France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Chris 62]

At one time, 80% of Americans favored segregation, that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Don't fall to in love with Poll results, remember Tom Dewey?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sandman
Or in other words, they've decided to it would be better to put up token resistance than token acquiescence. Good for them.

I don't think it has to do with morality, just money. Both Iraq and The US are have been offering cash (ie. contacts) for the French vote. If the US wants French support it will cost them.

Don't forget who sold Iraq and India their reactors,
(ie: the Atomic bomb)

[Oerdin]

Let's face facts; militarially and economically the French are a second rate power. What power they do have rests mainly upon being able to influence international organizations such as the U.N. and the EU so France has a vested interest in maintain the U.N. as a relevent power in world affairs.

That is why in the end the French will relent and sign off on a 2nd resolution. They know the invasion will go on with or with out a U.N. resolution so they are going to act like the North Koreans and hold out for as many consessions as possible and then they're going to sign the resolution.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


How so? Did he have a stockpile of 10kgs Pu? If not, how was he to acquire it in that short a timeframe? To my knowledge he did not have a functioning reactor.

If he was doing isotope separation, where were his facilities? Did they even exist or were they just plans? He had some uranium ore, but as a nuclear engineer you should understand the difficulties posed by having to start from no nuclear industry whatsoever to full-scale production. 6 months is a ridiculous figure in that case. Hell, with Iraq's resources 10 years is a ridiculous figure.

He had sufficient material to make a bomb. Blix went along with Saddam when Saddam when he seperated it into 3 peices and kept them in different locations. Most people felt this was a silly (and wrong) circumvention of the restrictions on how much weapons material he coud posses. And in fact, 6 months before the war, he put all the stuff in the same facility. And started a crash prgram to make a bomb. I was in the service during Desert Storm and i remember the accusations of Iraqi potential for WOMD. And I was worried that Bush 1 was exaggerating them to make a stronger case for the war (which was all about defending the Gulf oil fields...they're all next to each other.) It turns out that after the war, we found that his WOMD program was more serious than we had thought. Including a several thousand gallon bioreactor for anthrax, etc.

I'll look for a source if you don't trust me. The info about the 3 seperate peices of weapons material (I don't know if it was U-235 or Pu-239) and Blix's handling in the 80's was from a recent story in the WSJ. (there have been a couple of them.)

[SlowwHand]

French support? What's that?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
Chris 62:

I did not say the US is a threat to any particular state, but the system: a system of tight rules and regulations designed to keep the use of force between states at the barest possible minimum. The US is trying to overthrow such a system as far as it may pertain to itself: but to think the US will be the only state to get the message that attacking other states is fine, as long as your justification seems good enough is absurd. Once you begin to kick the ant hill, don't come crying if you get bitten in the future.

Thats an interesting point, but one that is essentially moot. The only period in history where there has been any restraint between countries has been during the last 50 years under the threat of MAD. That time is over. The terrorists have shown the tip of the iceberg of what is possible for them to accomplish.

SpencerH:

And under what conditions would the no flight zones and the russians and french would begin to re-amr Saddam? That possibility seems far more remote than just a continuation of the status quo. As I said, Saddam is contained. Hell, it is his weakness that allows the White House to pick this war, not his strength. Bush is picking on the weakest of the "Axis of evil", not the strongest or most dangerous, as he keeps saying.

I assume you mean "And under what conditions would the no flight zones (be removed) and the russians and french (...) begin to re-amr Saddam? "

Are you suggesting that there wasnt (and isnt) a movement to remove the no-fly zones and end the embargo both nationally in the US and internationally? France has been a major proponent of that view for many years. The French salivate over the money to be made. The Russians did too but they know that we will do more for them in the long run than the 'quick fix' of selling off arms and nuclear fuel to the Iraqis.

[KrazyHorse]

The French are a bigger power economically, and perhaps militarily than the UK, and in terms of power projection stands alone with the UK in the tier immediately below the US. Neither one can challenge the US, and in that sense they are both second-rate powers, but by that standard everybody except the US is a second rate power.

That is why in the end the French will relent and sign off on a 2nd resolution. They know the invasion will go on with or with out a U.N. resolution so they are going to act like the North Koreans and hold out for as many consessions as possible and then they're going to sign the resolution.

It may surprise you to know this, but France is a democracy, and there's less than 20% support for war there right now. Leaders may sometimes demonstrate political courage and vote with their consciences against the majority of public opinion, but rarely do they do so when the odds are that high.

On a side note, support for a war is weaker in the US than support for peace is in France, by a long margin.

[GePap]

To all my fans:

Sloww:

Have I ever said that war is not coming? NO. In fact, I was betting this war to start last december. So please, add something worthwhile.

Chris62:

and the world existed without agriculture for most of its existance as well. Whats the point?
The UN has become a part of the current, state-centered system of international relations. a few tantrums by Washington over a single issue won't end the institution.
As for public opinion polls: you would have never gotten rid of segregation at the time 80% of Americans were for it, so again, whats the point? And on your point with Dewey: he was the front-runner that lost. How does that support your case?

Drake:

The saudi's want US troops out of Saudi Arabia. The same can't be said of the Kuwaitis, Baharanis, Qataris who don't seem that anxious to have US troops leave the gulf. All arabs are not the same. The US could leave Saudi arabia and still contain Saddam, with the other gulf states looking to the US as its grabnd protector.

As for creating a demoracy in Iraq: its a fine dream, that the US invasios will create a democracy: but while it *might* happen, I would not bet on it for a few decades. I think Iran is closer to becoming a working democracy than Iraq would be, right aftre the US invasion. And there are lenty of Arab states, like Baharian, and Morocco, slowly trying to set up democratioc institutions. Overthrowing Saddam is not key. If what you want to fight is Islamic fundamentalism, back an overthrow of the house of Saud, or the Ayatollahs. Iraq is not one fo teh culprits in this movement. After all, what percentage of Al qaeda members are Iraqi? Not very high. As for his reign of terror: the west sids iddly by most reigns of terror. it is sad, but true.

Dinodoc:

A fine little truism, and as correct as most truisms.

DuncanK:

Small nukes, under 50 Kilotons, are not very sueful against armored formations in the desert. The Us army would fight on,a nd win. And Saddam has no delivery methods to reach NY, far less LA.

Azazel:

Good question. No, I don't think the status quo is very worthwhile, but I am not a believer in"any change is good change". The changes the bushies want are based ona set of assumptions and core beliefs that I fundamentally disagree with. Any system they seek to create can't be better than the current one, under my eyes, given where they are coming from.

[Sandman]

I don't think it has to do with morality, just money. Both
Iraq and The US are have been offering cash (ie. contacts) for the French vote. If the US wants French
support it will cost them.

But why have the French suddenly decided to use their veto, when they were already getting 'paid'? The payment is not very much, compared to the French economy. They could have decided on a different plan, given their newfound chumminess with the Germans.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


He had sufficient material to make a bomb. Blix went along with Saddam when Saddam when he seperated it into 3 peices and kept them in different locations. Most people felt this was a silly (and wrong) circumvention of the restrictions on how much weapons material he coud posses. And in fact, 6 months before the war, he put all the stuff in the same facility. And started a crash prgram to make a bomb. I was in the service during Desert Storm and i remember the accusations of Iraqi potential for WOMD. And I was worried that Bush 1 was exaggerating them to make a stronger case for the war (which was all about defending the Gulf oil fields...they're all next to each other.) It turns out that after the war, we found that his WOMD program was more serious than we had thought. Including a several thousand gallon bioreactor for anthrax, etc.

I'll look for a source if you don't trust me. The info about the 3 seperate peices of weapons material (I don't know if it was U-235 or Pu-239) and Blix's handling in the 80's was from a recent story in the WSJ. (there have been a couple of them.)

I would trust you, but I have never heard that before. And I'd be interested to know where he acquired it...

I'm assuming that was all accounted for after Gulf I?

[DinoDoc]

A fine little truism, and as correct as most truisms.

I'm serious. I know of no study that supports your view on the power of international institutions. The UN itself wasn't even able to shut down the war in Bosnia between 92-95. What makes you think that "the system" would have more sucess with a true great power?

[Drake Tungsten]

The saudi's want US troops out of Saudi Arabia. The same can't be said of the Kuwaitis, Baharanis, Qataris who don't seem that anxious to have US troops leave the gulf. All arabs are not the same.

So the killing of those Americans in Kuwait yesterday was a sign of support, right?

Iraq is not one fo teh culprits in this movement. After all, what percentage of Al qaeda members are Iraqi? Not very high.

That's why Iraq is the perfect candidate for democratization. You can't build a democratic opposition to fundamentalism in states already firmly within the grip of fundamentalism. An overthrow of the house of Saud would just lead to an even worse fundie regime gaining power...

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by GePap
DuncanK:

Small nukes, under 50 Kilotons, are not very sueful against armored formations in the desert. The Us army would fight on,a nd win. And Saddam has no delivery methods to reach NY, far less LA.

Come on, Saddam can sell or even give it to Al-Qaeda.

Or if we are not at war with him and he has the weapons, he can blackmail us by threatening to sell them to the Al-Qaeda.

Do we have to put up with all this if we have the opportunity to get rid of him once and for all?

[SlowwHand]

Dearest GePap,

I didn't ask, intimate, or suggest anything at all about if or when you thought war would commence against Iraq.
What I said/asked, and you still ignore, which is STILL fine, is what about "down the road" ?

Actually, if you'd just answer the damned question, I'm probably giving you another position to flame me about.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Thats an interesting point, but one that is essentially moot. The only period in history where there has been any restraint between countries has been during the last 50 years under the threat of MAD. That time is over. The terrorists have shown the tip of the iceberg of what is possible for them to accomplish.

By "terrorist" you mean Al Qaeda, a private, non_governmental ideologically based organization, don't you? well, Al qaeda would hardly ever act as a state, sicne it is not one, now is it? Al qaeda lives outside the system, Iraq lives within it. The US does not event ry anymore to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. They now paint themselves a knights out to save the international system from its own sloth. That sure as hell is a challenge to the system.

Are you suggesting that there wasnt (and isnt) a movement to remove the no-fly zones and end the embargo both nationally in the US and internationally? France has been a major proponent of that view for many years. The French salivate over the money to be made. The Russians did too but they know that we will do more for them in the long run than the 'quick fix' of selling off arms and nuclear fuel to the Iraqis.

Neither of these states seem eager to begin selling iraq new weapons, now do they. The US could simply demand a new sactions regime, one banning weapon's slaes to Iraq, but everyhting else. Under such a regime, the Russians and French get what they want (Iraqi oil consecions, or their money back from old loans) while keeping Saddam from buying important new weapon systems. Fine, he may suggle a bunch of stiuff i, but he would still be unable to remake his army into threat to the Gulf region.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Sandman
But why have the French suddenly decided to use their veto, when they were already getting 'paid'? The payment is not very much, compared to the French economy. They could have decided on a different plan, given their newfound chumminess with the Germans.

So they can demand to be paid again of course. They're trying to wiggle out a few more concessions and that's all.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Come on, Saddam can sell or even give it to Al-Qaeda.

Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

[Az]

Good question. No, I don't think the status quo is very worthwhile, but I am not a believer in"any change is good change". The changes the bushies want are based ona set of assumptions and core beliefs that I fundamentally disagree with. Any system they seek to create can't be better than the current one, under my eyes, given where they are coming from.

why is it so?

for the record:
I personally believe that the status quo in Iraq is the worst possible thing. there are 3 options:
a) Iraq is left alone. People in Iraq start to live better. I expect a war in the gulf in 5-7 years tops.
b) Status quo continues. The autonomous regions in the north continue to live well. The territory under Saddam's contol continues to suffer, and the sanctions do play a role.
c) Iraq is invaded by X. Saddam is driven out of the country, people live better, new puppet government doesn't open war on anyone, there is a chance that under certain circumstances it might have small tendencies that resemble democracy.

so... which one do you choose?

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that North Korea would never sell nuclear technology to Islamic terrorists. The terrorists have called all non-Muslims infidels, so obviously North Korea wouldn't sell them anything. We all know that dictators would never join forces with an enemy to take on a bigger threat... Wait a minute...

[KrazyHorse]

Except in trying to make (c) happen 2 or 3 countries go fundie and 250 000 Iraqis die. And guess who's going to have to fight the follow-up war? It won't be the US, Azazel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So the killing of those Americans in Kuwait yesterday was a sign of support, right?

One soldier killed by one fanatic. Sorry, but that's like saying Americans hate the feds cause timothy McVeight blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma.

That's why Iraq is the perfect candidate for democratization. You can't build a democratic opposition to fundamentalism in states already firmly within the grip of fundamentalism. An overthrow of the house of Saud would just lead to an even worse fundie regime gaining power...

Fundamentalists are not the only threat to democracy in the ME. Iraq is a state devided by ethnic and relegious schism that many other ME states lack. Why should the Sunni middle class, which ahs ruled Iraq since 1922, want a system where the Shia majority would gain power? And would the Shia majority accept a syste in which the Sunni middle classes kept a greater share of power then their size of the pop. calls for, given the history of Iraq? And what happens when thousands of Ayatollahs come back from Iran to Karbala and the other holy city? What wiull their role in the New Iraq be?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Frogger


Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

Common enemies unite even the strangest bed fellows. Who would have thought in 1939 that US and USSR would unite to beat up on Germany?

Again:
If we attack Iraq and Saddam has the weapons, he will give them to the Al-Qaeda to hurt us as much as possible.

If we don't attack Iraq and Saddam has the weapons, he will blackmail us by threatening to sell them to the Al-Qaeda.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sandman

But why have the French suddenly decided to use their veto, when they were already getting 'paid'? The payment is not very much, compared to the French economy. They could have decided on a different plan, given their newfound chumminess with the Germans.

They did flip-flop when earlier they were anti-invasion, and they were promised construction contacts. That deal is done, furfilled. They declared in support.

Now the US has to pay for a speedy UN resolution. The
longer this drags on the more questions get asked. The
more questions, the harder it is to justify.

If Bush wanted to invade Iraq he should have done so on September 12 or 13. He may have got away with cowboy justice then, He needs a warrant from the UN
if he wants to maintain the US as a leader of civilization
rather than just a military superpower, (like the USSR).

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you know anything about Kuwait, Gepap? It has a strong fundamentalist movement and growing anti-American sentiment. The latest attack is just one of many...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Yes. That's what he'd do. Give it to Al-Qaeda, who've called him a secularist infidel and told the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that North Korea would never sell nuclear technology to Islamic terrorists. The terrorists have called all non-Muslims infidels, so obviously North Korea wouldn't sell them anything. We all know that dictators would never join forces with an enemy to take on a bigger threat... Wait a minute...

Muslim fundies have no beef with North Korea. It's not a traditionally Muslim state, there is no sizable Muslim population, they don't meddle in the affairs of Muslim states. They're way, way down on the hit parade.

Saddam is near the top for Muslim fundies. He's a secularist ruling over a Muslim population who invaded another Muslim country.

North Korea doesn't have a downside in selling terrorist Islamists weapons because the weapons won't come back on them. Saddam does.

Please attempt to provide a slightly less facile response next time.

[Drake Tungsten]

Please attempt to provide a slightly less facile response next time.

Only if you attempt to substantiate your arguments in the future. Or are you going to continue telling us all how you know Iraq isn't anywhere near achieving nuclear capability, despite having no more information than the rest of us?

[GePap]

Lord Merciless:

Al qaeda is not a state!

Back in 1939, Hitler wanted to invade Poland: one of the things that might ruin his plan is war with the USSR at that point. The USSR had been unsucessful in getting western powers to agree to an allience, so they worried that they might alone have to foot the bill of an anti-German war. Both states has a clear and common aim (avoid war with each other at that time) so they made a deal, regardless all the propaganda. A very rational thing to do, for both sides.

"Hurting the US" is not a common aim of the same category. What the hell does Saddam gain, other than being vaporized, from simply hurting the US? Does he get US troops of his case? and end to the sanctions regime? No, an attack against the US with WMD gains Saddam none of the things he wants at this moment , or even in the future. There is no rational reason, or even a possiblly rationalized hope that Saddam could have to aid a bunch of fanatics (who don't like him anyway) do somehting that gives him to immidtate or long-term benefit.

As for selling nukes: if you have just one, you don't sell. Ten you have none and you are trully screwed. The N.koreans sell missiles cause they can make them in large quantity. Maybe, if and wen the N.Koreans get to biulding many nukes a year, we should worry about them selling nukes (though a group like Al Qaeda could hardly afford the probable asking price) but the notion that Iraq, with one solitary little nuke, would do so? No.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know. But I do know how hard it is to get the right stuff, because I have some understanding of the process involved. It's always possible that he managed to score a hundred kilograms of U235 from some Russian, but that's complete speculation. What he doesn't have is a large-scale nuclear industry, because any satellite in the world would see it from its emissions. And without that, it gets very difficult.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap
DuncanK:

Small nukes, under 50 Kilotons, are not very sueful against armored formations in the desert. The Us army would fight on,a nd win. And Saddam has no delivery methods to reach NY, far less LA.

suitcase bomb? btw, i do admire you for taking on so many posters

[DuncanK]

It seems that some people here are writing off the idea that al Qaeda and Saddam would cooperate in an effort againt its common enemy. I don't really understand why? So they hate each other, but they still should cooperate against a common enemy.