

If he stops and a year later he's sitting on the sofa drinking a beer, the police cannot come in and shoot him.

We went in and shot him.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

We went in and shot him.

and HE didn't have any WMD, either!!

;-)

[toontra]

Originally posted by Desertrat
That Human Rights Watch comment is about as childish as anything I've seen in a long time.

Rat,

You never responded to my post about this in the other thread a couple of weeks ago - OTHER THREAD (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57635).

The guy at Human Rights Watch is making careful, balanced judgments about serious matters. Why are you dismissing them as childish - it's not like you.

[toontra]

There's an update to the spying story in the Guardian today - LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1152323,00.html)

Seems as though the whistle-blower in the UK will not be prosecuted to avoid the legality of the war being challenged in open court!

[toontra]

Confirmed today that the UK whistle-blower won't be prosecuted.

She was sacked for breach of Official Secrets Act but is being denied her "day in court" to explain her actions, which could have proved embarrassing for the Government.

LINK (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=494915)

[3rdpath]

personally, i would've loved to see this trial...talk about pandora's box.

but i'm glad she's not being drug through the mud because she did the right thing.