France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by 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.

Saddam only hasn't done anything because a embargo has been imposed on him, and thus lacks the means to carry on with aggressions. However, the embargo has taken a toll on Iraqi population and can't go on forever.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap


Where? when? Why?

I am sorry, but 'reports' such as those are hardly believeable.

You may choose not to believe them, but truthfully I'm not really trying to figure out if they are true or not. Even if I did doubt them I'm not in for any gamble on the matter.

[Chris 62]

Again gepap, your missing the point.

If the US does what it wants, it doesn't have to leave the UN.

The way it's set up, the UN can do NOTHING to stop the United States, France, Russia, China, or Great Britain from doing whatever they like.

It doesn't have to physically be removed to be rendered inert.

If the UN, namely France, does this again, it will be the final nail in the coffin.

It will still meet and debate, but it will have as much authority as you or I have posting, namely none.

It has to support it's own resolutions, or be religated to the Dustbin of History.

And show me a Democrat that has a hoot in hell of beating Bush.
It sure isn't amoung the group who have anouced they are running.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Given that Al Queda was a sworn enemy of Hussein and sought to overthrow his regime with a religious fundamentalist one, I find this very doubtful. Any evidence? No, of course not. And I've not heard of a single report saying this. The Administration tried to link Iraq to September 11, and failed.

You must not be familiar with the information given out on the reports since no one claimed that Saddam had any knowledge of the transfer.

[Sandman]

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

Or in other words, they've decided to it would be better to put up token resistance than token acquiescence. Good for them.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the trouble in the Ivory Coast, in which France is heavily involved?

[GePap]

Chris 62:

I did not say the US is a threat to any particular state, but the system: a system of tight rules and regulations designed to keep the use of force between states at the barest possible minimum. The US is trying to overthrow such a system as far as it may pertain to itself: but to think the US will be the only state to get the message that attacking other states is fine, as long as your justification seems good enough is absurd. Once you begin to kick the ant hill, don't come crying if you get bitten in the future.

SpencerH:

And under what conditions would the no flight zones and the russians and french would begin to re-amr Saddam? That possibility seems far more remote than just a continuation of the status quo. As I said, Saddam is contained. Hell, it is his weakness that allows the White House to pick this war, not his strength. Bush is picking on the weakest of the "Axis of evil", not the strongest or most dangerous, as he keeps saying.

[Drake Tungsten]

He is contained. Pure and simple.

True, but the process of containment is hurting the US far more than toppling Saddam would. How exactly are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of the Arab people if we have to maintain a US military force in the Persian Gulf indefinitely to contain a nuclear Iraq? There's a lot of Arabs who are pissed off about our presence in Saudi Arabia already; how much worse will that anger be in fifty years?

Toppling Saddam isn't just about stopping a tyrant from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; it is also an unparalleled opportunity to introduce some much needed democracy into the Arab world. Terrorism cannot be beaten if there is no real political opposition to fundamentalist Islam. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Arab world would provide a powerful counterbalance to the fundamentalist claptrap emanating from Saudia Arabia, a counterbalance that is vital to any real attempt to destroy terrorism. Yet some people would just sit idly by, wasting this opportunity in favor of allowing a despot to continue his reign of terror...

[Chris 62]

The world seemed to survive thousands of years without a UN Gepap, the thing is a sham.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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

Ah! If enough people thought like this I would be afraid. What do you expect us to do what until he proves to us that he has WMD by using them against us?

[Az]

Do you like the status quo, GePap?

[DuncanK]

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?

New York? LA? Our troops? May sound rediculous to you, but I would just rather he didn't have the nukes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
I did not say the US is a threat to any particular state, but the system: a system of tight rules and regulations designed to keep the use of force between states at the barest possible minimum.

The system, by design, lacks meaningful power to compel a great power to do anything.

[SlowwHand]

From GePap:
"Saddam has done squat for the last decade:"

So it's not that you miss that fact, you simply choose to ignore. Ok then. Little to be done for that, I guess.

What about that it's already a done deal?
What about looking ahead to things that are not yet a done deal?
Again, ignored? I guess.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Again gepap, your missing the point.

If the US does what it wants, it doesn't have to leave the UN.

The way it's set up, the UN can do NOTHING to stop the United States, France, Russia, China, or Great Britain from doing whatever they like.

It doesn't have to physically be removed to be rendered inert.

If the UN, namely France, does this again, it will be the final nail in the coffin.

It will still meet and debate, but it will have as much authority as you or I have posting, namely none.

It has to support it's own resolutions, or be religated to the Dustbin of History.

And show me a Democrat that has a hoot in hell of beating Bush.
It sure isn't amoung the group who have anouced they are running.

If France vetos a new resolution (as if the US wanted to have a new one), then the biggest losers are Bush and Blair, in terms of political cost. The US (and UK) are, in the end, democracies. The fact that most Americans want UN approval (80% support war with UN backing, 39% without) shows how much the UN has become part of the system, within people's minds. Bush can get away with attacking Iraq because it is a UN pariah, because it is weak, and surrounded by small states the US can bully into towing the line. This would not be true of an attack on Iran, or Lybia, or Syria (all of which are members with standing within the Un system) or N.korea.

So the UN will live on, and heck, with time, it might be redefined to become more powerful, not less.

The only people a French veto would hurt are Bush & Co. (and defenitally Blair).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


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.

How so? Did he have a stockpile of 10kgs Pu? If not, how was he to acquire it in that short a timeframe? To my knowledge he did not have a functioning reactor.

If he was doing isotope separation, where were his facilities? Did they even exist or were they just plans? He had some uranium ore, but as a nuclear engineer you should understand the difficulties posed by having to start from no nuclear industry whatsoever to full-scale production. 6 months is a ridiculous figure in that case. Hell, with Iraq's resources 10 years is a ridiculous figure.