France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Bereta_Eder]

nice crossposting

[Chris 62]

Kind of killed your troll, eh?

[Tripledoc]

Food for thought.

"And if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated..."

President Thomas Jefferson 1807

[Bereta_Eder]

we shot eachother off more likely

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
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...

So, "It's the economy, stupid!" doesn't really apply to German politics?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Food for thought.

"And if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated..."

President Thomas Jefferson 1807

What about Vietnam ?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by paiktis22
we shot eachother off more likely

It matters not, they will soon again have page long posts back and forth on whether it's correct or not, which has nothing to do with the topic of course.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

So, "It's the economy, stupid!" doesn't really apply to German politics?

I don't know; all I know is that his comments boosted his approval ratings ~5% in the last week before elections. And that, IMO is all the justification he felt he needed. Call him a ruthless politician if you want (same with Chirac) but the suggestion that this is somhow due to French oil companies is a lot less credible than the suggestion GW's attitude is due to American oil companies is...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

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

Hell, it got there, didn't it?

why so?

The NPT came about in 1969: I have read various books, including one completely concerned with Israel's nuclear program, that state that the US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.

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

It can be called international law: After all, a status quo can only last with the support of agreed rules of conduct. Since the international community is chaotic, "law" within it can not have the strict nature of intrastate laws, until some suprastate entity comes into being.

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....

How generous of you, to care so much for so many Arabs. Care to foot the bill?

[Az]

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.

ermm, are you talking about me? I know that oil plays an interest in Bush's decisions. I am supporting the war nontheless, due to other reasons, of course.

"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.

are you denying that governments have the ability to do this?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Maroule,

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

NOt Maroule, but I will give it a shot:

The French are not opposed to the aims of the admin., but it's method. They don't see an immidiate threat from Iraq, they might not have as much faith as many of you have that the US wil be so adept at putting Humpty Dumpty back together, and they probably fear the consequences of the US screwing up somehow. They want to play for more time, to lay a better foundation of opinion to got to war, and of course, they want assurances that French interests will prosper.

IN short, right now they see Bush's actions as a greater threat than anything Saddam may do, cuase Saddam is in a tight little box in the back of the China Shop, while Bush & Co. is the charging Elephant out to smash that little box at the back: but what happens to all the China in between?

[Az]

Hell, it got there, didn't it?

I'd rather it wouldn't get there.

The NPT came about in 1969: I have read various books, including one completely concerned with Israel's nuclear program, that state that the US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.

funny, I've always thought we had them in the mid-60s. If someday, Israel will FINALLY announce it has them, then we will surely know. must inquire a bit more into this.

It can be called international law: After all, a status quo can only last with the support of agreed rules of conduct. Since the international community is chaotic, "law" within it can not have the strict nature of intrastate laws, until some suprastate entity comes into being.

well, If you want to play by the rules of superpowers, sure.

How generous of you, to care so much for so many Arabs. Care to foot the bill?

Why should I? I have a volounteer that will do it for free. The good ol' US of A.

[Arrian]

but what happens to all the China in between?

Their embassy gets bombed?

-Arrian

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Azazel

I'd rather it wouldn't get there. [/quote}

Fine, on to 499.5!

well, If you want to play by the rules of superpowers, sure.

But those are the only rules in the international community there are. Do you support a supranational world government with the ability to enforce laws on the international scale as the state can on the internal scale?

Why should I? I have a volounteer that will do it for free. The good ol' US of A.

Bahh!

If all goes well, then perhaps things are for the best, if all goes badly, then Bush is gone in 2004 (a huge personal consolation prize). If things get muddled, worst possible outcome: the Chimp in Chief stays four more, and the consequences of whats about to happen get drawn out for decades.

Their embassy gets bombed?

-Arrian

Lets hope the CIA mproved its maps.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.

The only reason for Israel to acquire nuclear weapons in the '60s is that had no confidence that United States would protect it if the Arabs were successful in a war against them. I'm not so sure about the Kennedy administration, but I believe that both the Eisenhower and Johnson administration's were no true friends of Israel.

The question today is whether Israel has a sufficiently high degree of confidence in the United States that it could destroy its nuclear weapons. I would say yes if we only elected presidents like Reagan or Bush. But we have in the past elected leaders like Johnson and Carter.

Also, today's Democratic presidential hopefuls seem to be taking turns on waving the white flag of appeasement. If I were an Israeli, I would keep the nukes.

[Ned]

GePap, we ended yesterday with your agreement that Iraq must be disarmed; and, if they refused to disarm and instead continue to play hide and seek games with the inspectors, that you would at least not be opposed to a war against Iraq if the U.N. authorized it. But the French have promised to veto any U.N. resolution calling for a war against Iraq -- even before Blix has presented his report. In other words, it appears that the French are satisfied that Iraq is not a threat to develop nuclear weapons so long as the inspectors are there. I must agree that this is not an unreasonable conclusion. But the obvious problem is that there is no finality. When can the US and British pilots withdraw? When can the sanctions be ended?

Also yesterday, you stated that would be a major disaster to international law if the United States and its allies used military force against Iraq in the face of an obstructionist veto by a Security Council permanent member. Looking back in history, we somewhat faced with this when the North Koreans invaded the South in 1950. Fortunately the Russians did not show up at the Security Council meeting.

We did face the issue, however, when the Russians said they would veto any U.N. resolution authorizing a war against Yugoslavia over Kosovo. We acted regardless and "liberated" Kosovo.

So, my questions you GePap, do you agree with the NATO declaration of war on Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by paiktis22
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.

France and Germany just had a large meeting in Versailles, demonstrating unity against the US warmongers. They put up quite a show, so they may actually mean it.

About the Brits: I have always had a weak spot for them; they must only manage to get rid of Blair. The people there are against him already, both within his party and without.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So, "It's the economy, stupid!" doesn't really apply to German politics?

Dino, I actually like your, sort of, consistency, I really do. Would you, for once, believe me, that, to some people, national feelings and some other things matter ten times more than economy?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, we ended yesterday with your agreement that Iraq must be disarmed; and, if they refused to disarm and instead continue to play hide and seek games with the inspectors, that you would at least not be opposed to a war against Iraq if the U.N. authorized it. But the French have promised to veto any U.N. resolution calling for a war against Iraq -- even before Blix has presented his report. In other words, it appears that the French are satisfied that Iraq is not a threat to develop nuclear weapons so long as the inspectors are there. I must agree that this is not an unreasonable conclusion. But the obvious problem is that there is no finality. When can the US and British pilots withdraw? When can the sanctions be ended?

Before 9/11, there was talk, even with some small support in washington, of changing the sanctions regime agaisnt Baghdad. As for US and British pilots: the US and UK emposed the No-flight zones themselves. They 'infered' that they could do it based on other previous UN resolutions, but it is really a political decision by the US and UK to keep flying these missions. The US and UK can end them any time they whish to do so, or keep them going for as long as their excuse holds up. As for finality: there is finality, when Saddam dies and the regime goes trhough its little crisis. When will that be, who knows. As for endind sanctions (a moot point since war is coming), a different set, designed solely to hurt the regime, such as a total ban on weapons imports, could always be estblished to hamper any moves by Iraq to rearm.

Also yesterday, you stated that would be a major disaster to international law if the United States and its allies used military force against Iraq in the face of an obstructionist veto by a Security Council permanent member. Looking back in history, we somewhat faced with this when the North Koreans invaded the South in 1950. Fortunately the Russians did not show up at the Security Council meeting.

We did faced issue, however, when the Russians said they would veto any U.N. resolution authorizing a war against Yugoslavia over Kosovo. We acted regardless and "liberated" Kosovo.

So, my questions you GePap, do you agree with the NATO declaration of war on Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization?

Well, the Kosovo case is interesting, but it is not a very close match to this case. After all, NATO did not authorize the use of force to overthrow the offending regime, insted, it authorized a specific set of actions to bring to an end a specific policy they considered criminal. If the US and UK were to invade some region of Iraq to protect the human rights of some internal Iraqi group, then we have a closer match to the Kosovo act. Also, again, it was NATO (several powers) who decide to act, in their own back yard, as it were. This time, no international organization has lent their support to the admin. So if back in 1999 you had a question of legitimacy of action, at least it was akin to an issue of jurisdiction, between one international organization (NATO) and another (the UN). Here, we have individual states claiming they have the right to make a posse of their own to get the bad guy.

So, to further the "legal" metaphor: in 1999, the local gov. (NATO) decided to indict a criminal (Yugoslavia) and take appropritate legal action (force to end a specific policy of the regime) againt the perpetrator while the 'state' gov (the UN) was unwilling to indict (because of political buddies the criminal had back in the statehouse). Here, we have a posse being formed to lynch the offender, without support (yet) from any local or state government.

So I do not see them as actions of the same caliber.

Side note:

I find it funny to see the admin. state they don't care if they lack the support of France, Germany, Russia, or China because golly, they have the support of Spain, Italy, The Eastern Europeans, and Australia.

Well, the US sure has assembled the great powers to its aid, hasn't it?

[Az]

If all goes well, then perhaps things are for the best,

YES!!!!!!!
you see that wasn't so painful, was it?!

[Ned]

Well, GePap, what if NATO declares war on Iraq? The French and Gemans do not have a veto there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel


YES!!!!!!!
you see that wasn't so painful, was it?!

Well, If i put all my chips on 32, and the wheel stops at 32, certainly, everything was for the best. Doesn't mean I would ever put all my chips on 32, though.

Look, I can greatly disagree with the policy, but only fools and idiots utterly discount the possibility of good coming from a gable they would never take.

With war coming, we will all get the chance to argue the results, soon enough.

Well, the rest of m life calls: i shall return. tommorrow.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, what if NATO declares war on Iraq? The French and Gemans do not have a veto there.

Last quicky:

Yes they do Ned. all NATO action must be unanimous, which is why just yesterday (or tuesday) NATO refused to, at this point, say they will back the US in a war with Iraq. Hell, it's harder to get NATO action than UN action. You got 5 states to convince in the UN, for NATO you have, what is it now, 15?

Trully, my last post for today..I swear on G.W. Bush's grave

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, what if NATO declares war on Iraq? The French and Gemans do not have a veto there.

NATO would be violating the UN Charter which forbids wars of aggression.

Anyways, the best thing would be for all Europeans to leave NATO and throw out every single American soldier currently soiling European territory.

[Az]

But those are the only rules in the international community there are. Do you support a supranational world government with the ability to enforce laws on the international scale as the state can on the internal scale?

yes, since I am a far-left socialist. . but not right now, We don't have the means of communications and logistics to pull it off, yet.

Well, the rest of m life calls: i shall return. tommorrow.

oh, the irony.... for me, too, life calls. "Life", the Biology book, for the test that I'll have in 3 days, that is.

[Bereta_Eder]

Any NATO member can block, in theory, any decision.

In theory because NATO is the vehicle of US dominance in Europe.

Unfortunately it is still needed.

Steps are taken to rectify this situation.

[Bereta_Eder]

But is there sufficient will? or need? or is it for the best interest of Europe?

It will be determined.

However the pressure from NATO to EU to increase military spending is fueling this debate.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


NOt Maroule, but I will give it a shot:

The French are not opposed to the aims of the admin., but it's method. They don't see an immidiate threat from Iraq, they might not have as much faith as many of you have that the US wil be so adept at putting Humpty Dumpty back together, and they probably fear the consequences of the US screwing up somehow. They want to play for more time, to lay a better foundation of opinion to got to war, and of course, they want assurances that French interests will prosper.

IN short, right now they see Bush's actions as a greater threat than anything Saddam may do, cuase Saddam is in a tight little box in the back of the China Shop, while Bush & Co. is the charging Elephant out to smash that little box at the back: but what happens to all the China in between?

Well I was hoping for a French point of view rather than an interpretation of a French point of view.

But to your comments. I have no faith that we will do anything useful after ousting Hussein. As far as I'm concerned, removing the ability of Iraq to kill or blackmail the rest of us with WoMD is the goal. Nothing else. As for the USA's charging around like an elephant, do you think the French think that we're gonna bomb their embassy again? Other than that, what effect will a US attack have on France? Will they send any troops? No. Will they lose their oil? No. So whats the problem? Maybe its some deep seated altruistic streak in the French consciousness, but I dont think so. The problem for the French is that if we oust Hussein and the other mental giants, the Iraqis are unlikely to buy French arms and restricted technology for the foreseeable future. They want to end the embargo. They've said it before and they're working towards it now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Would you, for once, believe me, that, to some people, national feelings and some other things matter ten times more than economy?

Considering how Schroeder is being drug over the coals for his handling of the economy, no.

[Bereta_Eder]

the operative funtion in this being that he is the chancelor