France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[TCO]

I understand your point of view, GePap. Just wanted to articulate mine.

[GePap]

Well, GP, then everything is fine

[Sandman]

I approve of France's actions (even though there's more than a hint of self-interest), but they've just set up themselves for even more sneering jibes from the Americans.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sandman
I approve of France's actions (even though there's more than a hint of self-interest), but they've just set up themselves for even more sneering jibes from the Americans.

No, they're set up for a big fat US check in the mail, they were against, than the US offered Oil refinery building in after invasion Iraq carrot. Then they were in. Now they are out again.

You can buy the French, but they don't stay bought.

You can say the same about N. Korea

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by GePap
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!

Your rather obtuse post is a stellar example of why the UN is truly a useless body.
Do you believe that something is the right thing to do because Paris, Berlin and Beijing say so?
Because Washington does?
I was adressing a real politik issue, I think you understand the inspection process, like all things UN, is a dog and poney show.

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.

I think it's escaped you that the US made it clear if the UN didn't act this time, it would be an end to it as a political body governing world events.
Have you forgotten Bush's speaches last year so soon?
France's action is speeding that end, without US agreement, no resolution CAN be enacted, and France is handing Bush a gun, and Bush will point it straight at the UN.

The times for games is over, I thought you understood this.

[SlowwHand]

Big deal?
The ONLY reason we have this situation today is because Bush, Sr. bowed to the will of the U.N.
The USA played the U.N. ? You're funny.
Chris makes one hell of a good point about Libya being named to chair the council.
Utter trash .

[Gatekeeper]

**shrug** I bet there were quite a few people in the 1930s who believed that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union — perhaps not yet sworn enemies, but certainly adversarial nations down the road — could never get together to sign a deal to divvy up a conquered Poland.

If and when nations such as Iraq and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, it will pretty much ensure their futures because the world definitely will *not* want to mess with them then. Right now it's hypothetical that, hey, a bunch of American and/or European civilians will get taken out by Saddam or Kim as they go down in flames. But in that sort of future, it would be guaranteed.

Gatekeeper

[GePap]

The Un survived the 50 years of the Cold War- it will survive the 4 (at most 8) years of Bush & Co. BUsh and his cronnies might be radicals, but they need the UN, specially in the aftermath. After all, someone has to take care of Iraq after the war, and Bush and his boys certainly aren't willing to pay the full cost.

As for Bush and his speech: doesn't the new national security strategy put out by this admin. say they would do anything to stop rogue states from aquiring nukes? Yeah, how far has that gone with respects to N.Korea?
So no, i haven't frgotten Bush sept 12 speech, but that speech will long be forgotten by the time the UN ends.

Bush and his boys are a factoid of history, perhaps one day they will become a nice trivia question (who was president when 9/11 happened?) but the UN has become part of the system. And it takes far more than words (which this Admin. seems to have plenty of) to overthrow the system.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

EVEN WITH NUKES, SADDAM HUSSEIN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE US, OR TO ITS ALLIES, BECAUSE IF HE WERE EVER TO USE WMD AGAINST THE US OR ITS ALLIES, SADDAM WOULD DIE, AND HE HAS SPENT THE LAST 30 YEARS TRYING NOT TO DIE.

How would he die? If a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack occurs within the US, there is a great risk that public outrage will demand that we would retaliate in kind. I would rather that we kill the bastard now than nuke Baghdad later.

THERE IS NOTHING SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD DO CURRENTLY, TO THREATEN VITAL INTERESTS OF THE US.

Nonsense.

EVEN IF THE MOST ABSURD LINE OF EVENTS MEANT THAT SOMEHOW, FOR SOME REASON, SOME IRAQI GOT WMD INTO THE US AND KILLED 100,000 AMERICANS, THERE ARE STILL 280,000,000 LEFT TO KICK SADDAM'S ASS.

Thats great unless you're one of the 100K eh? Personally I'd rather prevent the possibility. Your argument comes across as some kind of chivalrous nonsense i.e. if we strike first we're the bad guys. He's been given a chance, all he has to do is get rid of the weapons you all say are inconsequential. If he does that, he's safe to carry on abusing, starving, and torturing his own people to his hearts content.

[Main_Brain]

Well It didnt seem like it would matter for the US wheter Weapons are found or not.. Personally I find it great that some Countries stand up to this.
Europeans =Sheep ?

[Chris 62]

Gepap, your missing the point.

The UN survived because the US and the Soviets wanted it to survive.

It can't function if the most powerful nation ignores it.

Also, just because you don't care for Bush means he will vanish, I would say there's a better then even chance he will be re-elected, and in a landslide.

It's just as easy to envision the question of "What was the second league of nations known as"?

It's also far more likely.

[GePap]

SpencerH:

Saddam has done squat for the last decade: and there is no evidence that he would be able o do squat in the next.

I don't buy empty, childish definitions like "getting the bad guy". There are no "bad guys" in international relations. There are status quo powres, revisionists, aggressors, so forth and so on: a huge bunch of morality neutral words, sicne morality rarely ever plays out well in INternational relations. Iraq was once a revisionist power, but it was defeated, and has been neutralized. None of the warmonggers has yet shown any evidence that Iraq has somehow aquired new powers to try to redefine the system. He is contained. Pure and simple.

Currently, the US has become a revisionist power, which is certainly far more dangerous to the world order than anything Saddam may do, since the US is a global power, and Saddam is not. Now, if you agree with the admins. attempts to redefine the world order, then fine, make that argument: but don't expect me to buy empty platitudes about how Saddam is an evil man.

[Chris 62]

The US isn't dangerous to any nation that doesn't threaten it Gepap, bare that in mind.

[GePap]

Chirs 62:

First, looking at Bush's new poll numbers, a "landslide" looks dubious. Hwe might win, but it certainly won't be a "landslide"

For all of Bushes' bluster and bombast, he hasn't stopped going to the UN. On Iraq he has, but what about Iran, Lybia, Syria, N.Korea? Where are his brilliant, unilateral actiosn there? The US needs the UN still, even if Busshies don't like it. Someone has to take care of all those inspections and world programs, sof orth and so on, Bush certainly isn't willing to foot the bill for getting rid of it.

So, I can say with certainty, Chris, that the Un system will safely outlive George W. Bush and his admin(s?). The league of nation's was destroyed by a world war and when several major powers (germany, Japan, so forth and so on) pulled out. A war with iraq is no World War, and the US will maintain its veto power.

[SpencerH]

He's done squat for the last decade because we've sat on him. What would Iraq be like if the no-fly zones were gone and France and the Russians were free to sell him whatever they wished.

I never called him evil or defined my position in those terms. He's a threat, and I'd rather kill him now than later.