No 2nd Resolution

[Adam Smith]

My thoughts, from the head end of the other thread. Some of these points have already been covered.

French Foreign Minister de Vellepin indicated yesterday that France would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. See this article in this morning's Washington Post.

I am not particularly in favor of invading Iraq. We are currently playing diplomatic poker, and right now it appears that all we have in our hand is a pair of sixes. However, I find these comments disturbing on three grounds.

Frist, a few months back we went through a protracted discussion at the UN about whether there needed to be an additional resolution before attacking Iraq. We reached some kind of tenuous agreement, and now it appears that the French have not moved one inch from their original position.

Second, it appears that both the French and the Germans are not quite straight on their facts. According to de Villepin, quote:
"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
According to German Foreign Minister Fischerquote:
"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground.
I will be the first to admit that there is no smoking gun. However, the UN inspectors indicated there are large gaps in the Iraqi declaration; there is no accounting for materials known to be in their possession during the prior inspections; and three thousand pages of classified documents which appear to be responsive to the UN request were found in the home of an Iraqi scientist. Do de Villepin and Fischer know something that the rest of us don’t, and if so would they please share it?

Lastly there is the question of timing. The Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. now the French, Germans, and Chinese appear to indicate that the upcoming report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. If so, why should the word of the UN Security Council be taken seriously?

Colin Powell busted his ass to get the US to play ball with the UN. And what we appear to have for our diplomatic efforts is a failure of other parties to negotiate, a likely willful ignorance of the facts, and little reason to take the word of the UN Security Council seriously. If this is the case, many Americans will wonder why we should even bother.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Adam Smith



Lastly there is the question of timing. The Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. now the French, Germans, and Chinese appear to indicate that the upcoming report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. If so, why should the word of the UN Security Council be taken seriously?

Adam, most Americans could care less what the UN thinks or does and this comes as no surprise to anyone.

[JohnT]

Look, let's just state the obvious: France has dealings with terrorists. They love the guys, frankly, and don't really like going after the bastards. From Lybia ("don't fly over our pansy, little country to bomb Quadaffi (whatever happened to him btw? Oh, yeah! The US took care of his ass)) to dealing with Kosovo, the French lead the way in obstructionism and obfuscation.

Perhaps we can add France to the "Quadrilateral of Evil."

[Dinner]

Margaret Thatcher had the frogs pegged a long time ago. In both the Argintine & the first gulf wars she predicted the French would moan, complain & threaten, and then in the end they'll go along with the plan. In both cases things turned out exactly as she predicted.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I just wish the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Turks would tell us to **** off. Let's see us try to mount an invasion with a base on an island in the Persian Gulf

It wouldn't really be a problem

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by JohnT
Look, let's just state the obvious: France has dealings with terrorists. They love the guys, frankly, and don't really like going after the bastards. From Lybia ("don't fly over our pansy, little country to bomb Quadaffi (whatever happened to him btw? Oh, yeah! The US took care of his ass)) to dealing with Kosovo, the French lead the way in obstructionism and obfuscation.

Perhaps we can add France to the "Quadrilateral of Evil."

JohnT,

I will take devils advocate since there aren't many French who post here. The French (with all their shortcomings) have arrested more al Qaeda suspects than anyone else. They have also been one of the countries with the most terrorist attacks against it. They just do what ever petty thing they can to disrupt our hegemonic supremacy, that's all.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger


No, the Iraqis were just not encouraging the scientists to be interviewed alone. No scientist said "yes" when the inspectors asked if they wanted to be. Now Iraq has promised to encourage scientists to be interviewed alone, but has said that it will not compel them to do so.

What's the point. The scientist will not do anything unless Saddam tells them to, because they are afraid of him. By Saddam hot compelling them to be interviewed he might as well tell them not to be interviewed unless.

[Edan]

Adam, most Americans could care less what the UN thinks or does and this comes as no surprise to anyone.

You're right. When Libya becomes head of the UN rights panel, it shouldn't be a suprise that people don't take the UN seriously.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
A quote from Blair,

"But if we don't deal with (Iraq) now and take a stand on it now, is North Korea going to believe us? Are any of these other countries trying to obtain these weapons going to believe us if we face this challenge and duck it?"

Good point. Only GB and USA know about the responsibility that comes with military power.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MoonWolf
Instead it will first be an American playground for the weapon industry and then an American oil-colony.

I've never understood this oil colony business. Is there actually any out there simple minded enough to really believe this is the truth? Hello! Earth to space cadet. Have you ever heard of the commodities exchange market? Anyone with money can already buy all the oil the want. It would be ten times more expensive to occupy a country to try to set up an oil colony then it would be just to buy the oil at market rate. Ergo it is not about setting up an oil colony.

It's about getting rid of someone who's been a pain in the backside and making an example out of him. It's about demenstraiting that bad things happen to people who try to upset the apple cart. That the guy happens to be an SOB and that we will once again get to experiment in creating spin-offs in our image is just icing on the cake.

Is that fair? No. Is it effective? Yes. Will it make make countries like North Korea and Iran think long and hard before they get into any pissing contests with us? Yes, and that's why knocking off Saddam is a good idea.

[GePap]

So when do we fit this thread with a Gun rack? Maybe one of those "don't mess with texas" bumperstickers?

[Az]

reminder : must get myself one of those stickers.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by DuncanK


It wouldn't really be a problem

We could probably just drop our new urban warfare troops directly on Bagdad and take it out in 24 hours.

I hear rumors of pulse munitions that can be detonated at street level effectively disabling defenders and civilians alike for up to ten minutes, plenty of time to drop in troops and overun even prepared defensive positions.

And rumors from Ft. Bragg that we have infiltrators in place this time.

Turkey shoot.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


We could probably just drop our new urban warfare troops directly on Bagdad and take it out in 24 hours.

I hear rumors of pulse munitions that can be detonated at street level effectively disabling defenders and civilians alike for up to ten minutes, plenty of time to drop in troops and overun even prepared defensive positions.

And rumors from Ft. Bragg that we have infiltrators in place this time.

Turkey shoot.

While i think that the US would most probably be able to invade IRAQ without any problems, i'm not so sure about what you say here.
I just hope the lessons of Mogadeshiu haven't been forgotten if it gets to that.

[Ned]

Adam Smith, It does appear that France and Germany are 1) not operating on the same set of facts, or 2) they are drawing different conclusions from a common set of facts, or 3) they are being disengenuous.

I say the French and Germans are being disengenuous. I believe the facts strongly suggest more Saddam obstruction with only the appearance of cooperation.

As you say, Adam Smith, I too am deeply disturbed by the French and German obstructionism. This presages a wholesale rearrangement of alliances. As Che would say, the world, or at least some of it, appears to have united against America and the UK.

(Just as an asside, I have just finished listening to Band of Brothers on tape. It appears the French had a very hostile, anti-American attitude even as we liberated them in WWII. Now, someone, please explain that!)