France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

Adam Smith · January 21, 2003, 12:48

French Foreign Minister de Vellepin indicated yesterday that France would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. See this article in this morning's Washington Post.

I am not particularly in favor of invading Iraq. We are currently playing diplomatic poker, and right now it appears that all we have in our hand is a pair of sixes. However, I find these comments disturbing on three grounds.

Frist, a few months back we went through a protracted discussion at the UN about whether there needed to be an additional resolution before attacking Iraq. We reached some kind of tenuous agreement, and now it appears that the French have not moved one inch from their original position.

Second, it appears that both the French and the Germans are not quite straight on their facts. According to de Villepin,

Quote:

"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."

According to German Foreign Minister Fischer

Quote:

"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground.

I will be the first to admit that there is no smoking gun. However, the UN inspectors indicated there are large gaps in the Iraqi declaration; there is no accounting for materials known to be in their possession during the prior inspections; and three thousand pages of classified documents which appear to be responsive to the UN request were found in the home of an Iraqi scientist. Do de Villepin and Fischer know something that the rest of us don’t, and if so would they please share it?

Lastly there is the question of timing. The Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. now the French, Germans, and Chinese appear to indicate that the upcoming report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. If so, why should the word of the UN Security Council be taken seriously?

Colin Powell busted his ass to get the US to play ball with the UN. And what we appear to have for our diplomatic efforts is a failure of other parties to negotiate, a likely willful ignorance of the facts, and little reason to take the word of the UN Security Council seriously. If this is the case, many Americans will wonder why we should even bother.

Adam Smith · January 21, 2003, 12:50

Just saw DanS thread on this. Could the mods please kill this one? Thanks.

DinoDoc · January 21, 2003, 12:50

Ming: Let this thread stay. The other one was partially ruined by Floyd.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 13:08

It's laughable that the whole country of France is eaten up with a rampaging case of the dumbass.
Not surprising, just laughable.

Hussein knows what's going down.
Bush and Blair have their plans.
Yet some of the people here, and apparently the country of France, think that decisions have yet to be made.
What needs to happen, is to turn thoughts ahead, about things yet to be decided.
Like relationships with China, Russia, and Japan; if that's even still up in the air.

To keep talking about Iraq, is like shutting the barn door after the livestock is already out.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 13:18

I am always trully amazed to see intelligent people on both sides of this debate, swallow hook line and sinker, the notion that this whole little debate has anything to do with WMD and terrorism: that somehow they are actually central to this crisis, and not simply excuses for everyone to avoid the real issues involved: US power and its role in the world today.

How is Iraq a threat to anyone right now? Its military is very weak, while the military of all its neighbors has significantly imporved in the last 10 years. Even with WMD, it can't invade kuwait or SA without having to go to war with the US, and the ;logic of deterrence still holds, thus Iraq losses such wars. And as for Saddam giving WMD to terrorists , well, I find the notion so utterly laughable that that is all I will say about it. Why should the French, Russians, or Chinese worry about Saddam? What threat is he to them? Answer: 0. He is also a 0 threat to the US, but we have villified him (somehting he earned, but we have gone somewhat overboard) for 10 years, so he makes a fine scapegoat for the admin. to experiment over.

So, we will be at war in a few weeks simply because the new ideologes in control of the White House have decided to make the US a "force for good". They think they can remake the ME with US military force: that once our great, unrivalled Hegemon power is unleashed, we can sweep away the evil, and remake the world in OUR (THEIR) image. This, of course, is a radical new way to use american power, the new "white man's burden" (call it the neo-conservative person's burden) that we 'have', to imrpove the world radically, to overthrow the old, stoggy, cautious world order with new amazing action. And what better place to start this new radical vision for the US, but Iraq? We are set up wonderfully to attack it, they are weak (how come Iraq and not N.Korea? this is why) and isolated, and recent history allow us to classify it as part of an ongoing action, not a brand new radical thing. (9/11 is both a catalyst for this new adventure, and a smokescreen for its actions)

The thing is, of course, that most world governments sense this. MOst (if not all), are too weak to stop us. We wil, by force of will, force them to act with us. The UK (also facing a 0 threat from Iraq) has decided to tag along, in hopes of being able to temper US actions, to moderate events from within. The French, on the other hand, depend on the current world order for their status, and will fight to maintain it.

I trully hope the French win: we will still go to war in a few weeks, there is no stopping that, but at least the political costs for Bush and Co. will go up, even if the war is a simple and quick, and clean, victory. Every bit is needed to make sure these guys remain our leaderrs for as short a time as possible.

DuncanK · January 21, 2003, 13:21

That's why I could care less about the UN. I don't want the French determining our actions. Screw them.

I mean it should be obvious that Saddam is just playing everyone, but the French just act stupid.

DuncanK · January 21, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
How is Iraq a threat to anyone right now?

After September 11th, 2001 everything changed. You have a good argument... for September 10th, 2001. There are reports that al Qaeda got chemical weapons in Iraq.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

After September 11th, 2001 everything changed. You have a good argument... for September 10th, 2001. There are reports that al Qaeda got chemical weapons in Iraq.

Where? when? Why?

I am sorry, but 'reports' such as those are hardly believeable. The very fact that the admin doesn't even mention Iraq and Al qaeda in the same sentence anymore is more than proof that even those most eager for war within the admin. know that to "link" these two is silly, since they have no proof.

No, Iraq has not given WMD to Al Qaeda, and I have never found anyone able to make a reasonavble case why they ever would, under the current conditions.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 13:42

No, but you're all ready to accept Hussein's reports.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 13:48

Ah, Sloww, your rabid jingoism is so darn CUTE! And very innovative as well!

I don't believe a word Saddam says, but I also don't think that it matters even if he is lying.

Can you come up with a reasonable scenerio, under which, given the current conditions, Iraq would give WMD to Al Qaeda?

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 13:50

Why not? Have they done 1 solitary thing that was outline by the beloved U.N. ?

Keep your cute remarks to yourself.
Boris might appreciate, I don't.

Boris Godunov · January 21, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

After September 11th, 2001 everything changed. You have a good argument... for September 10th, 2001. There are reports that al Qaeda got chemical weapons in Iraq.

Given that Al Queda was a sworn enemy of Hussein and sought to overthrow his regime with a religious fundamentalist one, I find this very doubtful. Any evidence? No, of course not. And I've not heard of a single report saying this. The Administration tried to link Iraq to September 11, and failed.

Linking Iraq to Sept. 11 is a snowjob, a blatant attempt by the administration to hoodwink America into accepting a war against a nation that hasn't acted aggressively against us and which poses us no material threat.

DanS:

Quote:

Do de Villepin and Fischer know something that the rest of us don’t, and if so would they please share it?

I'd posit the same question to Bush and Co. They've been adamant about knowing things and having their own proof of this that or the other, but have been refusing to share that information with anyone else. I rather think it's like the list McCarthy supposedly kept in his briefcase.

Boris Godunov · January 21, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, but you're all ready to accept Hussein's reports.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Wars should not be fought on supposition.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why not? Have they done 1 solitary thing that was outline by the beloved U.N. ?

Keep your cute remarks to yourself.
Boris might appreciate, I don't.

I am glad you didn't appreciate it..that was it's point!

You seem to to realize what I think, so let me spell it out:

EVEN WITH NUKES, SADDAM HUSSEIN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE US, OR TO ITS ALLIES, BECAUSE IF HE WERE EVER TO USE WMD AGAINST THE US OR ITS ALLIES, SADDAM WOULD DIE, AND HE HAS SPENT THE LAST 30 YEARS TRYING NOT TO DIE. THERE IS NOTHING SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD DO CURRENTLY, TO THREATEN VITAL INTERESTS OF THE US. EVEN IF THE MOST ABSURD LINE OF EVENTS MEANT THAT SOMEHOW, FOR SOME REASON, SOME IRAQI GOT WMD INTO THE US AND KILLED 100,000 AMERICANS, THERE ARE STILL 280,000,000 LEFT TO KICK SADDAM'S ASS. WHICH IS WHY BUSH'S CURRENT LITTLE WAR IS WRONG: IT IS BASED SIMPLY ONA SET OF WRONG ASSUMPTIONS AND IMCOMPLETE ARGUMENTS. IT IS A WAR DRIVEN BY INCORRECT NEO-CONSERVATIVE RADICAL IDEOLOGY.

there...

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 13:58

Was anyone expecting anything less from France?

I bet the US will secretly play hardball now, pass France a note along the lines of "You had a deal with Saddam, try collecting from him, not the guy we will put in charge of Iraq".
The French postion will change like magic, very similar to Putin's about face when presented with a similar scenario.

Germany is being consistant, and China is looking for some gain.
That's all the UN really is, I'll support you if you give me something.
The US does it, France does it.
We all know it, so we will now wait and see what is offered.

TCO · January 21, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Wars should not be fought on supposition.

Blix said in the 80's that Hussein was not a threat and after the Gulf War I, we learned that he was 6-18 months from a bomb. Much closer than the "3-5 years" which Bush I's administration alleged. And which anti-war people said was a fabrication to support the war.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:02

GP:

back in the 1980's, the US position vis a vi Iraq and its power int eh gulf was unclear. Today it is not. The situation has changed.

Also, what if Saddam had a nuke? Whos he going to nuke, Kuwait?

Adam Smith · January 21, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'd posit the same question to Bush and Co. They've been adamant about knowing things and having their own proof of this that or the other, but have been refusing to share that information with anyone else. I rather think it's like the list McCarthy supposedly kept in his briefcase.

I think you were addressing this to me, not DanS. Please see my initial comment about playing poker with a pair of sixes. Note, however, that there is a difference between making a statement contrary to known facts (EU) vs. making a statement for which there is not yet (and possibly may not be) factual support (US, UK). When the time comes I suspect (hope) the US public will insist on seeing more in our hand than a pair of sixes.

Edit:

Gepap:
Certainly Kuwait was not a defensive move. Certainly US and Soviet WOMD had a poolitical effect, even if they were not used. Is it not reasonable to suppose that Saddam interests in the region (eg Saudi succession) which might be furthered by possession of WOMD?

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

I am glad you didn't appreciate it..that was it's point!

Good to know that under the layers of crap, there was in fact a point.

Did you happen to get mine?
That you're beating a dead horse, because it's a done deal?
That maybe there's still time on other issues?
Probably not, but that's typical.

TCO · January 21, 2003, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
GP:

back in the 1980's, the US position vis a vi Iraq and its power int eh gulf was unclear. Today it is not. The situation has changed.

Also, what if Saddam had a nuke? Whos he going to nuke, Kuwait?

Saudi Arabia. He's already shown that he covets the Gulf oil fields, which are all quite close together. Gulf War 1 was about Saudi Arabia and the entire set of Gulf nations with oil.

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2003, 14:08

*shakes head*

No need to shout GePap. I'm deaf already.

2 questions we need to ask and answer before war with Iraq.

1. Does Iraq have nuclear weaponry, or are they close to developing nuclear weapons?

2. Will Iraq use them on the Americans or the allies of the US?

Both 1 and 2 must be true in order to justify war.
I don't buy your argument that a 'threat' constitutes the complete destruction the United States, I'd prefer to avoid a nuclear strike on the US if possible.

Is the highest motivation of Hussein to survive? Is this motivation greater than a desire for revenge? I don't know, but the question is not as cut and dried as you have put. Would he nuke Israel given the opportunity and the ability?

TCO · January 21, 2003, 14:09

My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

TCO · January 21, 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

He caused this loss of sovereignty by his aggressive actions in the past.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:11

But he didn't invade Saudi Arabia:

lets look back to august 1990: the Iraqis drive into Kuwait and take the whole country in a few hours. Then they stop. They could have kept driving into Saudi Arabia, couldn't they? What was there to stop them? they had the biggest army in the region, at a time when there were no US forces in Saudi Arabia, and yet, they stopped at the border, and the only time they invaded SA was once the gulf war begun.

So why did Iraq stop, back then, in August 1990, at the borders of Saudi Arabia? Why didn't they drtive the extra 200 miles it would have taken for them to aquire the biggest oil fields in the world?

I would say, because back in August 1990, they though they could get away with taking over little dipshit Kuwait, but they would never get away with attacking Saudi Arabia. NOw they know they can't attack either.

Arrian · January 21, 2003, 14:12

I find this unsurprising. France (and Russia.... and everyone but Britain) have been anti-war since the beginning. Every move was calculated to stall/stop Bush & Co. from attacking Iraq.

I wonder, do you think the people in the administration ever stop and think "gee, wiz, pretty much the entire world (exception of Britain) thinks we're wrong on this. Could we be?"

-Arrian

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:15

Back in 1980, most US papers would have blamed the first Gulf war (what we call Iran-Iraq) on Iran, not on Saddam. After all, it was the Iranians that tried formenting revolution in Iraq and attempted to assasinate Iraqi officials in early 1980. It is only now, that the first Gulf war becomes simply a case for "Iraqi aggression".

As I said, GP: the situation has changed. Iraq now knows the southern route is blocked, they can't attack turkey, and do we really care if they go to war with Syria or Iran?

Arrian:

For the admin., that the rest fo the world doesn't aprove is proof to them that the rest of the world is obviously wrong. After all, how could Bush and Co. ever be wrong? They are servants fo God, are they not?

Chris 62 · January 21, 2003, 14:16

I doubt it Arrian.

Didn't Europe just remain silent while Libya, of all countries, was elected head of the UN human rights commision?

And for the anti-war fellows, this subject isn't about whether a war is correct or not, it's about France trying to manipulate the UN to suite it's own inflated importance.

SlowwHand · January 21, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
My take is this. Saddam has already shown that he is aggressive towards his neighbors. Part of the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1 required him to get rid of WOMD and allow inspections. He did not do so. (Was caught cheating a few times) and kicked inspectors out in 1998. Also, prevented them from doing there job. Therefore I think we are justified in goinng back in.

GePap and others won't even acknowledge that, GP.
They only look at history within the context of a year or so.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

GePap and others won't even acknowledge that, GP.
They only look at history within the context of a year or so.

So Saddam din't get rid of 100% of his WMD..big freaking deal.
Perhaps the treaties at the end of the Gulf War (written back when everythign was going to be better, the New World Order after the Cold War would lead to the end of History and everything nice) will teach us never to commit oneself to a set of principles one is not really ready to commit to.

GePap · January 21, 2003, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
I doubt it Arrian.

Didn't Europe just remain silent while Libya, of all countries, was elected head of the UN human rights commision?

And for the anti-war fellows, this subject isn't about whether a war is correct or not, it's about France trying to manipulate the UN to suite it's own inflated importance.

Wait, a veto power trying to manipulate the UN for it's own purposes? How uncouth! How unheard of! Why, I am outraged!! No one has ever tried to do so before! Damn French! they must pay for this insolence against the UN system!

All is fair in love and diplomacy: the US played the UN back in November, now the French might. Don't go into the kitchen if you cant stand the heat, as they say.