04-14-2003, 05:50 PM
You and kandarthe in your skirmish here. I will only try to make a couple of points.
1. Policy. Non-proliferation is, and has been, US policy for quite some time, going back to Nixon on chem weapons.
2. Is any policy air tight? Probably not, see the various scandals in this country in the Savings and Loan industry.
3. Is our open society conducive to 'letting the light in' on decisions that appear self contradictory. Absolutely.
4. The 1994 discussions that you initially linked to highlight that very process. Congress judged that the measures of policy implementation were not good enough, and therefore passed the legislation in question. I call that an excellent example of the continuous improvement model: detect errors and correct them, just like any control system with a feedback loop, such as a driver in a car.
5. I would ask you to show how Europe fared in the period 1991 to 2003 in the same critical self analysis as regards the entire UN protocol concerning Iraq and holding the government to the the letter of the law.
We have all beaten this horse into glue, and I suggest that a predisposition to believe the worst, and to assign to malice what can be attributed to human imperfection is typical of the liberal who choose to assault current courses of action, while having sat mute since 1991 on the exact same topic.
Consider how Mr Eli Wiessel discussed neutrality: Neutrality aids the oppressor and the tyrant, who use the inaction of 'neutrals' and their passive neutrality to his advantage. (Paraphrase.) I realize that Mr Wiessel's remarks in that regard may be slightly out of context in this exact case, but I would suggest that you look at the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939 to consider an interesting parallel on how harmful neutrality can bem, as well as how ludicrous a Swiss Cheese embargo is as a tool of international resolve. The replay in 1991-2003 of the Swiss Cheese (holes all through) enforcement rendered a 'bloodless coercive measure' practically invalid.
In both cases, the desire to 'not soil our hands' for varying reasons, allowed those who chose to 'soil their hands' free reign, be they Russian or German, at the expense of the Spanish people. The lack of resolve to follow through on the intent of the embargo by the entirety of the UN made for an embargo that only did half the job: it applied pain, but the pain was irrelevant to those whose backsides it was to be applied to, since they knew how to exploit the weakness and greed of 'neutrals' to avoid compliance.
In any case, I again thank you for the links. :)
Consider this: Rep Pauls questions were obviously answered in October and November, now weren't they? Had they not been, I suspect that Congress would not have given the support it did. Just a hunch.
1. Policy. Non-proliferation is, and has been, US policy for quite some time, going back to Nixon on chem weapons.
2. Is any policy air tight? Probably not, see the various scandals in this country in the Savings and Loan industry.
3. Is our open society conducive to 'letting the light in' on decisions that appear self contradictory. Absolutely.
4. The 1994 discussions that you initially linked to highlight that very process. Congress judged that the measures of policy implementation were not good enough, and therefore passed the legislation in question. I call that an excellent example of the continuous improvement model: detect errors and correct them, just like any control system with a feedback loop, such as a driver in a car.
5. I would ask you to show how Europe fared in the period 1991 to 2003 in the same critical self analysis as regards the entire UN protocol concerning Iraq and holding the government to the the letter of the law.
We have all beaten this horse into glue, and I suggest that a predisposition to believe the worst, and to assign to malice what can be attributed to human imperfection is typical of the liberal who choose to assault current courses of action, while having sat mute since 1991 on the exact same topic.
Consider how Mr Eli Wiessel discussed neutrality: Neutrality aids the oppressor and the tyrant, who use the inaction of 'neutrals' and their passive neutrality to his advantage. (Paraphrase.) I realize that Mr Wiessel's remarks in that regard may be slightly out of context in this exact case, but I would suggest that you look at the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939 to consider an interesting parallel on how harmful neutrality can bem, as well as how ludicrous a Swiss Cheese embargo is as a tool of international resolve. The replay in 1991-2003 of the Swiss Cheese (holes all through) enforcement rendered a 'bloodless coercive measure' practically invalid.
In both cases, the desire to 'not soil our hands' for varying reasons, allowed those who chose to 'soil their hands' free reign, be they Russian or German, at the expense of the Spanish people. The lack of resolve to follow through on the intent of the embargo by the entirety of the UN made for an embargo that only did half the job: it applied pain, but the pain was irrelevant to those whose backsides it was to be applied to, since they knew how to exploit the weakness and greed of 'neutrals' to avoid compliance.
In any case, I again thank you for the links. :)
Consider this: Rep Pauls questions were obviously answered in October and November, now weren't they? Had they not been, I suspect that Congress would not have given the support it did. Just a hunch.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete