France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Chris 62]

At one time, 80% of Americans favored segregation, that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Don't fall to in love with Poll results, remember Tom Dewey?

[Ozz]

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

I don't think it has to do with morality, just money. Both Iraq and The US are have been offering cash (ie. contacts) for the French vote. If the US wants French support it will cost them.

Don't forget who sold Iraq and India their reactors,
(ie: the Atomic bomb)

[Dinner]

Let's face facts; militarially and economically the French are a second rate power. What power they do have rests mainly upon being able to influence international organizations such as the U.N. and the EU so France has a vested interest in maintain the U.N. as a relevent power in world affairs.

That is why in the end the French will relent and sign off on a 2nd resolution. They know the invasion will go on with or with out a U.N. resolution so they are going to act like the North Koreans and hold out for as many consessions as possible and then they're going to sign the resolution.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


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.

He had sufficient material to make a bomb. Blix went along with Saddam when Saddam when he seperated it into 3 peices and kept them in different locations. Most people felt this was a silly (and wrong) circumvention of the restrictions on how much weapons material he coud posses. And in fact, 6 months before the war, he put all the stuff in the same facility. And started a crash prgram to make a bomb. I was in the service during Desert Storm and i remember the accusations of Iraqi potential for WOMD. And I was worried that Bush 1 was exaggerating them to make a stronger case for the war (which was all about defending the Gulf oil fields...they're all next to each other.) It turns out that after the war, we found that his WOMD program was more serious than we had thought. Including a several thousand gallon bioreactor for anthrax, etc.

I'll look for a source if you don't trust me. The info about the 3 seperate peices of weapons material (I don't know if it was U-235 or Pu-239) and Blix's handling in the 80's was from a recent story in the WSJ. (there have been a couple of them.)

[SlowwHand]

French support? What's that?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by 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.

Thats an interesting point, but one that is essentially moot. The only period in history where there has been any restraint between countries has been during the last 50 years under the threat of MAD. That time is over. The terrorists have shown the tip of the iceberg of what is possible for them to accomplish.

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.

I assume you mean "And under what conditions would the no flight zones (be removed) and the russians and french (...) begin to re-amr Saddam? "

Are you suggesting that there wasnt (and isnt) a movement to remove the no-fly zones and end the embargo both nationally in the US and internationally? France has been a major proponent of that view for many years. The French salivate over the money to be made. The Russians did too but they know that we will do more for them in the long run than the 'quick fix' of selling off arms and nuclear fuel to the Iraqis.

[KrazyHorse]

The French are a bigger power economically, and perhaps militarily than the UK, and in terms of power projection stands alone with the UK in the tier immediately below the US. Neither one can challenge the US, and in that sense they are both second-rate powers, but by that standard everybody except the US is a second rate power.

That is why in the end the French will relent and sign off on a 2nd resolution. They know the invasion will go on with or with out a U.N. resolution so they are going to act like the North Koreans and hold out for as many consessions as possible and then they're going to sign the resolution.

It may surprise you to know this, but France is a democracy, and there's less than 20% support for war there right now. Leaders may sometimes demonstrate political courage and vote with their consciences against the majority of public opinion, but rarely do they do so when the odds are that high.

On a side note, support for a war is weaker in the US than support for peace is in France, by a long margin.

[GePap]

To all my fans:

Sloww:

Have I ever said that war is not coming? NO. In fact, I was betting this war to start last december. So please, add something worthwhile.

Chris62:

and the world existed without agriculture for most of its existance as well. Whats the point?
The UN has become a part of the current, state-centered system of international relations. a few tantrums by Washington over a single issue won't end the institution.
As for public opinion polls: you would have never gotten rid of segregation at the time 80% of Americans were for it, so again, whats the point? And on your point with Dewey: he was the front-runner that lost. How does that support your case?

Drake:

The saudi's want US troops out of Saudi Arabia. The same can't be said of the Kuwaitis, Baharanis, Qataris who don't seem that anxious to have US troops leave the gulf. All arabs are not the same. The US could leave Saudi arabia and still contain Saddam, with the other gulf states looking to the US as its grabnd protector.

As for creating a demoracy in Iraq: its a fine dream, that the US invasios will create a democracy: but while it *might* happen, I would not bet on it for a few decades. I think Iran is closer to becoming a working democracy than Iraq would be, right aftre the US invasion. And there are lenty of Arab states, like Baharian, and Morocco, slowly trying to set up democratioc institutions. Overthrowing Saddam is not key. If what you want to fight is Islamic fundamentalism, back an overthrow of the house of Saud, or the Ayatollahs. Iraq is not one fo teh culprits in this movement. After all, what percentage of Al qaeda members are Iraqi? Not very high. As for his reign of terror: the west sids iddly by most reigns of terror. it is sad, but true.

Dinodoc:

A fine little truism, and as correct as most truisms.

DuncanK:

Small nukes, under 50 Kilotons, are not very sueful against armored formations in the desert. The Us army would fight on,a nd win. And Saddam has no delivery methods to reach NY, far less LA.

Azazel:

Good question. No, I don't think the status quo is very worthwhile, but I am not a believer in"any change is good change". The changes the bushies want are based ona set of assumptions and core beliefs that I fundamentally disagree with. Any system they seek to create can't be better than the current one, under my eyes, given where they are coming from.

[Sandman]

I don't think it has to do with morality, just money. Both
Iraq and The US are have been offering cash (ie. contacts) for the French vote. If the US wants French
support it will cost them.

But why have the French suddenly decided to use their veto, when they were already getting 'paid'? The payment is not very much, compared to the French economy. They could have decided on a different plan, given their newfound chumminess with the Germans.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


He had sufficient material to make a bomb. Blix went along with Saddam when Saddam when he seperated it into 3 peices and kept them in different locations. Most people felt this was a silly (and wrong) circumvention of the restrictions on how much weapons material he coud posses. And in fact, 6 months before the war, he put all the stuff in the same facility. And started a crash prgram to make a bomb. I was in the service during Desert Storm and i remember the accusations of Iraqi potential for WOMD. And I was worried that Bush 1 was exaggerating them to make a stronger case for the war (which was all about defending the Gulf oil fields...they're all next to each other.) It turns out that after the war, we found that his WOMD program was more serious than we had thought. Including a several thousand gallon bioreactor for anthrax, etc.

I'll look for a source if you don't trust me. The info about the 3 seperate peices of weapons material (I don't know if it was U-235 or Pu-239) and Blix's handling in the 80's was from a recent story in the WSJ. (there have been a couple of them.)

I would trust you, but I have never heard that before. And I'd be interested to know where he acquired it...

I'm assuming that was all accounted for after Gulf I?

[DinoDoc]

A fine little truism, and as correct as most truisms.

I'm serious. I know of no study that supports your view on the power of international institutions. The UN itself wasn't even able to shut down the war in Bosnia between 92-95. What makes you think that "the system" would have more sucess with a true great power?

[Drake Tungsten]

The saudi's want US troops out of Saudi Arabia. The same can't be said of the Kuwaitis, Baharanis, Qataris who don't seem that anxious to have US troops leave the gulf. All arabs are not the same.

So the killing of those Americans in Kuwait yesterday was a sign of support, right?

Iraq is not one fo teh culprits in this movement. After all, what percentage of Al qaeda members are Iraqi? Not very high.

That's why Iraq is the perfect candidate for democratization. You can't build a democratic opposition to fundamentalism in states already firmly within the grip of fundamentalism. An overthrow of the house of Saud would just lead to an even worse fundie regime gaining power...

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by GePap
DuncanK:

Small nukes, under 50 Kilotons, are not very sueful against armored formations in the desert. The Us army would fight on,a nd win. And Saddam has no delivery methods to reach NY, far less LA.

Come on, Saddam can sell or even give it to Al-Qaeda.

Or if we are not at war with him and he has the weapons, he can blackmail us by threatening to sell them to the Al-Qaeda.

Do we have to put up with all this if we have the opportunity to get rid of him once and for all?

[SlowwHand]

Dearest GePap,

I didn't ask, intimate, or suggest anything at all about if or when you thought war would commence against Iraq.
What I said/asked, and you still ignore, which is STILL fine, is what about "down the road" ?

Actually, if you'd just answer the damned question, I'm probably giving you another position to flame me about.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Thats an interesting point, but one that is essentially moot. The only period in history where there has been any restraint between countries has been during the last 50 years under the threat of MAD. That time is over. The terrorists have shown the tip of the iceberg of what is possible for them to accomplish.

By "terrorist" you mean Al Qaeda, a private, non_governmental ideologically based organization, don't you? well, Al qaeda would hardly ever act as a state, sicne it is not one, now is it? Al qaeda lives outside the system, Iraq lives within it. The US does not event ry anymore to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. They now paint themselves a knights out to save the international system from its own sloth. That sure as hell is a challenge to the system.

Are you suggesting that there wasnt (and isnt) a movement to remove the no-fly zones and end the embargo both nationally in the US and internationally? France has been a major proponent of that view for many years. The French salivate over the money to be made. The Russians did too but they know that we will do more for them in the long run than the 'quick fix' of selling off arms and nuclear fuel to the Iraqis.

Neither of these states seem eager to begin selling iraq new weapons, now do they. The US could simply demand a new sactions regime, one banning weapon's slaes to Iraq, but everyhting else. Under such a regime, the Russians and French get what they want (Iraqi oil consecions, or their money back from old loans) while keeping Saddam from buying important new weapon systems. Fine, he may suggle a bunch of stiuff i, but he would still be unable to remake his army into threat to the Gulf region.