France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War - Page 2

TCO · January 21, 2003, 14:26

I understand your point of view, GePap. Just wanted to articulate mine.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:28

Well, GP, then everything is fine

Sandman · January 21, 2003, 14:36

I approve of France's actions (even though there's more than a hint of self-interest), but they've just set up themselves for even more sneering jibes from the Americans.

Ozz · January 21, 2003, 14:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I approve of France's actions (even though there's more than a hint of self-interest), but they've just set up themselves for even more sneering jibes from the Americans.

No, they're set up for a big fat US check in the mail, they were against, than the US offered Oil refinery building in after invasion Iraq carrot. Then they were in. Now they are out again.

You can buy the French, but they don't stay bought.

You can say the same about N. Korea

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Wait, a veto power trying to manipulate the UN for it's own purposes? How uncouth! How unheard of! Why, I am outraged!! No one has ever tried to do so before! Damn French! they must pay for this insolence against the UN system!

Your rather obtuse post is a stellar example of why the UN is truly a useless body.
Do you believe that something is the right thing to do because Paris, Berlin and Beijing say so?
Because Washington does?
I was adressing a real politik issue, I think you understand the inspection process, like all things UN, is a dog and poney show.

Quote:

All is fair in love and diplomacy: the US played the UN back in November, now the French might. Don't go into the kitchen if you cant stand the heat, as they say.

I think it's escaped you that the US made it clear if the UN didn't act this time, it would be an end to it as a political body governing world events.
Have you forgotten Bush's speaches last year so soon?
France's action is speeding that end, without US agreement, no resolution CAN be enacted, and France is handing Bush a gun, and Bush will point it straight at the UN.

The times for games is over, I thought you understood this.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 14:46

Big deal?
The ONLY reason we have this situation today is because Bush, Sr. bowed to the will of the U.N.
The USA played the U.N. ? You're funny.

Chris makes one hell of a good point about Libya being named to chair the council.
Utter trash .

Gatekeeper · January 21, 2003, 14:46

**shrug** I bet there were quite a few people in the 1930s who believed that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union — perhaps not yet sworn enemies, but certainly adversarial nations down the road — could never get together to sign a deal to divvy up a conquered Poland.

If and when nations such as Iraq and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, it will pretty much ensure their futures because the world definitely will *not* want to mess with them then. Right now it's hypothetical that, hey, a bunch of American and/or European civilians will get taken out by Saddam or Kim as they go down in flames. But in that sort of future, it would be guaranteed.

Gatekeeper

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:54

The Un survived the 50 years of the Cold War- it will survive the 4 (at most 8) years of Bush & Co. BUsh and his cronnies might be radicals, but they need the UN, specially in the aftermath. After all, someone has to take care of Iraq after the war, and Bush and his boys certainly aren't willing to pay the full cost.

As for Bush and his speech: doesn't the new national security strategy put out by this admin. say they would do anything to stop rogue states from aquiring nukes? Yeah, how far has that gone with respects to N.Korea?
So no, i haven't frgotten Bush sept 12 speech, but that speech will long be forgotten by the time the UN ends.

Bush and his boys are a factoid of history, perhaps one day they will become a nice trivia question (who was president when 9/11 happened?) but the UN has become part of the system. And it takes far more than words (which this Admin. seems to have plenty of) to overthrow the system.

SpencerH · January 21, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

EVEN WITH NUKES, SADDAM HUSSEIN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE US, OR TO ITS ALLIES, BECAUSE IF HE WERE EVER TO USE WMD AGAINST THE US OR ITS ALLIES, SADDAM WOULD DIE, AND HE HAS SPENT THE LAST 30 YEARS TRYING NOT TO DIE.

How would he die? If a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack occurs within the US, there is a great risk that public outrage will demand that we would retaliate in kind. I would rather that we kill the bastard now than nuke Baghdad later.

Quote:

THERE IS NOTHING SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD DO CURRENTLY, TO THREATEN VITAL INTERESTS OF THE US.

Nonsense.

Quote:

EVEN IF THE MOST ABSURD LINE OF EVENTS MEANT THAT SOMEHOW, FOR SOME REASON, SOME IRAQI GOT WMD INTO THE US AND KILLED 100,000 AMERICANS, THERE ARE STILL 280,000,000 LEFT TO KICK SADDAM'S ASS.

Thats great unless you're one of the 100K eh? Personally I'd rather prevent the possibility. Your argument comes across as some kind of chivalrous nonsense i.e. if we strike first we're the bad guys. He's been given a chance, all he has to do is get rid of the weapons you all say are inconsequential. If he does that, he's safe to carry on abusing, starving, and torturing his own people to his hearts content.

Main_Brain · January 21, 2003, 14:55

Well It didnt seem like it would matter for the US wheter Weapons are found or not.. Personally I find it great that some Countries stand up to this.
Europeans =Sheep ?

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 15:00

Gepap, your missing the point.

The UN survived because the US and the Soviets wanted it to survive.

It can't function if the most powerful nation ignores it.

Also, just because you don't care for Bush means he will vanish, I would say there's a better then even chance he will be re-elected, and in a landslide.

It's just as easy to envision the question of "What was the second league of nations known as"?

It's also far more likely.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 15:02

SpencerH:

Saddam has done squat for the last decade: and there is no evidence that he would be able o do squat in the next.

I don't buy empty, childish definitions like "getting the bad guy". There are no "bad guys" in international relations. There are status quo powres, revisionists, aggressors, so forth and so on: a huge bunch of morality neutral words, sicne morality rarely ever plays out well in INternational relations. Iraq was once a revisionist power, but it was defeated, and has been neutralized. None of the warmonggers has yet shown any evidence that Iraq has somehow aquired new powers to try to redefine the system. He is contained. Pure and simple.

Currently, the US has become a revisionist power, which is certainly far more dangerous to the world order than anything Saddam may do, since the US is a global power, and Saddam is not. Now, if you agree with the admins. attempts to redefine the world order, then fine, make that argument: but don't expect me to buy empty platitudes about how Saddam is an evil man.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 15:05

The US isn't dangerous to any nation that doesn't threaten it Gepap, bare that in mind.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 15:08

Chirs 62:

First, looking at Bush's new poll numbers, a "landslide" looks dubious. Hwe might win, but it certainly won't be a "landslide"

For all of Bushes' bluster and bombast, he hasn't stopped going to the UN. On Iraq he has, but what about Iran, Lybia, Syria, N.Korea? Where are his brilliant, unilateral actiosn there? The US needs the UN still, even if Busshies don't like it. Someone has to take care of all those inspections and world programs, sof orth and so on, Bush certainly isn't willing to foot the bill for getting rid of it.

So, I can say with certainty, Chris, that the Un system will safely outlive George W. Bush and his admin(s?). The league of nation's was destroyed by a world war and when several major powers (germany, Japan, so forth and so on) pulled out. A war with iraq is no World War, and the US will maintain its veto power.

SpencerH · January 21, 2003, 15:09

He's done squat for the last decade because we've sat on him. What would Iraq be like if the no-fly zones were gone and France and the Russians were free to sell him whatever they wished.

I never called him evil or defined my position in those terms. He's a threat, and I'd rather kill him now than later.

Lord Merciless · January 21, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
SpencerH:

Saddam has done squat for the last decade: and there is no evidence that he would be able o do squat in the next.

Saddam only hasn't done anything because a embargo has been imposed on him, and thus lacks the means to carry on with aggressions. However, the embargo has taken a toll on Iraqi population and can't go on forever.

DuncanK · January 21, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Where? when? Why?

I am sorry, but 'reports' such as those are hardly believeable.

You may choose not to believe them, but truthfully I'm not really trying to figure out if they are true or not. Even if I did doubt them I'm not in for any gamble on the matter.

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 15:15

Again gepap, your missing the point.

If the US does what it wants, it doesn't have to leave the UN.

The way it's set up, the UN can do NOTHING to stop the United States, France, Russia, China, or Great Britain from doing whatever they like.

It doesn't have to physically be removed to be rendered inert.

If the UN, namely France, does this again, it will be the final nail in the coffin.

It will still meet and debate, but it will have as much authority as you or I have posting, namely none.

It has to support it's own resolutions, or be religated to the Dustbin of History.

And show me a Democrat that has a hoot in hell of beating Bush.
It sure isn't amoung the group who have anouced they are running.

DuncanK · January 21, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Given that Al Queda was a sworn enemy of Hussein and sought to overthrow his regime with a religious fundamentalist one, I find this very doubtful. Any evidence? No, of course not. And I've not heard of a single report saying this. The Administration tried to link Iraq to September 11, and failed.

You must not be familiar with the information given out on the reports since no one claimed that Saddam had any knowledge of the transfer.

Sandman · January 21, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

No, they're set up for a big fat US check in the mail, they were against, than the US offered Oil refinery building in after invasion Iraq carrot. Then they were in. Now they are out again.

You can buy the French, but they don't stay bought.

You can say the same about N. Korea

Or in other words, they've decided to it would be better to put up token resistance than token acquiescence. Good for them.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the trouble in the Ivory Coast, in which France is heavily involved?

GePap · January 21, 2003, 15:17

Chris 62:

I did not say the US is a threat to any particular state, but the system: a system of tight rules and regulations designed to keep the use of force between states at the barest possible minimum. The US is trying to overthrow such a system as far as it may pertain to itself: but to think the US will be the only state to get the message that attacking other states is fine, as long as your justification seems good enough is absurd. Once you begin to kick the ant hill, don't come crying if you get bitten in the future.

SpencerH:

And under what conditions would the no flight zones and the russians and french would begin to re-amr Saddam? That possibility seems far more remote than just a continuation of the status quo. As I said, Saddam is contained. Hell, it is his weakness that allows the White House to pick this war, not his strength. Bush is picking on the weakest of the "Axis of evil", not the strongest or most dangerous, as he keeps saying.

Drake Tungsten · January 21, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

He is contained. Pure and simple.

True, but the process of containment is hurting the US far more than toppling Saddam would. How exactly are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of the Arab people if we have to maintain a US military force in the Persian Gulf indefinitely to contain a nuclear Iraq? There's a lot of Arabs who are pissed off about our presence in Saudi Arabia already; how much worse will that anger be in fifty years?

Toppling Saddam isn't just about stopping a tyrant from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; it is also an unparalleled opportunity to introduce some much needed democracy into the Arab world. Terrorism cannot be beaten if there is no real political opposition to fundamentalist Islam. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Arab world would provide a powerful counterbalance to the fundamentalist claptrap emanating from Saudia Arabia, a counterbalance that is vital to any real attempt to destroy terrorism. Yet some people would just sit idly by, wasting this opportunity in favor of allowing a despot to continue his reign of terror...

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 15:18

The world seemed to survive thousands of years without a UN Gepap, the thing is a sham.

DuncanK · January 21, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Wars should not be fought on supposition.

Ah! If enough people thought like this I would be afraid. What do you expect us to do what until he proves to us that he has WMD by using them against us?

Az · January 21, 2003, 15:19

Do you like the status quo, GePap?

DuncanK · January 21, 2003, 15:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
GP:

back in the 1980's, the US position vis a vi Iraq and its power int eh gulf was unclear. Today it is not. The situation has changed.

Also, what if Saddam had a nuke? Whos he going to nuke, Kuwait?

New York? LA? Our troops? May sound rediculous to you, but I would just rather he didn't have the nukes.

DinoDoc · January 21, 2003, 15:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I did not say the US is a threat to any particular state, but the system: a system of tight rules and regulations designed to keep the use of force between states at the barest possible minimum.

The system, by design, lacks meaningful power to compel a great power to do anything.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 15:23

From GePap:
"Saddam has done squat for the last decade:"

So it's not that you miss that fact, you simply choose to ignore. Ok then. Little to be done for that, I guess.

What about that it's already a done deal?
What about looking ahead to things that are not yet a done deal?
Again, ignored? I guess.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 15:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Again gepap, your missing the point.

If the US does what it wants, it doesn't have to leave the UN.

The way it's set up, the UN can do NOTHING to stop the United States, France, Russia, China, or Great Britain from doing whatever they like.

It doesn't have to physically be removed to be rendered inert.

If the UN, namely France, does this again, it will be the final nail in the coffin.

It will still meet and debate, but it will have as much authority as you or I have posting, namely none.

It has to support it's own resolutions, or be religated to the Dustbin of History.

And show me a Democrat that has a hoot in hell of beating Bush.
It sure isn't amoung the group who have anouced they are running.

If France vetos a new resolution (as if the US wanted to have a new one), then the biggest losers are Bush and Blair, in terms of political cost. The US (and UK) are, in the end, democracies. The fact that most Americans want UN approval (80% support war with UN backing, 39% without) shows how much the UN has become part of the system, within people's minds. Bush can get away with attacking Iraq because it is a UN pariah, because it is weak, and surrounded by small states the US can bully into towing the line. This would not be true of an attack on Iran, or Lybia, or Syria (all of which are members with standing within the Un system) or N.korea.

So the UN will live on, and heck, with time, it might be redefined to become more powerful, not less.

The only people a French veto would hurt are Bush & Co. (and defenitally Blair).

KrazyHorse · January 21, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Blix said in the 80's that Hussein was not a threat and after the Gulf War I, we learned that he was 6-18 months from a bomb. Much closer than the "3-5 years" which Bush I's administration alleged. And which anti-war people said was a fabrication to support the war.

How so? Did he have a stockpile of 10kgs Pu? If not, how was he to acquire it in that short a timeframe? To my knowledge he did not have a functioning reactor.

If he was doing isotope separation, where were his facilities? Did they even exist or were they just plans? He had some uranium ore, but as a nuclear engineer you should understand the difficulties posed by having to start from no nuclear industry whatsoever to full-scale production. 6 months is a ridiculous figure in that case. Hell, with Iraq's resources 10 years is a ridiculous figure.