France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The burden of proof is on the accuser. Wars should not be fought on supposition.

Blix said in the 80's that Hussein was not a threat and after the Gulf War I, we learned that he was 6-18 months from a bomb. Much closer than the "3-5 years" which Bush I's administration alleged. And which anti-war people said was a fabrication to support the war.

[GePap]

GP:

back in the 1980's, the US position vis a vi Iraq and its power int eh gulf was unclear. Today it is not. The situation has changed.

Also, what if Saddam had a nuke? Whos he going to nuke, Kuwait?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'd posit the same question to Bush and Co. They've been adamant about knowing things and having their own proof of this that or the other, but have been refusing to share that information with anyone else. I rather think it's like the list McCarthy supposedly kept in his briefcase.

I think you were addressing this to me, not DanS. Please see my initial comment about playing poker with a pair of sixes. Note, however, that there is a difference between making a statement contrary to known facts (EU) vs. making a statement for which there is not yet (and possibly may not be) factual support (US, UK). When the time comes I suspect (hope) the US public will insist on seeing more in our hand than a pair of sixes.

Edit:

Gepap:
Certainly Kuwait was not a defensive move. Certainly US and Soviet WOMD had a poolitical effect, even if they were not used. Is it not reasonable to suppose that Saddam interests in the region (eg Saudi succession) which might be furthered by possession of WOMD?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap


I am glad you didn't appreciate it..that was it's point!

Good to know that under the layers of crap, there was in fact a point.

Did you happen to get mine?
That you're beating a dead horse, because it's a done deal?
That maybe there's still time on other issues?
Probably not, but that's typical.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
GP:

back in the 1980's, the US position vis a vi Iraq and its power int eh gulf was unclear. Today it is not. The situation has changed.

Also, what if Saddam had a nuke? Whos he going to nuke, Kuwait?

Saudi Arabia. He's already shown that he covets the Gulf oil fields, which are all quite close together. Gulf War 1 was about Saudi Arabia and the entire set of Gulf nations with oil.

[Ben Kenobi]

*shakes head*

No need to shout GePap. I'm deaf already.

2 questions we need to ask and answer before war with Iraq.

1. Does Iraq have nuclear weaponry, or are they close to developing nuclear weapons?

2. Will Iraq use them on the Americans or the allies of the US?

Both 1 and 2 must be true in order to justify war.
I don't buy your argument that a 'threat' constitutes the complete destruction the United States, I'd prefer to avoid a nuclear strike on the US if possible.

Is the highest motivation of Hussein to survive? Is this motivation greater than a desire for revenge? I don't know, but the question is not as cut and dried as you have put. Would he nuke Israel given the opportunity and the ability?

[TCO]

My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GP
My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

He caused this loss of sovereignty by his aggressive actions in the past.

[GePap]

But he didn't invade Saudi Arabia:

lets look back to august 1990: the Iraqis drive into Kuwait and take the whole country in a few hours. Then they stop. They could have kept driving into Saudi Arabia, couldn't they? What was there to stop them? they had the biggest army in the region, at a time when there were no US forces in Saudi Arabia, and yet, they stopped at the border, and the only time they invaded SA was once the gulf war begun.

So why did Iraq stop, back then, in August 1990, at the borders of Saudi Arabia? Why didn't they drtive the extra 200 miles it would have taken for them to aquire the biggest oil fields in the world?

I would say, because back in August 1990, they though they could get away with taking over little dip**** Kuwait, but they would never get away with attacking Saudi Arabia. NOw they know they can't attack either.

[Arrian]

I find this unsurprising. France (and Russia.... and everyone but Britain) have been anti-war since the beginning. Every move was calculated to stall/stop Bush & Co. from attacking Iraq.

I wonder, do you think the people in the administration ever stop and think "gee, wiz, pretty much the entire world (exception of Britain) thinks we're wrong on this. Could we be?"

-Arrian

[GePap]

Back in 1980, most US papers would have blamed the first Gulf war (what we call Iran-Iraq) on Iran, not on Saddam. After all, it was the Iranians that tried formenting revolution in Iraq and attempted to assasinate Iraqi officials in early 1980. It is only now, that the first Gulf war becomes simply a case for "Iraqi aggression".

As I said, GP: the situation has changed. Iraq now knows the southern route is blocked, they can't attack turkey, and do we really care if they go to war with Syria or Iran?

Arrian:

For the admin., that the rest fo the world doesn't aprove is proof to them that the rest of the world is obviously wrong. After all, how could Bush and Co. ever be wrong? They are servants fo God, are they not?

[Chris 62]

I doubt it Arrian.

Didn't Europe just remain silent while Libya, of all countries, was elected head of the UN human rights commision?

And for the anti-war fellows, this subject isn't about whether a war is correct or not, it's about France trying to manipulate the UN to suite it's own inflated importance.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GP
My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

GePap and others won't even acknowledge that, GP.
They only look at history within the context of a year or so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


GePap and others won't even acknowledge that, GP.
They only look at history within the context of a year or so.

So Saddam din't get rid of 100% of his WMD..big freaking deal.
Perhaps the treaties at the end of the Gulf War (written back when everythign was going to be better, the New World Order after the Cold War would lead to the end of History and everything nice) will teach us never to commit oneself to a set of principles one is not really ready to commit to.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I doubt it Arrian.

Didn't Europe just remain silent while Libya, of all countries, was elected head of the UN human rights commision?

And for the anti-war fellows, this subject isn't about whether a war is correct or not, it's about France trying to manipulate the UN to suite it's own inflated importance.

Wait, a veto power trying to manipulate the UN for it's own purposes? How uncouth! How unheard of! Why, I am outraged!! No one has ever tried to do so before! Damn French! they must pay for this insolence against the UN system!

All is fair in love and diplomacy: the US played the UN back in November, now the French might. Don't go into the kitchen if you cant stand the heat, as they say.