[exodus]

To: Boonie Rat
Resignation Letter of William S. Ritter, Jr. to the United Nations 26 August 1998

Dear Mr. Butler,
"...The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq..."

"...clearly indicates that the organization which created the Special Commission in its resolution 687 (1991) is no longer willing and/or capable of the implementation of its own law..."

"...Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems..."


"...the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations..."

Sincerely, (signed)
Willam S. Ritter, Jr.

# 4 by John W

*************************

Iraq should hide it's weapons.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still define a sovereign nation as being one that is "self-governing, and not ruled by any other state."

No government gave up it's sovereignity by joining the United Nations treaty organization. Member nations did not become junior partners, like the present States of our nation are subservient to the national government in Washington.

Why then does the United States ignore the requirements of our own Constitution, and go to war at the direction of a foreign power? Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?

If our national government decided tomorrow to ban all weapons ownership, millions of private arms would immediately "disappear" from official view. That is an appropriate response to the tyranny of outlawing a basic right, the right of self-defense.

Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

Just as an individual is fully justified in lying and hiding his weapons, so a nation is justified in lying and hiding it's weapons from foreign invaders.

[Illbay]

Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?

What a stupid argument. So you're saying that "sovereignty" is so sacrosanct that NO ONE can band together against a "sovereign" nation even if that nation represents a dire threat.

Okay, in that case, the United States was in the WRONG to joing the Allied Powers that "violated" Germany's sovereignty in 1918. Oh, and again in 1945.

C'mon, man, get yer head out yer ***.

[Ragin1]

Thanks for the ping exodus.

Who is this Hornberger person? Anybody know?

[Gumption]

Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power

For the same reason Japan and Germany had to, they lost a war and signed surrender terms that required them to do so. What is so hard to understand about that?

[First_Salute]

If tomorrow, a "nuclear bloom" should appear over Tel Aviv, what should be the response?

[sinkspur]

Why then is Iraq expected to surender it's right of self-defense at the order of that same foreign power, the United Nations?

You're forgetting the agreement that Iraq signed after the Gulf War.

If Iraq proved that it had no WOD nor program to develop such, the sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could rejoin the family of civilized nations.

Iraq doesn't want to do this, of course, because Hussein is a lawless thug.

He's got to go.

[Scuttlebutt]

I don't know why you pinged me to this thread. If you thought that I might lend some support to your position, you are sadly mistaken.

Gumption's comment #34 sums up my viewpoint perfectly. Perhaps you should read it again.

[sam_paine]

Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

That's fine and dandy. But by consent and rule of law, even the population of this republic have agreed, for example, that convicted violent felons forfeit their right to posess firearms....even though they retain their inherent right to self-defense.

Since Saddam has lost a war by might, he signed surrender conditions to prove that he no longer would possess WMM. His loss. The international community consented in 1991 that this particular dictator had forfeited his "right" to possess WMM in his "sovereign" borders.

It's foolish to look at this in such a naive fashion, assuming that the despot in question here respects ideal rights and ideal morals.

[M. Thatcher]

Iraq should hide it's weapons.

What part of "terms of surrender" -- as in, unconditional surrender -- do you not understand?

In the future, please refrain from pinging me with your mindless dreck.

[Clinging Bitterly]

> Iraq should hide it's weapons

Well yeah, after it's own interest, it should be expected.
But after the gulf war, Iraq did agree to cooperate with the UN for what was described in the media as "weapons inspections". And if you want to agree with what the infamous William S. Ritter said in the earlier days of the program, Iraq reneged on the agreement (and by appearance, that allegation is true, Ritter's more recent statements notwithstanding).

> Just as an individual man has the right of defense, so a nation has that right.

A nation does not posess rights as an individual would, it's people do. It's people can empower it's government to protect national interests, but in Hussein's totalitarian government, it isn't exactly playing out that way, is it?

Even if it were, Iraq and all the other involved sovereign nation parties agreed to a contract knowing full well that the possibility existed that we would be right where we are today.

I'm no fan of the UN. I hate much, if not most of, of the things this organization stands for and proposes, and I would just as soon see the US out of it and it's headquarters removed from our soil, but to me it just doesn't violate libertarian principles that we and other sovereign nations have cooperated as we have in this matter, to find Hussein's actions and statements to date to be a danger to our own interests on many levels.

Mideast stability and it's effect on the oil economy is an entirely legitimate interest, if you want to boil it down to that.

Dave in Eugene

[harrowup]

Just as an individual is fully justified in lying and hiding his weapons, so a nation is justified in lying and hiding it's weapons from foreign invaders.

There is no civilization without law. There are a whole mess of bad-laws and confiscating privately owned weapons is one of them. It doesn't happen often...CA seems to have taken the lead in demanding some weapons be surrendered...and I would hope that is winding its way through the courts.

That said, the United States has not forced you to hide or lie ... unless you are a convicted felon ... on probation ... or parole and you desire to obtain a weapon.

The Iraqi regime has been on probation a long time ... and the world wants him to live up to the conditions of his parole ... and he doesn't want to...so, we are going to kick his ass into undifferentiated molecular soup just as the judge will do to you if you break parole.

We are just as sovereign today as we were when the United States signed its first treaty ... the only difference is that today ... the world is a quieter place because of the United Nations ... with a little help from its best friend, the USA.

Now, if you have neighbors, I suggest you moderate your position when it comes time to move the weeds from around your mailbox ... which just happens to be on your neighbors side of the road. Your weeds just might be his flowers... so talk to him ... and neither one of you has to give up any sovereignty to agree on how to tidy up the space.

We are about to tidy things up. I don't happen to agree that we should ... but we AND the UN have the right.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Iraq should hide its weapons.<<

Encouraging Iraq to hide its weapons in contradiction of its agreement not to, and its agreement to disarm, is not a good thing—for anyone.

>>Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still define a sovereign nation as being one that is "self-governing, and not ruled by any other state." <<

Sovereign nations are sovereign—until they lose a war. When that happens then they become non-sovereign when the wining side rightfully imposes conditions on their continued existence. (Called “surrender terms” or “terms of the cease-fire.”)

War is the ultimate infringement on sovereignty. And Iraq, by engaging in actions that violated another countries sovereignty, lost a war and therefore lost its right to sovereignty.

>>No government gave up its sovereignty by joining the United Nations treaty organization. Member nations did not become junior partners, like the present States of our nation are subservient to the national government in Washington.<<

Indeed. I see you agree that the US can make its own decisions and act in its own defense—all without subjugating the US government to some supra-national organization, which, as you know, would be a violation of sovereignty.

[ivegotabrain]

Thanks for the ping, exodus. It was informative reading.