Brit / American spying at the U.N.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by numediaman, Feb 15, 2004.

  1. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    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
     
  3. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    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
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Gotta call shenanigans on this one.
    Link

    The situations on the ground were very different between Iraq and the Balkans. We were preventing an ONGOING slaughter in the Balkans.
    Where was your outrage when Saddam actually WAS slaughtering his people? Or when Rwanda was being ravaged?
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    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
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    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.
     
  8. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #8
    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.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    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.
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    and HE didn't have any WMD, either!!

    ;-)
     
  11. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #11
    Rat,

    You never responded to my post about this in the other thread a couple of weeks ago - OTHER THREAD.

    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.
     
  12. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #12
    There's an update to the spying story in the Guardian today - LINK

    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!
     
  13. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #13
    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
     
  14. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #14
    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.
     

Share This Page