No 2nd Resolution

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Or perhaps they just realized that if the US has a right to nuclear weapons, so does Iraq. And seeing as how we have used nukes far more maliciously than Iraq has, I don't see the problem.

Come to think of it, France has used chemical weapons far more maliciously than Iraq has, as has Germany

oh that makes alot of sense. If a democracy with countless safegaurds and protocals for the use of nuclear weapons can have them, why cant a dictator who could use them on a whim have them? makes sense to me!... not really

more maliciously? what does that have to do with anything, especially since we've had nukes like 55 years longer than they have. Besides, dont get me started on the bombing of japan...

Kman

[DanS]

Troll, troll, troll. Just ignore the troll. He's not even bring up interesting points and his posts indicate a high level of inebriation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Or perhaps they just realized that if the US has a right to nuclear weapons, so does Iraq.

The funny part of this is that you might actually believe that is the decision the French came to considering your shallow,misguided understanding of international relations.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
The plan was to put enough pressure on Hussein that he would give up the goods.

It wasn't really about the goods as such, it was about Hussein himself. The plan was to catch him on an obvious lie, which would give the US a valid pretext to launch the war.

[David Floyd]

The funny part of this is that you might actually believe that is the decision the French came to considering your shallow,misguided understanding of international relations.

No, I don't actually think that France would be that consistent in their foreign policy, any more than the US would.

DanS,

I'm not drunk, and of course you wouldn't think my points are interesting, because you seem to think the US is always right, or at least right any significant percentage of time.

Kman,

If a democracy with countless safegaurds and protocals for the use of nuclear weapons can have them, why cant a dictator who could use them on a whim have them?

Oh come on. Congress and the Supreme Court aren't checks on the President's power to launch a nuclear weapon. Sure, there is the two man rule, but all the President has to do is surround himself with "yes men" and it becomes irrelevant.

And Truman sure didn't have many safeguards against dropping the bomb, twice.

[The Vagabond]

On the other hand, the French saved Russia the embarasment.

[DanS]

We already have a valid pretext. This UN rigamarole was a device to put pressure on Iraq and give France and co. a pretext to come over to the winning side. You know, the side that will be there at the end of the year.

Re Russia, it really doesn't lose anything either way. Russia can stand on its own outside the UN. France can't, which makes me wonder why they value it so cheaply. This also lowers the relative power of the UK, who is presumably France's friend.

[The Vagabond]

For Russia, even to abstain on the issue would be a kind of diplomatic embarrassment.

[DanS]

Once the embarrassment dies down, Russia's influence is undiminished, though. Russia's influence isn't based on te SC. France's influence is.

[Kramerman]

Oh come on. Congress and the Supreme Court aren't checks on the President's power to launch a nuclear weapon. Sure, there is the two man rule, but all the President has to do is surround himself with "yes men" and it becomes irrelevant.

There arent just tangeble safe gaurds either. No president would ever authorize the use of nukes if not the prevailing sentiment of the public in fear of political suicide. It is very unlikely a man who can be elected president would want to be remembered throughout history as a mass murderer.
We can not say the same about a dictator who has practically total control of the minds of the masses in his country (and others), and who will think what he wants them to think.
Indeed, comparing America with nukes and Iraq with nukes is the same as comparing apples and oranges, to a rational mind, anyway

And Truman sure didn't have many safeguards against dropping the bomb, twice.

Yes he did (not the same as today), he just passed them all.
Maybe, just maybe, it was justified. Its all relative of course, to what you believe and what propaganda first influenced you, and everyone is convinced they are right. Its amazing how many diametrically conflicting views are 'correct'. im no exception, of course. But, like i said, dont get me started on japan.

Kman

EDIT: added quote so you know what the hell im talking about

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
France can't, which makes me wonder why they value it so cheaply.

Out of curiosity, how much are the oil contracts that the French signed with Hussein worth? How likely is it now that they will be declared void now?

David: No, I don't actually think that France would be that consistent in their foreign policy

You honestly don't get it, do you? Your views on nuclear proliferation are stupid at best and suicidal at worst.

[JohnT]

France is trying to show her leadership creds to the rest of the EU, which is more important to her than showing leadership in the UN. France is too provincial and too weak to try to tackle issues outside the European borders, imo.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
We really didn't lose anything by doing it. It takes a while to assemble a force, anyway.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. Time is not the issue here. A diplomatic setback is. Do you want to say that now that the UN refused to authorize the war you are not in a worse position to attack than you were without going to the UN?

[DanS]

"Out of curiosity, how much are the oil contracts that the French signed with Hussein worth? How likely is it now that they will be declared void now?"

I don't know. Can't be more than $5 billion. Certainly not worth more than guarding the long-term interests of French foreign policy.

As to voiding those contracts, I don't know. Voiding any agreements is a very tricky business, as the Russians have found out on their sovereign debt.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, folks, you better get your eye on the ball. The Korean situation is 10 times more dangerous than Iraq and Bush seems to be intent on putting N. Korea in a position that the only possible course of action is war, just like Roosevelt did with Japan.