France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was just saying that the Security Council is a joke and to rely on it for effective enforcement is hopelessly naive.

The Security Council can make war and major policy decisions. I'd say its far from a joke.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Even if it was done for the wrong reason, it is still recommendable.

Hitting the United States on the nose (hard!) is the most important priority right now for any responsible person, wherever he may live.

...he mouths from the safe glow of his computer screen.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Security Council can make war and major policy decisions. I'd say its far from a joke.

France is showing just how effective the Security Council really is. What's the use of having all that power if you won't even use it in a cut and dry case like Iraq?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Always is... of course nearly all guys have issues as well.

Thank you meester philosopher!

[Imran Siddiqui]

France is showing just how effective the Security Council really is. What's the use of having all that power if you won't even use it in a cut and dry case like Iraq?

You can make the same case for when a political party blocks a declaration of war on the Senate floor by filibuster.

Just because you can block a war doesn't mean that that the body isn't effective. It is just harder to get it accomplished.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by GP
1. I thought you were providing the girl free. SOrt of a pro-bono, homo-prevention program?

2. This one is a cutey...but there are some issues.

1.Depends on how you look.
Claudia says your half-way decent, so it could be arranged.

2.They ALL have issues, nothing new there.

On Topic:

France never bothers with right and wrong, national pride and money are the only motivations for France.

[Drake Tungsten]

You can make the same case for when a political party blocks a declaration of war on the Senate floor by filibuster.

If the Senate was blocked by filibuster as much as the UNSC is blocked by the P5 nations, I would call the Senate a joke as well. This is just the latest incident that reveals the weakness and growing irrelevance of the Security Council. It will never be an effective enforcer of international law in its current state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

err, if they're infinite, how about an example?

OK: end the current sactions regime, install a new one, solely against weapon systems and a ban on Iraqi participation in international activities. That way, you have the Iraqi people return to wealth while keeping Saddam from effectively rearming.

But what does the peace in the last 50 years have to do with Intl. law? the fear of total war was the stopping force, not Intl "law".

Well, the fear of total war ended in 1989: 14 years an yet no new big wars. No, I don't think "fear" was the only aspect to their being no new major wars: Fear of war pre-WW2 was huge, and no, I don't think nukes changed the equation much: back in the 1930's all the 'visionaries' of future war saw huge fleets of bombers gassing cities as being the future of war, yet that image of devastation was not enough to stop a huge war. No, I think there have been no significant major new war for the same reason there were none from 1815-1914:A new system came into being, a new set of rules to play by, and the majority of the players in this system decided that, while not perfect, it was better than the possible alternatives. That system is what I call international law. Since we have no global regime, obviously it functions very differently than 'law' within states, but still it has value, it still confers "legitimacy" or "ilegitimacy" to actions. It constrains behavior, and it influences future choices by regimes about what to do.

The Brits were weaker in 1900 than the americans are now, relatively.The americans' power projection capabilities are much larger, their troop quality superiority is larger... The Israel example is irrelevant. The palestinians have much more political capital than Saddam, matching the the Israelis', without doubt. The fact that they are managing it even worse than the Israelis is a different matter.

Measurements of relative power do not work accross time, only within their own time. The fact that the US is unrivalled is not only a fact of what the US has done and is, but what everyone else has done as well:

There are probably 40 states out there, that if they wanted to, and they started to right now, could have nuclear weapons and medium range ballistic missiles ready for use in a decade.
Perhaps twice as many have the technical abilities,and the resources to, in that decade, aquire some form of biological weapons, such as breeding anthrax, which is cheap, and a slightly smaler number could create first generation chem. weapons, many up to third gen. (VX) chem. weapons.

Could the US stop them? No. It takes months for the US to get its forces ready to attack a single state, ringed by a network of bases up for one decade, and it is using 25% of its military force. Yeah, the US might be able to fight 2 wars at the same time, but 80? Nawh. The US didn't stop India and Pak. from making nukes, and I doubt they really could have stopped them if they wanted to. So, within 10 years, dozens of states could have the ability to at least deter american adventurism against them,and that of their neighbors. And some of the greatest powers choose not to be military powers. honestly, in 25 years the Japanese could build, if they wanted, a navy large enough to severely challange US control of the northern Pacific. They, and the Germans, could have their own ICBM's and nuclear detterents. BUt they choose not to. Back in 1900, very few states could have simply decided that in 10 years, they would have the ability to challenge the UK, and that was even more true in 1880. No, Britian's power in the late 19th century, compared to its fellows, was greater than that of the US today, not smaller.

So why do so many states chose to be weak? Why do they chose not to have the biggest, badest, meanest things they can afford? Why isn't it "every state for itself", with everyone in a race to amke sure they have the ability to kill the approprate number of millions that they can kill, given their techinical expertise and wealth?
Does this sound like a lwaless world? A world without rules? If it is lawless, can anyone afford not to have WMD?

So, finally, a questionf or you Azazel:

Why do the NPT and the convention on Chemical and Biological weapons stand? Why haven't those states too weak to currently battle the US, or another great power, decided that the way to personal security lies not with being able to kill as many millions as possible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

All the SC requires is that the case be clear. Fact is that the Iraq case isn't totally clear. They found a few old chemical containers. That strengthens the case but doesn't prove that chemical munitions are being made right now.

And the only reason that the Senate doesn't block war as much as the P5 countries do is because they took away the power from the Senate and gave it to the President (within 90 days). I guess that was because the Senate was becoming a joke.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You can make the same case for when a political party blocks a declaration of war on the Senate floor by filibuster.

If the Senate was blocked by filibuster as much as the UNSC is blocked by the P5 nations, I would call the Senate a joke as well. This is just the latest incident that reveals the weakness and growing irrelevance of the Security Council. It will never be an effective enforcer of international law in its current state.

Do you think the P5, back in 1945, would have decided to join such a body as the UN as long as they believed their aims could be blocked?

Fine, the P5 can sue the Sec Council for their own selfish interests. Heck, if the Sec Council had the power to force P5 states to act, they might make the US follow things like Kyoto, or a world court. Now we wouldn't want that, would we?

National sovereignty works on more issues than just Iraq.

[SlowwHand]

Ned had some questions for you, GePap.

[Drake Tungsten]

All the SC requires is that the case be clear. Fact is that the Iraq case isn't totally clear. They found a few old chemical containers. That strengthens the case but doesn't prove that chemical munitions are being made right now.

They don't need to find anything; they only need to show that Saddam is blocking effective inspection once again. Hans Blix is on TV every day complaining about Iraq's cooperation, but France has arbitrarily decided that non-cooperation is no longer a material breach. The system doesn't work...

Do you think the P5, back in 1945, would have decided to join such a body as the UN as long as they believed their aims could be blocked?

No they wouldn't have. The Security Council is broken because it was purposely made so. That's why your hopes of using the Security Council to enforce the NPT is naive.

[Chris 62]

The Tungsten man repeats some of the things I said in the begining, namely the whole inspection process is a farce, and that the big 5 can do whatever they like.

Also, Bush made it clear, no more games, Iraq is still playing games.

I hope France has fun residing over the obscurity that will be the UN without active US support.

[Maroule]

Originally posted by Chris 62
On Topic:

France never bothers with right and wrong, national pride and money are the only motivations for France.

discovering realpolitiks, Mr. Virgin?
and the US of course would be unable to do anything cynical for their self interest....

the more I read your quote, the more I crack up... You guys are so sure you're right and the rest of the world can only be wrong....

[Drake Tungsten]

Exactly, Chris. Have people already forgotten Bush's speech before the UN, where he challenged the Security Council to save itself from irrelevance? It seems like the French have forgotten about it...