Iraq agrees to destroy missiles

[Spiffor]

Sure, Atlanticism is something precious, and we'd all have been better if all the diplomatic barking had been avoided. However, I don't think we should obey the US if we radically disagree with it (for imperialistic or moralistic reasons, whatever), because we are an independent country.
It is normal to look for compromise when both positions are conciliable, but it is abnormal France, as an independent country (I know you Americans hold high standards for independance) would have to obey the US unconditionally for the sake of atlanticism.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Just a quibble - those in US who support the admin on Iraq are not "pro-war". we long for peace. we feel that this war now, will advance the long term interests of peace. I realize that one might say that about many wars and be wrong, but i refuse to be tagged as less pro-peace than some whose actions i think have in many instances obstructed peace.

My feelings EXACTLY

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sure, Atlanticism is something precious, and we'd all have been better if all the diplomatic barking had been avoided. However, I don't think we should obey the US if we radically disagree with it (for imperialistic or moralistic reasons, whatever), because we are an independent country.
It is normal to look for compromise when both positions are conciliable, but it is abnormal France, as an independent country (I know you Americans hold high standards for independance) would have to obey the US unconditionally for the sake of atlanticism.

No one that I know of is asking you to obey the US.

What the US is asking is for countries to obey obligations that they have already voted for.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Could you please cite the resolution for us??

37/253 1983, Generally covers the Turkish Occupation.

http://kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/UNresolutions-list.html

There are 20+ SC resolutions on Cyprus.

[Spiffor]

LoMa :
Sorry, didn't see your quibble when writing my previous reply. I used "pro-peace" and "pro-war" loosely, for the sake of expressing myself clearly. In my definition "pro-peace" and "pro-war" means whether you favor war against Iraq now or not. These words are not intended to classify between people who want war on principle or not.
France, who seems to support war in an undetermined future, is "pro-peace" at the moment in my vocabulry, but will turn "pro-war" when it'll send troops to kill Iraqis.

However, I'm sure the Bush administration is "pro-war" in the worst sense. I came to think war in itself is not a tool for the Bush admin, but a goal. IMHO, the whole Saddam thing is just an easy pretext for the admin to reach its warlike agenda.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
What the US is asking is for countries to obey obligations that they have already voted for.

1441 was deliberately poorly worded because the crisis in the UN had to be resolved quickly by the time. The poor wording postponed the crisis on the interpretation, but I guess diplomats were hoping they'd have time to find an agreement in the extra time.
Too bad, the rift between France/Germany and the US has gotten worse, and as such, 1441 still didn't find a unanimity behind the words "serious consequences".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ozz


37/253 1983, Generally covers the Turkish Occupation.

http://kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/UNresolutions-list.html

There are 20+ SC resolutions on Cyprus.

37/253 is a general assembly resolution(and thus non-binding). We are discussing UNSC resolutions.
The site you point to lists over 70, passed over a course of more than 30 years, including over 20 passed before Turkey invaded Cyprus. Could you please be more specific??

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ozz
How many countries are in violation
of UN rulings? Turkey, Israeli are for sure, maybe the
US should attack them.

Which of those rulings authorize and mandate force?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
1441 was deliberately poorly worded because the crisis in the UN had to be resolved quickly by the time. The poor wording postponed the crisis on the interpretation, but I guess diplomats were hoping they'd have time to find an agreement in the extra time.
Too bad, the rift between France/Germany and the US has gotten worse, and as such, 1441 still didn't find a unanimity behind the words "serious consequences".

Spiff: I still contend that there is unanimity behind "serious consequences". The debate is over implementation of the resolution. France says that inspections should procede to force disarmament ( with a doubtful chance of success, in my opinion). 1441 says that Iraq must do this both immediately and voluntarily. France's position has been and still is that serious consequences could involve the use of force.

Thus the question is about timing. I believe that France voted for immediate and voluntary disarmament with full knowledge of what it meant. The current debate is eithier due to the fact that they now feel it was an ill considered vote, or they are trying to gain world political stature through "standing up to the US". In eithier case the resolution is binding on all members and their is NO debate on what serious consequences means among any of the parties involved.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Edan


Which of those rulings authorize and mandate force?

General Assembly resolutions cannot authorize force. This is reserved to the security council.

[Spiffor]

Plato :
I thought the upcoming "2nd resolution" on the Iraq issue is precisely intended to bring the word "force" in a UN resolution ?
I admit my sources on the topic are biased (French left-wing news). Do you know where I can find the official speeches countries held at the time 1441 was passed ? You seem to know much more about the UN than I do. Thx

[Ozz]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Could you please be more specific??

No,

I'm not searching though all that crap without knowing where your going with this. If you don't believe Turkey is in violation, that's OK. Just say so.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The UN should just make resolutions it has no intention of enforcing. -=Vel=-

Like 37/253 it seems.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Plato :
I thought the upcoming "2nd resolution" on the Iraq issue is precisely intended to bring the word "force" in a UN resolution ?
I admit my sources on the topic are biased (French left-wing news). Do you know where I can find the official speeches countries held at the time 1441 was passed ? You seem to know much more about the UN than I do. Thx

Spiffor, while the use of force is a componet in the second resolution it is, to my understanding, a resolution that will mainly declare Saddam is in violation of 1441.

The Uk would feel more comfortable using "serious consequences" if all were in agreement that 1441 had been violated. The US position is that it is clear that 1441 has been violated and thus no further resolution is needed.

I will locate the info you have requested and post it here.

[Edan]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
General Assembly resolutions cannot authorize force. This is reserved to the security council.

That was my point.