France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MikeH
Ah, you didn't say you were talking about Gulf War 1.

Are you telling me that I was wrong in saying that France and Germany didn't support this war?

I'm pointing out that this wasn't ANOTHER war.
Same war. Same responsible parties.
And France and others bailed, per usual.


Read the resolution.

[MikeH]

I've read it. Of course this is another war, harping back to previous resolutions is just cheap spin because they didn't have any evidence to create a new resolution.

[oedo]

if GW2 and GW3 would have been the same war, then I don´t understand why USA and GB were trying to get another UN-resolution in order to justify the war (again).

But who cares what France and Germany think? They are not the targets for this resolution. Rather, it is Pakistan and Turkey that can provide troops in significant numbers.

Turkey and Pakistan sending competent and experienced peacekeeping-troops? well yeah, dream on.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by oedo
if GW2 and GW3 would have been the same war, then I don´t understand why USA and GB were trying to get another UN-resolution in order to justify the war (again).

Quite a number of us thought another resolution was NOT needed - we went back to the UN anyway, to give the UN another chance to participate in the enforcement of its own resolutions (and to help Tony Blair with his domestic political problems)

[Sava]

Sloww likes to throw 1441 in the mix, but he doesn't realize that it doesn't specify consequences... go fish buddy!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
Sloww likes to throw 1441 in the mix, but he doesn't realize that it doesn't specify consequences... go fish buddy!

It said "serious consequences" - everyone knew what that meant - in subsequently arguing against action France never said that serious consequences meant something other than war.

[oedo]

then why not saying "war" if war was meant?
the resolution said "serious consequences", because "military intervention" or even "war" wouldn´t have got a majority in the security council. the majority of the SC didn´t want a resolution which justified a war. so one could even say "serious consequences" meant anything but war. neither the word "military" nor the word "war" appeared in the resolution.

[BeBMan]

OMG France and Germany voice their own opinions!!!

[SlowwHand]

Sava, 1441 is the defining document.
Just because you're too illiterate to read and comprehend id not my fault, not my responsibility.
You want to look like an ass, hey brother, that's on you.

BeBro, they bailed. Didn't follow through. Again.
Get in the Dumbass Line with Sava.

[oedo]

Sloww, actually where´s the problem for you?
USA and GB wanted the war, USA and GB invaded Iraq, USA and GB got all the advantages of the victory for themselves alone (treaties and oil). now why shouldn´t USA and GB carry all the risks and disadvantages alone?
if you want the help of others, pay for it, offer a serious compromise. that´s how it works.

or would you repair a car for free, although it was me who damaged it? - and maybe even after you warned me not driving this car?

[Japher]

I've a HELL of a lot more respect for someone who says they don't like me, nor will ever support, than I do for a liar.

France and Germany are once again doing the same thing they always do; whinning about the problem they have no intention of fixing or helping to fix... They are even getting the EU to do the same thing... Freaking puppet masters. I say we cut the strings!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by oedo
then why not saying "war" if war was meant?
the resolution said "serious consequences", because "military intervention" or even "war" wouldn´t have got a majority in the security council. the majority of the SC didn´t want a resolution which justified a war. so one could even say "serious consequences" meant anything but war. neither the word "military" nor the word "war" appeared in the resolution.

that was explained at the time.

It was feared by France, Germany, and Russia that if 1441 authorized "war" without going back to the council, the US might seize on a trivial act of non-compliance, such as a minor discrepancy in the Iraqi documentation of WMD's called for under 1441 as "authorization". By not explicity calling for war it would force the US to go back and show that Iraq was SUBSTANTIALLY in non-compliance with 1441.

Well the Iraqis WERE substantially in non-compliance with 1441. Even before inspections began, since their documentation was flagrantly non-compliant (it neither admitted WMD's nor documented their destruction) France NEVER disputed this. Nor did they dispute that "serious consequences" meant war. Instead they simply asked for more time for inspections, and for not "rushing" to war - IE they argued the SUBSTANCE of the situation - not the legal points relative to 1441.

What apparently happened was that France accepted the wording "serious consequences" on the assumption that Saddam would at least try to look like he was in compliance - he would put SOMETHING in his documentation strong enough that it could be argued that his non-compliance was unclear. Well for reasons that are yet unexplained, Saddam did not do that, and left France holding the bag. France therefore had to make arguments that did not reference 1441. Given the general global discomfort with US power this was enough to win at the UNSC, but not enough to stop the invasion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by oedo
Sloww, actually where´s the problem for you?
USA and GB wanted the war, USA and GB invaded Iraq, USA and GB got all the advantages of the victory for themselves alone (treaties and oil). now why shouldn´t USA and GB carry all the risks and disadvantages alone?
if you want the help of others, pay for it, offer a serious compromise. that´s how it works.

or would you repair a car for free, although it was me who damaged it? - and maybe even after you warned me not driving this car?

Do France, Russia and Germany claim that Iraq prior to the invasion was "undamaged"
We want assistance building a healthy, democratic society (as per the will of the UNSC) . Does anyone claim Iraq had that prior to the invasion?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
OMG France and Germany voice their own opinions!!!

'Schroeder said the draft resolution had brought "movement" into the diplomacy. But he added: "I agree with the president when he says: Not dynamic enough, not sufficient." '


not to get to snarky about it, but actually it was only France that voiced its own opinions. Schroeder just said "me too!!!"

[Ming]

The next personal insult in this thread will earn somebody a restriction.