France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War - Page 7

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:22

More likely they are gremlins.

Un-named sources=no sources

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Kitty, an un-named "source" is hearsay, and thus not believeable.

I didn't say it was; I was giving an (apparently believable) source which quotes the (possibly believable) unnamed source, in response to SpencerH's query.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH

That link (source) is not even close to being legitimate.

Spence, I don't really see the US outright grabbing oil for itself, either. I provided the best source I could find on it with a quick google search...

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:27

Which perpetuates a fairey tale, Kitty.

Bushie rarely has leaks in his cabinet, and something like that would be major, as well as being foolish policy.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:30

Not at all. I put that source there for people to judge for themselves. It sounds like speculation on the part of a source whom I'm assuming has enough of a connection with the current admin that his claim to having been briefed by the admin as to their possible future intentions is credible on the face of it. That in itself is newsworthy, as long as the story is reported fairly, IMO...

TCO · January 22, 2003, 13:31

Could you put some more caveats in there, Kitty?

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:32

I'm training to be a Roland...

Maroule · January 22, 2003, 13:33

as any junior journalist will tell you, most of the leaks are intentional : in that case it could be to test the reaction of voters/allies/the arab world, whatever

I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, I'm no intern in the WH (too dangerous)

Anyway, my point was that getting its hands on iraq's resources is in all probability higher on the US agenda than on the French one. We don't have anybody from the oil lobby in our gouvernment.

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:33

Nice attempt at double talk Kitty, worthy of a Pillar of the community.

Un-named source means it's made up to fool the rubes.

TCO · January 22, 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
I'm training to be a Roland...

Nah. You're too clear. You need to mix obscure comments with good points. That will really keep me off balance.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:36

I've already said I don't believe it, Chris...

Here:

I don't believe it

Unlike some people (present company excluded, of course

) I don't try to convince people of things I believe to be false in order to influence their opinions in a direction I deem positive...

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:39

So, your saying you don't believe it?

TCO · January 22, 2003, 13:39

Hey what ever happened to our analysis that Poly was a time-suck?

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:40

It is, and if and when I feel time-pressured again, I'll pull the plug. I'm okay for now....

TCO · January 22, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
So, your saying you don't believe it?

Hey...I met a girl.

Can I still have a NY hawtie?

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:42

When are you going to jetison that dopey handle?

TCO · January 22, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
It is, and if and when I feel time-pressured again, I'll pull the plug. I'm okay for now....

Good man.

Now...how about my plan to lure you into solid state stuff? You'll get to use all your tool skills.

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Hey...I met a girl.

Can I still have a NY hawtie?

Told ya you would.

The answer depends on how much cash you have.

Oh, need to post on topic:

France is waiting for a pay-off.

GePap · January 22, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Are you going to answer my question?

"GePap, do you favor of ignoring or enforcing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty solely based upon whether or not the signatory nation that is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States?"

Enforcement of the NPT would be solely the job of the UN Security Council: there is nothing in the treaty, just as there is nothing within the UN charter, that give s a single state, without the full consent of the SecCouncil, the ability to "enforce" the treaty. And if any single state ever begun to try to do such a thing, the offender could simply decide (as N.Korea has done, and did in 1993) to begin the procedure to leave the treaty, which any state can do if they so whish. As for the reasons to "enforce" the NPT: I am ambivalent. In 'theory' all violators should face consequences for their actions. These consequences though don't mean war. As I said before, any state can at any time drop the NPT, due to the primacy of state's sovereignty on the world stage, and if it is assumed that a state can drop out, it hardly seems likely that one of the possible consequences for breaking it is war. The most obvious penalty is an end of nuclear cooperation with such states, since the deal in the NPT is that small states won't make nukes, and the Nuclear powers will give them help in the civilian uses of nuclear power.

So, in theory Ned, all violations of the NPT should be addressed, but the NPT is a somewhat hollow treaty. It is a promise by the have's to the have not's: we promise never to use nukes against you, and help you build nuclear power plants, as long as you never try to make nukes. It's enforcement depends primarily on the good-will of the "have not's". As long as they think the 'have's' have kept their word, they will follow. If the believe the "have's" have broken their part of the bargain, they are free to drop it. So, a violation of the NPT is not, by itself, a possible causus belli.

Ozz · January 22, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Spence, I don't really see the US outright grabbing oil for itself, either

That is just one of the side benefits to the US

1. Overthrow a dangerous lunatic (Saddam)
2. Overthrow a regime hostile to Israel
3. Establish a puppet sitting on Iraq oil, kick OPEC in
the stones. Don't have to own oil, just control it.
4. Establish permament US air/land/sea bases in the centre of the mid east, don't need Arab allies/Turkey
to access entire region.
5. Texas Oil Co. s rebuilds Iraq, big bucks for all white
house cronies

TCO · January 22, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Told ya you would.

The answer depends on how much cash you have.

Oh, need to post on topic:

France is waiting for a pay-off.

1. I thought you were providing the girl free. SOrt of a pro-bono, homo-prevention program?

2. This one is a cutey...but there are some issues.

Drake Tungsten · January 22, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Enforcement of the NPT would be solely the job of the UN Security Council

So you're not in favor of enforcing the NPT then...

Oerdin · January 22, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
This one is a cutey...but there are some issues.

Always is... of course nearly all guys have issues as well.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:54

The NPT is a wholly voluntary treaty, Drake. You don't have the legal wherewithal to take military action against a country that doesn't abide by it. That's like deciding the you'll invade any country which doesn't abide by Kyoto...

Comrade Tribune · January 22, 2003, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Maroule
The recent position taken by Chirac/Villepin is mainly based on the domestic agenda + the wish of Chirac, now one of the oldest stateman of Western powers, to increase his international image.

Even if it was done for the wrong reason, it is still recommendable.

Hitting the United States on the nose (hard!) is the most important priority right now for any responsible person, wherever he may live.

Ozz · January 22, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
France is waiting for a pay-off.

France is always waiting for a pay-off for doing anything.

What I don't understand is why France ever got a veto
in the first case. They were a basketcase at the end of
WW2 (even Canada was more powerful) and they had
firmly established a reputation for selling out and bailing
out.

Drake Tungsten · January 22, 2003, 14:01

Quote:

You don't have the legal wherewithal to take military action against a country that doesn't abide by it.

When did I mention military action? I talked about enforcement, which is a far broader term...

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 14:02

How would you enforce, then? With sanctions/diplomatically? Because that, of course, is well within your purview...

Drake Tungsten · January 22, 2003, 14:05

Quote:

How would you enforce, then? With sanctions/diplomatically?

I wasn't making any policy recommendations. I was just saying that the Security Council is a joke and to rely on it for effective enforcement is hopelessly naive.

Maroule · January 22, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

France is always waiting for a pay-off for doing anything.

What I don't understand is why France ever got a veto
in the first case. They were a basketcase at the end of
WW2 (even Canada was more powerful) and they had
firmly established a reputation for selling out and bailing
out.

Churchill wanted us to be in the council...
he didn't quite fancy a tête à tête with the US and the USSR, so he wanted another european power. There was none other available

anyway, it's refreshing for everybody to hear a different voice from the one coming from the US, even when it irritates our allies...

Ozz, "firmly established a reputation for selling out and bailing out. " which event are you talking about? if it's being beaten by the Germans in 40, then everybody else was too. (even the US on their first land confrontation with the germans in WWII got a nose bleed. That's Kasselrine, Operation Torch, for anybody who asks).