France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


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

Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
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.

So they can demand to be paid again of course. They're trying to wiggle out a few more concessions and that's all.

[Az]

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.

why is it so?

for the record:
I personally believe that the status quo in Iraq is the worst possible thing. there are 3 options:
a) Iraq is left alone. People in Iraq start to live better. I expect a war in the gulf in 5-7 years tops.
b) Status quo continues. The autonomous regions in the north continue to live well. The territory under Saddam's contol continues to suffer, and the sanctions do play a role.
c) Iraq is invaded by X. Saddam is driven out of the country, people live better, new puppet government doesn't open war on anyone, there is a chance that under certain circumstances it might have small tendencies that resemble democracy.

so... which one do you choose?

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that North Korea would never sell nuclear technology to Islamic terrorists. The terrorists have called all non-Muslims infidels, so obviously North Korea wouldn't sell them anything. We all know that dictators would never join forces with an enemy to take on a bigger threat... Wait a minute...

[KrazyHorse]

Except in trying to make (c) happen 2 or 3 countries go fundie and 250 000 Iraqis die. And guess who's going to have to fight the follow-up war? It won't be the US, Azazel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So the killing of those Americans in Kuwait yesterday was a sign of support, right?

One soldier killed by one fanatic. Sorry, but that's like saying Americans hate the feds cause timothy McVeight blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma.

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...

Fundamentalists are not the only threat to democracy in the ME. Iraq is a state devided by ethnic and relegious schism that many other ME states lack. Why should the Sunni middle class, which ahs ruled Iraq since 1922, want a system where the Shia majority would gain power? And would the Shia majority accept a syste in which the Sunni middle classes kept a greater share of power then their size of the pop. calls for, given the history of Iraq? And what happens when thousands of Ayatollahs come back from Iran to Karbala and the other holy city? What wiull their role in the New Iraq be?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Frogger


Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

Common enemies unite even the strangest bed fellows. Who would have thought in 1939 that US and USSR would unite to beat up on Germany?

Again:
If we attack Iraq and Saddam has the weapons, he will give them to the Al-Qaeda to hurt us as much as possible.

If we don't attack Iraq and Saddam has the weapons, he will blackmail us by threatening to sell them to the Al-Qaeda.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sandman

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.

They did flip-flop when earlier they were anti-invasion, and they were promised construction contacts. That deal is done, furfilled. They declared in support.

Now the US has to pay for a speedy UN resolution. The
longer this drags on the more questions get asked. The
more questions, the harder it is to justify.

If Bush wanted to invade Iraq he should have done so on September 12 or 13. He may have got away with cowboy justice then, He needs a warrant from the UN
if he wants to maintain the US as a leader of civilization
rather than just a military superpower, (like the USSR).

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you know anything about Kuwait, Gepap? It has a strong fundamentalist movement and growing anti-American sentiment. The latest attack is just one of many...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that North Korea would never sell nuclear technology to Islamic terrorists. The terrorists have called all non-Muslims infidels, so obviously North Korea wouldn't sell them anything. We all know that dictators would never join forces with an enemy to take on a bigger threat... Wait a minute...

Muslim fundies have no beef with North Korea. It's not a traditionally Muslim state, there is no sizable Muslim population, they don't meddle in the affairs of Muslim states. They're way, way down on the hit parade.

Saddam is near the top for Muslim fundies. He's a secularist ruling over a Muslim population who invaded another Muslim country.

North Korea doesn't have a downside in selling terrorist Islamists weapons because the weapons won't come back on them. Saddam does.

Please attempt to provide a slightly less facile response next time.

[Drake Tungsten]

Please attempt to provide a slightly less facile response next time.

Only if you attempt to substantiate your arguments in the future. Or are you going to continue telling us all how you know Iraq isn't anywhere near achieving nuclear capability, despite having no more information than the rest of us?

[GePap]

Lord Merciless:

Al qaeda is not a state!

Back in 1939, Hitler wanted to invade Poland: one of the things that might ruin his plan is war with the USSR at that point. The USSR had been unsucessful in getting western powers to agree to an allience, so they worried that they might alone have to foot the bill of an anti-German war. Both states has a clear and common aim (avoid war with each other at that time) so they made a deal, regardless all the propaganda. A very rational thing to do, for both sides.

"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? Does he get US troops of his case? and end to the sanctions regime? No, an attack against the US with WMD gains Saddam none of the things he wants at this moment , or even in the future. There is no rational reason, or even a possiblly rationalized hope that Saddam could have to aid a bunch of fanatics (who don't like him anyway) do somehting that gives him to immidtate or long-term benefit.

As for selling nukes: if you have just one, you don't sell. Ten you have none and you are trully screwed. The N.koreans sell missiles cause they can make them in large quantity. Maybe, if and wen the N.Koreans get to biulding many nukes a year, we should worry about them selling nukes (though a group like Al Qaeda could hardly afford the probable asking price) but the notion that Iraq, with one solitary little nuke, would do so? No.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know. But I do know how hard it is to get the right stuff, because I have some understanding of the process involved. It's always possible that he managed to score a hundred kilograms of U235 from some Russian, but that's complete speculation. What he doesn't have is a large-scale nuclear industry, because any satellite in the world would see it from its emissions. And without that, it gets very difficult.

[DuncanK]

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.

suitcase bomb? btw, i do admire you for taking on so many posters

[DuncanK]

It seems that some people here are writing off the idea that al Qaeda and Saddam would cooperate in an effort againt its common enemy. I don't really understand why? So they hate each other, but they still should cooperate against a common enemy.