France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Arrian]

Were workers to deal with a single entity they would naturally organize themselves on better terms because now they had a single entity they could negotiate with.

In a globalized system of a single monoply of ownership of all capital there would no longer be socalled competition - except there would, in fact, be competition in attracting workers to specific workplaces, based on pay and other niceties

I cannot even begin to tell how much I disagree with your conclusions.

The main reason being it's 5:45 and I'm going home.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Israel has developed WMD before the NPT. the Boss wanted to us to keep a lid on it, for it's own reasons. we did. That's why we didn't sign the NPT.

That point is highly debatable at best, but I will move on.

are these your points in support of intl. law? America wasn't concered with those dictatorships having nukes. they were as you've admitted yourself, AMERICAN-BACKED.

Yes, US wasn't that worried about these states having nukes, but the US is NOT the system, only its bigest member. If none of the members capable of enforcing their own rules decide to act, then things happen. The system is not pefect and air-tight: after all, from 1815-1914 there were no major all power wars, but there were still at least 5or 6 wars involving a few of the Great powers against each other. That none of them grew beyond that was the proof that th system held.

so, it's illegal to import anything but food to Iraq? so why are the kurdish areas which are also included into the embargo, full of electronics, etc. don't tell me they are "Made In Iraq".

The program is called "food for oil" but in fact, many civilian products are included. As for those electronic's i Kurdish areas are smuggled in illegaly, buyt of course the US won't push to hard to ensure that those smugglers be caught. Just cause something is there dosn't mean it has to be there legally.

Why no great power wars?
1) not worthwhile economically to anyone except the defence industries, which have influence, but not the strongest. there are many more lobbies, including pro-industrial ones.
2) Leaders don't go to war because of nothing. when they do, they pursue certain aims. It doesn't make any sense to go to war, and the people generally don't like getting killed.
3)MAD.

1)The argument that war was not in anyones economic worthwhile was made back in 1914 as well: it was true, world economic interdependence dropped greatly after 1914 for many decades, but that did not stop wars. After all, the coming war with Iraq can only have negative economic impact on the US short-term, with unknown impact further down (though all of this is slight)
2) Aims are away's there: Power, Pride, Nation, Race, Creed, Rights. Take your pick, they are all as good for dying as the next.
3) There are things more important than survival, sometimes: just ask our suicide bomber friends. And if MAD is so true, then why worry about Saddam? After all, MAD applies to him as well, no?

I will await you answer tommorrow.

[Ned]

GePap, I understand your position. I agree that the US has to abide by its obligations under the NPT if it expects others to as well.

I take it, therefore, that in both the cases of Iraq and NK, you are in favor of enforcing their "agreements" with the UN. You are in particular in favor of UN inspectors on the ground monitoring compliance.

I am not sure of your position on remedies for breach. If you exclude the possibility of war, we have seen that at least Saddam will ignore you and not permit inspectors. Therefor, since you see the need for inspectors, I assume you approve of the use of force for a material breach that is not cured. (We are two months into Iraq's cure period.)

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
I think Lincoln was faced once with a similar choice. Respect the sovereign rights of the seceded states, or resist their assertion of states rights for the greater good of the nation.

The Confederacy was part of the United States, and the world is not.

Also, had the Confederacy had A-bombs able to cover Washington with a self-illuminating glass surface, Lincoln might have rethought his decision.

MAD works; stick to the devil you know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think a good middle ground is to have inspectors be escorted by UN troops (no Amis in the group... make it Pakistanis, they have a lot of troops in the UN). And if the Iraqis don't let the group in, they should try to force their way in... and if there are shots fired and casulties, we'll have our just cause for war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I understand your position. I agree that the US has to abide by its obligations under the NPT if it expects others to as well.

I take it, therefore, that in both the cases of Iraq and NK, you are in favor of enforcing their "agreements" with the UN. You are in particular in favor of UN inspectors on the ground monitoring compliance.

I am not sure of your position on remedies for breach. If you exclude the possibility of war, we have seen that at least Saddam will ignore you and not permit inspectors. Therefor, since you see the need for inspectors, I assume you approve of the use of force for a material breach that is not cured. (We are two months into Iraq's cure period.)

Ned:
I agree with enforcement, but enforcement of rules must be equal to th severety of the crime (as it is in most respects), and since War is the most severe possible act, it must be limited to the most outrageous and dangerous situations.
On N.KOrea: The DPRK could be sanctioned by the UN for its violations of the NPT if it had not decided to pull out. Dealing with the DPRK is not a UN issue anymore, but as it were, a "private matter" between it, the US< S.Korea, Japan, and any other states that decide to get themselves involved. If the North were to attack any neighboring state then it would immidiately become a UN issue.
On Iraq: I support the work of the current inspectors, since as long as they are present, Iraq is contained and not a danger to anyone else (making it simply an even smaller danger to the world community).
As for going to war if the inspectors declare Iraq to be in breach: If the UNSC votes and agrees to action against Iraq, then war would be legitimate (and while I might not think it the wisest course) I would not oppose it. I do NOT think that that US or any other council member can, alone by themselves chose to declare Iraq in material breach and go to war. War on Iraq can only be considered legal, if explicitly agreed to by the whole council.

[Tripledoc]

I liked that Pakistani UN armoured personal carrier in the movie Black Hawk Down.

[GePap]

I am signing of for today: expect answers to further questions tommorrow.

(on to 500!)

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned:
I agree with enforcement, but enforcement of rules must be equal to th severety of the crime (as it is in most respects), and since War is the most severe possible act, it must be limited to the most outrageous and dangerous situations.
On N.KOrea: The DPRK could be sanctioned by the UN for its violations of the NPT if it had not decided to pull out. Dealing with the DPRK is not a UN issue anymore, but as it were, a "private matter" between it, the US< S.Korea, Japan, and any other states that decide to get themselves involved. If the North were to attack any neighboring state then it would immidiately become a UN issue.
On Iraq: I support the work of the current inspectors, since as long as they are present, Iraq is contained and not a danger to anyone else (making it simply an even smaller danger to the world community).
As for going to war if the inspectors declare Iraq to be in breach: If the UNSC votes and agrees to action against Iraq, then war would be legitimate (and while I might not think it the wisest course) I would not oppose it. I do NOT think that that US or any other council member can, alone by themselves chose to declare Iraq in material breach and go to war. War on Iraq can only be considered legal, if explicitly agreed to by the whole council.

GePap, Clinton and Blair were completely unsuccessful in getting the inspectors back into Iraq despite bombing Iraq for three days. You have to admit that the ONLY reason they are there now is because the United States said they were going to war unless Iraq disarmed, but permited Saddam one last chance to demonstrate his intention to disarm voluntarily by making the Dec. 8th delaration and by having the inspectors verify it. The only way they stay in Iraq be effective is if the threat to use force is credible.

If Saddam ever become convinced he can play games and get away with it, he will play games. I think now he as drawn the measure of France and Germany. I do not expect him to cooperate any further with the inspectors. He owes us an expanation for the whereabout of 30 thousand chemical weapons shells and for tons of Vx gas, for Anthrax and for other bio weapons. Where did they go?

Because of France, he will never tell us.

[Az]

(on to 500!)

remember what happened to the last thread where you've said this?

That point is highly debatable at best, but I will move on.

why so?

Yes, US wasn't that worried about these states having nukes, but the US is NOT the system, only its bigest member. If none of the members capable of enforcing their own rules decide to act, then things happen.
The system is not pefect and air-tight: after all, from 1815-1914 there were no major all power wars, but there were still at least 5or 6 wars involving a few of the Great powers against each other. That none of them grew beyond that was the proof that th system held.

well, these systems you're talking about harldy can be called international law. "status quo" would be much more appropriate.

1)The argument that war was not in anyones economic worthwhile was made back in 1914 as well: it was true, world economic interdependence dropped greatly after 1914 for many decades, but that did not stop wars. After all, the coming war with Iraq can only have negative economic impact on the US short-term, with unknown impact further down (though all of this is slight)
2) Aims are away's there: Power, Pride, Nation, Race, Creed, Rights. Take your pick, they are all as good for dying as the next.
3) There are things more important than survival, sometimes: just ask our suicide bomber friends. And if MAD is so true, then why worry about Saddam? After all, MAD applies to him as well, no?

As I've stated before, my support of this war doesn't come from the fear that Saddam has WMD, but the betterment of the Iraqi people.

I think we're having a sircular argument here....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by 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?

"cut and dry"

Bull****, drake. Pure, unsubstantiated bull****. The plain fact is that even the majority of Americans remain unconvinced of the necessity of military action against Iraq without further evidence, and that a bare majority endorse military action even in the hypothetical future. Your admin has failed to make a convincing case even to its own public...

[Az]

Before arguing we all have to have some common ground to start from. I propose: "France's motives for objecting the military action are not different from the US' motives for pushing it forward."

[KrazyHorse]

Possibly. Except that at least France has public opinion in its ownn coutry on its side.

[Az]

how does that change... anything really? I am now talking about real motives, not the bull**** that politicians sell to people.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, they might just be doing it to gain some public support, y'know? However, as to their real motives - don't they (and the Russians) have quite a bit invested in the Iraqi oil industry? They probably just want some compensation for the US blowing it apart.