France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Maroule]

bush will become irrelevant before the UN does. Why? because everybody, esp the US, needs a global institution, however imprefect, to pick up the s***...

[Drake Tungsten]

Hardly. Without US support, the UN is no better than the League of Nations.

[Maroule]

true, what I question is the 'without US support'. I can't see the US dropping out, because they still use the UN whenever it pleases them, and that outweights short term headaches

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Maroule
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).

Not talkin' lost battles here, but offical acts of state

Starting at 1940

The surrender, the Fleet inaction, Vichy, Metrox, Syria
Alpine aggressions against Italy (after It. surrender and
co-belligent against axis) and the USA. (until Truman cut
French supplies)

After 1945

NATO, selling India a reactor after they refused to sign the NNPT, Inciting Terrorism in Canada (nice Allies). Causing Terrorism in New Zealand (Nice Allies).

Churchill should have picked Sweden.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Hardly. Without US support, the UN is no better than the League of Nations.

I am all for dropping the pretences. Get out of the UN already!

[Drake Tungsten]

true, what I question is the 'without US support'. I can't see the US dropping out, because they still use the UN whenever it pleases them, and that outweights short term headaches

The UN is starting to be less and less of a benefit to the US. They wouldn't approve action in Kosovo and now it appears that they won't approve action in Iraq. If things continue in this manner, continued participation in the UN might not be worth the headaches it causes for the United States.

I don't think the US will ever leave the United Nations, but I can envisage a day where the US no longer goes to the UN with any issues of real importance.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I am all for dropping the pretences. Get out of the UN already!

We'd prefer to be free riders. Maybe the Senate will hold back dues again.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think the US will ever leave the United Nations, but I can envisage a day where the US now longer goes to the UN with an issue of real importance.

There we have it; the old hypocricy again.

Get out, and good riddance.

[Arrian]

There really needs to be a middle finger smiley.

-Arrian

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian
There really needs to be a middle finger smiley.

-Arrian

Seconded.

-CT

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

We'd prefer to be free riders. Maybe the Senate will hold back dues again.

Is the US paid up?

5 vetos

US - For
UK - For
France -$$$ (for)
Russia -$$$$ (for)
China-? Veto ?

Whats' in it for China to allow a "police action"
France is irrelevant

[Maroule]

so why all the fuss?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ned had some questions for you, GePap.

Thank you Sloww, and the answer is on page 10.

They don't need to find anything; they only need to show that Saddam is blocking effective inspection once again. Hans Blix is on TV every day complaining about Iraq's cooperation, but France has arbitrarily decided that non-cooperation is no longer a material breach. The system doesn't work...

No, the system works just fine: the French, and 90% of states out there don't care if Saddam still has WMD, as long as he can't use them. As long as the inspectors are in Iraq, Saddam is as much a non-issue as he was from 1995-1998. Hell, from 1999-2001 Saddam wasn't much of a trouble maker, even without inspectors. Your mistake is to assume that most members of the UN actualy buy Bush's little tirade about having to "defend the Honor of the UN". After all, the main purpose of the UN is peace, not ant-proliferation or anti-Al Qaedeism. After all, plenty of US allies are thgemselves in material breach, as it were, of plenty of UN Sec Council resolutions, with Morocco being leader of the pact, yet the US never cal to enforce those, and neither does anyone else.

No they wouldn't have. The Security Council is broken because it was purposely made so. That's why your hopes of using the Security Council to enforce the NPT is naive.

Read the whole of my answer Drake:I never call for the SC to enforce the NPT; no one can "enforce" the NPT since its a voluntary treaty. Everyone is free to leave when they damn well please.
Yet in that fact lies the reason for the value fo the UN. As long as most nations think the system works (ie. peace is maintained, and when someone invades someone else, they wil be punished), then they have every reason to stick with the NPT, and conventions against Bio and chem. weapons. If at any point they begun to think: hell, the UN system is coming apart, what reason would they have to stick with the NPT? The goodwill of the US? yeah, RIGHT. No, it is the continued existance of the UN system that makes voluntary actions, like forsaking nukes, to work. Fine, call for the end of the UN: but don't complan when everyone decides that perhaps they do need Nukes after all.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by GePap
After all, plenty of US allies are thgemselves in material breach, as it were, of plenty of UN Sec Council resolutions, with Morocco being leader of the pact, yet the US never cal to enforce those, and neither does anyone else.

The #1 violator is Israel, afaik.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
All the SC requires is that the case be clear. Fact is that the Iraq case isn't totally clear. They found a few old chemical containers. That strengthens the case but doesn't prove that chemical munitions are being made right now.

And the only reason that the Senate doesn't block war as much as the P5 countries do is because they took away the power from the Senate and gave it to the President (within 90 days). I guess that was because the Senate was becoming a joke.

I don't think that is true. Interpretations of the previous resolution have been varied. But Roland claims that it says that if there is clear evidence of misbehavior the SC still decides what to do after they see that.