France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War - Page 11

Arrian · January 22, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

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 · January 22, 2003, 18:53

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · January 22, 2003, 19:13

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 · January 22, 2003, 19:17

Quote:

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 · January 22, 2003, 19:19

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 · January 22, 2003, 19:23

Quote:

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 · January 22, 2003, 19:24

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

GePap · January 22, 2003, 19:25

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

(on to 500!)

Ned · January 23, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

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 · January 23, 2003, 06:02

Quote:

(on to 500!)

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

Quote:

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

why so?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · January 23, 2003, 06:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

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"

Bullshit, drake. Pure, unsubstantiated bullshit. 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 · January 23, 2003, 07:47

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 · January 23, 2003, 07:51

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

Az · January 23, 2003, 07:57

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

GeneralTacticus · January 23, 2003, 07:59

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.

Az · January 23, 2003, 08:03

Exactly. That's why the french are the least supportive of the war. they've realized that they now will get less part of the oil cake if the US will conquer Iraq. Russia has been VERY quiet, and I suppose that the US will continue to bolster it's relationships with the bears.

KrazyHorse · January 23, 2003, 08:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
how does that change... anything really? I am now talking about real motives, not the bullshit that politicians sell to people.

Azazel, I'm not saying the French are any more idealistic about this than the US is, but the French government has the additional motivation that their people are widely against the war, and want them to do something about it. The US government doesn't have that.

If you asked me for an opinion, I'd tell you that popular opinion is the main reason for French and German opposition.

Az · January 23, 2003, 08:09

I don't think so. They could've started to mould public opinion ages ago, when Bush hinted at first that he wants to take a go at Saddam. they didn't. they've realized that they'd have to pay for being pains in the ass of the US, and started velhemently opposing these actions. There was no public opinion on this before bush's first hint at war on iraq, for the simple reason that this was a non-issue.

KrazyHorse · January 23, 2003, 08:09

And the Germans? The rest of Europe? Canada?

Russia is one thing. They're a traditional Iraqi ally and do have major investment in Iraq, plus they don't have a good history of listening to public opinion.

But France is symptomatic of a broad opposition to the war in Europe. To ascribe it to French oil money is either shortsighted or disingenuous.

KrazyHorse · January 23, 2003, 08:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't think so. They could've started to mould public opinion ages ago, when Bush hinted at first that he wants to take a go at Saddam. they didn't. they've realized that they'd have to pay for being pains in the ass of the US, and started velhemently opposing these actions. There was no public opinion on this before bush's first hint at war on iraq, for the simple reason that this was a non-issue.

?

Public opinion doesn't mold so easily, Azazel. Even the US has tepid support for war, and Europeans are dead set against it.

The French have never been particularly concerned about their relationship with Washington either. They're right in the centre of new Europe, and they're more concerned with that relationship than with the US one.

Richelieu · January 23, 2003, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't think so. They could've started to mould public opinion ages ago, when Bush hinted at first that he wants to take a go at Saddam. they didn't. they've realized that they'd have to pay for being pains in the ass of the US, and started velhemently opposing these actions. There was no public opinion on this before bush's first hint at war on iraq, for the simple reason that this was a non-issue.

You are saying that the governments of France and Germany should have influenced their citizens so they would encourage war?

Isn't democracy supposed to work the other way around ?

Az · January 23, 2003, 08:13

good points. I now agree that public does play a part in france's decisions.

January 23, 2003, 12:04

Yes, and if France blocks the UN resolution to go to war, GB will counter with a publicity campaign explaining to the American People that the UN is putting them in jepoardy and this will cause the patriotic American's to again support him.

Yet again GB and his minions have manipulated the situation to their advantage. Whoever said that GB was DUMB is sure wrong.

Az · January 23, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

You are saying that the governments of France and Germany should have influenced their citizens so they would encourage war?
Isn't democracy supposed to work the other way around ?

what I've meant is that if their ONLY worry was public opinion and not the US encroaching on their oil, they could prep up their own public opinion to support such a thing. But they've opposed it very much, their level of opposition preceded the level of opposition from the european street.

And yes, government can mould public opinion. I see it happen here all the time.

HershOstropoler · January 23, 2003, 12:33

I find it fascinating that the same pundits who tell us Bush's war is not about oil, also tell us that opposition to the war is all about oil. Even more fascinating that they find people who believe them.

"their level of opposition preceded the level of opposition from the european street."

Not for France, Chirac's initial position was ambiguous. In Germany, both major parties reacted to existing voter sentiment - I can't see how they should have manipulated public sentiment.

KrazyHorse · January 23, 2003, 12:37

Remember that in Germany Schroeder was forced into his position by the upcoming election. Prior to firming up his position as being against war, he would have lost...

Maroule · January 23, 2003, 12:38

"their level of opposition preceded the level of opposition from the european street."

Indeed wrong. Chirac rarely has strong feelings on anything. He is following the 80% of people opposing or strongly opposing a war.

SpencerH · January 23, 2003, 13:14

Maroule,

So whats your opinion about why the French are so opposed to ousting Hussein?

Chris 62 · January 23, 2003, 13:14

I see this thread lives on, but it's really pointless.

Iraq violated the original gulf war ceasefire, that is all the US needs leagally, so France and Germany can posture all they like, it's to no purpose, outside of the usual game they play.

D-day should be about three weeks, then it's adios Saddam, as US forces move in, chased by the French yelling "we are with you amis, we love you!! "

Bereta_Eder · January 23, 2003, 13:15

Vive la France, as always.
Also glad to see the FrancoGerman alliance as strong as ever. There wouldnt be a EU without them.
I'm sorry for the continouus narrowmindness of the UK though.

Charles de Gaule once said that the UK should never had become a member of the EU. It would be like puting a worm inside an apple he had said.
I hope he was wrong.