TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE

Big Will wrote:

> Even still, we had a majority of the UN council. The only reason we
> didn't go to them the second time was because France and Germany were
> stubbornly threatning a veto

Germany has no veto power.

Russia has veto power and threatened to use it. Though I don't remember
whether it eventually changed its mind or not.

> (despite the majority)

Your "majority" was the US, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria. Those countries
were openly in favor of immediate action.

France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria were opposed.

The rest (Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Pakistan and Mexico) were
shaky, they didn't really know how to think. Though they were far from
enthusiastic. 4 out of 15 is a pretty small "majority".

> for their own selfish oil interests with Iraq.

Hehe, I'm sure Halliburton was more than happy about the war in Iraq.
Talk about selfish oil interests.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Frederic Bonroy wrote:

> Big Will wrote:
>
>> Even still, we had a majority of the UN council. The only reason we
>> didn't go to them the second time was because France and Germany were
>> stubbornly threatning a veto
>
>
> Germany has no veto power.
>
> Russia has veto power and threatened to use it. Though I don't remember
> whether it eventually changed its mind or not.
>
>> (despite the majority)
>
>
> Your "majority" was the US, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria. Those countries
> were openly in favor of immediate action.
>
> France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria were opposed.
>
> The rest (Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Pakistan and Mexico) were
> shaky, they didn't really know how to think. Though they were far from
> enthusiastic. 4 out of 15 is a pretty small "majority".

The rest you mentioned were in support of UN sanctioned action, which
the US would have been happy to go with if it weren't for France's and
Russia's threatening to use veto (and thus in effect nullify the will of
the majority).

>
>> for their own selfish oil interests with Iraq.
>
>
> Hehe, I'm sure Halliburton was more than happy about the war in Iraq.
> Talk about selfish oil interests.


--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still doesn't work, kick it.
If it works after hitting it and kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
hitting it or kicking it helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

>>Do you think it's just the money that kept the others from following you?
>
> You tell me. I do know it was in the best self-interest of France and
> Russia to keep on supplying Saddam with arms and materials.

"Keep on supplying"? There was an arms embargo.

I remember stories about France supplying arms to Iraq, as well as
passports to Iraqis, breaking in US newspapers. No proof, nothing, just
rumors from a "senior official who spoke on condition of anonymity". And
a couple of days later, total silence.

Isn't that strange?

> He had a long history of non-compliance and defiance of the U.N.

Just like other countries.

>>I said that to counter the widespread misbelief that France is
>>always against military action. If you re-read articles where French
>>officials state their policy you will see that they never ruled out
>>allowing and even participating in an attack.
>>In fact it is rumored that the French military pressed the government to
>>participate for various reasons.
>
> So why didn't it act?

Because the government, or more precisely the president, decides whether
or not to deploy the military. Whether the military itself wants to go
or not is irrelevant

> Seems silly after the long history of non-compliance and defiance of
> the U.N.

It was up to the inspectors to decide whether Saddam was complying in
this particular case. They weren't completely satisfied but they didn't
go as far as saying that Saddam wasn't complying.

> Look, the whole Bush administration saw Saddam as a WMD threat to not
> just his neighbors but to the entire Middles East and the entire
> world. Just how immediate that threat was at the time is _now_ known
> to be minor and based on faulty intelligence.

How come that other intelligence services from other countries did not
see Iraq as such a threat. Have you heard of recent allegations that the
CIA did not pass information on suspected locations of WMD-related
material on to the inspectors?
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"Frederic Bonroy" <bidonavirus.DeleteThis@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:c1gcfv$1hiepu$1@ID-75150.news.uni-berlin.de...
> null.DeleteThis@zilch.com wrote:

> Have you heard of recent allegations that the
> CIA did not pass information on suspected locations of WMD-related
> material on to the inspectors?

Yes, and iirc they wanted to protect their sources who were still
active and would be in harms way if they were revealed. If that
was really the case here ~ then it is nothing new in the world of
intelligence gathering.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Big Will wrote:

> The rest you mentioned were in support of UN sanctioned action, which
> the US would have been happy to go with if it weren't for France's and
> Russia's threatening to use veto (and thus in effect nullify the will of
> the majority).

Not really. Especially Cameroon and Guinea were unsure. They wanted to
jeopardize neither (possible) financial support from the US, nor their
relations with France. Chile and Mexico were against action. Bush was
particularly pissed at Mexico.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

<null.DeleteThis@zilch.com> wrote in message news:3a2p30djplepgcb4a8up4bnjb0vtebo0es@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:32:24 -0500, "FromTheRafters"
> <!0000@nomad.fake> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Frederic Bonroy" <bidonavirus.DeleteThis@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:c1gcfv$1hiepu$1@ID-75150.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> null.DeleteThis@zilch.com wrote:
> >
> >> Have you heard of recent allegations that the
> >> CIA did not pass information on suspected locations of WMD-related
> >> material on to the inspectors?
> >
> >Yes, and iirc they wanted to protect their sources who were still
> >active and would be in harms way if they were revealed. If that
> >was really the case here ~ then it is nothing new in the world of
> >intelligence gathering.
>
> Did you look at the links Frederic supplied? The issue has to do with
> claims that information was shared when it allegedly was not.

Perhaps they should have stated something more like 'you have all
of the information we are prepared to give you' instead of 'you have
all of the information we have'.

Do you think that the UN would have accepted that?
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:45:51 -0800, Big Will

>How can a nation be sovereign if the administration of that nation does
>not hold legitimacy from the governed people of that nation.

<cough> ...well, yes. That's something usually determined by the
citizens of that nation, and there have been some concerns raised
about Bush's legitimacy in those quarters. I don't remember the US
occupying South Africa to restore a legitimate sovereign government,
even though the incumbents 1948-1994 appeared to break a number of
USA's most crucial democratic values.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews.TakeThisOut@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:j2bs30d16vium6vih8h92arof0iodrikh4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:45:51 -0800, Big Will
>
> >How can a nation be sovereign if the administration of that nation does
> >not hold legitimacy from the governed people of that nation.
>
> <cough> ...well, yes. That's something usually determined by the
> citizens of that nation, and there have been some concerns raised
> about Bush's legitimacy in those quarters. I don't remember the US
> occupying South Africa to restore a legitimate sovereign government,
> even though the incumbents 1948-1994 appeared to break a number of
> USA's most crucial democratic values.

Yeah, just try putting diamonds in the gas guzzler!


Shane
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Shane wrote:

> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews.DeleteThis@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:j2bs30d16vium6vih8h92arof0iodrikh4@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:45:51 -0800, Big Will
>>
>>
>>>How can a nation be sovereign if the administration of that nation does
>>>not hold legitimacy from the governed people of that nation.
>>
>><cough> ...well, yes. That's something usually determined by the
>>citizens of that nation, and there have been some concerns raised
>>about Bush's legitimacy in those quarters. I don't remember the US
>>occupying South Africa to restore a legitimate sovereign government,
>>even though the incumbents 1948-1994 appeared to break a number of
>>USA's most crucial democratic values.
>
>
> Yeah, just try putting diamonds in the gas guzzler!
>
>
> Shane
>
>
Shane, you're forgitting that Germany, France, and Russia had their own
selfish motives for opposing the war in Iraq. You're also forgetting
that the citizens of Iraq are now getting that choice on how to run
their country, as they step closer to building a true democracy. You're
forgetting that under the dictatorship of Iraq, the Iraqis had no choice
on how to run their government. Then there's the humanitarian issue in
Iraq, and the mass graves that the coalition forces found. You're
forgetting the mistake made in the first Afghanistan (when the Soviets
were trying to invade). When the Soviets were no longer a threat in
Afghanistan, we pulled out, leaving a power vacuum, and the Taliban, not
the people, took over most of it. You're forgetting a lot of things,
Shane. Here, have some Ginko Balloba.

--
William


If it don't work, hit it
If it still don't work, kick it
If it works after hitting it or kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
that helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"Big Will"
<SPAMWSPAMiSPAMlSPAMlSPAMBSPAM4SPAMeSPAMvSPAAAAAMeSPAMMITTYrSPAAAAAM@nIeDONT
tLIKEzSPAMero.net> wrote in message news:404051db$1@darkstar...
> Shane wrote:
>
> > "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews.DeleteThis@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:j2bs30d16vium6vih8h92arof0iodrikh4@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:45:51 -0800, Big Will
> >>
> >>
> >>>How can a nation be sovereign if the administration of that nation does
> >>>not hold legitimacy from the governed people of that nation.
> >>
> >><cough> ...well, yes. That's something usually determined by the
> >>citizens of that nation, and there have been some concerns raised
> >>about Bush's legitimacy in those quarters. I don't remember the US
> >>occupying South Africa to restore a legitimate sovereign government,
> >>even though the incumbents 1948-1994 appeared to break a number of
> >>USA's most crucial democratic values.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, just try putting diamonds in the gas guzzler!
> >
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
> Shane, you're forgitting that Germany, France, and Russia had their own
> selfish motives for opposing the war in Iraq. You're also forgetting
> that the citizens of Iraq are now getting that choice on how to run
> their country, as they step closer to building a true democracy. You're
> forgetting that under the dictatorship of Iraq, the Iraqis had no choice
> on how to run their government. Then there's the humanitarian issue in
> Iraq, and the mass graves that the coalition forces found. You're
> forgetting the mistake made in the first Afghanistan (when the Soviets
> were trying to invade). When the Soviets were no longer a threat in
> Afghanistan, we pulled out, leaving a power vacuum, and the Taliban, not
> the people, took over most of it. You're forgetting a lot of things,
> Shane. Here, have some Ginko Balloba.

I'd forgotten the word "Pillock", too, but it just came back to me.


Shane
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Big Will wrote:

> Iraq, Iran is willing to go to the table now. Also, don't forget that
> if we stay in Iraq for oil (which I hope we do not, except for maybe
> strategies sake), we no longer have to walk on egg shells around the
> Saudi regime, for fear of what kind of production decreases they might
> do.

Upon reading this, it became evident to me that this might be
misinterpreted as my condoning of the taking of oil by force, so I
thought I might clear that up. I do not condone taking possessions of
Iraqies (including oil) by force, and hopefully with the new Iraqi
government, some sort of agreement with the Iraqies may allow us (and
the world, for that matter) to buy oil from them, which would decrease
our dependence and the dependence of the world economy on Saudi oil.


--
William


If it don't work, hit it
If it still don't work, kick it
If it works after hitting it or kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
that helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:43:42 -0800, Big Will

>Also, don't forget that now that we have a presence in Afghanistan and
>Iraq, Iran is willing to go to the table now.

One dude's security is another's insecurity.

When the communists followed the same logic in the Pacific, it was
referred to as the "domino effect" and resulted in the Viet Nam
debacle. That's what the view is from the other side of the glass.

>The anti-Western time bomb went off already with the USS Cole, the
>US Embassy bombings in India, and 9/11.

*Never* make the mistake of thinking "things can't get worse". You
don't want to create the "need" for an Islamic nuclear deterrant.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:43:42 -0800, Big Will
[SNIP]

>
>>The anti-Western time bomb went off already with the USS Cole, the
>>US Embassy bombings in India, and 9/11.
>
>
> *Never* make the mistake of thinking "things can't get worse". You
> don't want to create the "need" for an Islamic nuclear deterrant.
>

I am well aware that things can get worse, which is why we need to be
proactive about it to mke sure this doesn't happen, and hopefully make
things better. I don't want my government to wait around for things to
get worse.

--
William


If it don't work, hit it
If it still don't work, kick it
If it works after hitting it or kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
that helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE