Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

France Vows to Block Resolution on Iraq War

Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 08:38 AM

They have been looking for him since Sept 11, 2001. They haven't found him yet

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#22 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 10:12 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Jan. 22 2003,18:48, said:

Suffice it to say wherever Bin Laden is he can't do very much or his head will be on a platter.

I think that seeming to ignore Osama bin Laden in favor of the Iraqi war might have the effect of perhaps getting him to step out of the shrubbery and try to do something.  If he can be convinced that the attention of the US is elsewhere, he might start taking risks again and then we can nab him.  While he's Public Enemy #1, he's probably going to lay low and wait for something else to occupy our attentions.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#23 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 23 January 2003 - 02:27 AM

I would hate to think the whole Iraq situation is the US playing possum.   :eek:

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#24 Sollek

Sollek
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 35 posts

Posted 23 January 2003 - 01:21 PM

The thing I don't understand is: Why does the USA want a war? What will you gain from it? Many people will die, and what for? Someone said Germany wants to prevent this war because they sold weapons to the Iraq. BUT everyone (including USA) sold weapons and else to Iraq. I'm European and with this war (or the threat of it) the USA looses much of respect. The UN didn't find a proof for any kind of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But Bush wants this war so bad. As a result most of the Europeans are convinced that the only purpose of this war is gaining access to the oil (and to distract from the national problems). Maybe the Germans and the French don't want to fight because they still remember the last war that took place in their countries. I always noticed that the Americans were keener than anyone else when it came to fighting wars. Maybe this is because you always see these wars from far far away. If someone would destroy your home and kill half of your family you sure wouldnt care if it was the dictator of your own country or a foreign force who just wanted to bring you peace and freedom. There is no need for a war. You can't change the past (Sept,11th) by killing more people and destroying more homes. Think back to Serbia: The USA came, destroyed, and left and the Europeans had to take care of the remains.

#25 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 23 January 2003 - 06:39 PM

Quote

Kevin Street: t's full of bickering, and often creates embarassing situations like Libya chairing the Human Rights Committee, but at the end of the day it's all we have standing between us and the tyranny of history. If we ever hope to build a future free of war and inequality, the UN is our best tool to do it.

The UN is severely less than effective at leveling out inequality.  You have more than just Quadaffi chairing human rights in that regard.  It ended up that NATO was the one to do something in Kosovo rather than the UN.  It was just ignored in that case because the authorization would have been vetoed.  Saddam has been laughing at and stomping all over UN resolutions since the end of the Gulf War.  The UN should at best be nothing more than a glorified debating forum for countries at the rate it is going.

Quote

But why attack him now, when he hasn't done anything since the Gulf War except to his own people?

He hasn't invaded anyone lately but it's not like he hasn't done anything.  He has moved Republican Guard Divisions on several times to locations where he could threaten Kuwait.  He has repeatedly avoided UN attempts to disarm his weapons of mass destruction.  He still has weapons of mass destruction as verified by the Inspectors despite his adamant denials.  In addition for all intents and purposes Iraq could have a nuclear device in 5 months if they get their hands on the right materials.  

Quote

(I think it was the State Department)

I hadn't heard that tidbit…  Should be a free trip to Leavenworth if that is the case.  

Quote

That would be a good outcome, but I doubt old Osama is ever going to come out of hiding. He's always been more of a figurehead (and a chequebook) than a real leader, and that's more true now than ever, since there's a global manhunt looking for him.

Eventually he'll slip up in a manner that will alert someone to his location.  Even the transference of funds is something the US can track and mess with.  I can imagine the NSA and CIA have had merry fun with every little bit of Bin Laden's funds that they can grab on him.  I doubt either that he'll drop completely off the face of the Earth or stop commanding al-Queda.  He'll more likely just go underground until he think the US isn't watching as much.  The other is I suspect they are putting more HUMINT into penetrating al-Queda rather than just relying on SIGINT.  

Quote

Sollek: Someone said Germany wants to prevent this war because they sold weapons to the Iraq.

Germany and France both sold materials to Iraq that could be used to make chemical weapons.  That isn't exactly a normal weapons; more than likely they gave the means to Iraq to construct chemical weapons.  This was events that occurred after the Gulf War and Iraq invading Kuwait.  

Quote

Sollek: The UN didn't find a proof for any kind of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

If that's what you are hearing then someone along the line is passing along blatantly false information.  The UNMOVIC has found both chemical warheads and mustard gas since they resumed inspections.  

Iraqis Urged to Support U.N. Inspectors:
  http://abcnews.go.co...21205_2431.html

Saddam's bad case of gas:
  http://www.nydailyne...49p-38611c.html

MUSTARD GAS IS FOUND IN IRAQ:
  http://www.nypost.co...dnews/63758.htm

New Iraqi document find alarms UN:
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2672825.stm

Quote

Sollek: As a result most of the Europeans are convinced that the only purpose of this war is gaining access to the oil

The US only gets 15% of our oil from the Middle East currently the rest comes from other regions of the World.  

Quote

Sollek: Maybe the Germans and the French don't want to fight because they still remember the last war that took place in their countries.

It would be more like they have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power because Iraq owes them a couple billion dollars.  Without the money the economies of both countries would suffer.  If the US invades and places in power a new government the checkbooks of both Germany and France will be hurting if said murderous dictator is removed from power.  Suffice it to say if France thinks they can't stop the war they'll be among the first to jump the bandwagon.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#26 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 04:41 AM

Okay, I'm going to get up on the soapbox for a moment.

CJ AEGIS wrote:

Quote

The UN is severely less than effective at leveling out inequality.  You have more than just Quadaffi chairing human rights in that regard.  It ended up that NATO was the one to do something in Kosovo rather than the UN.  It was just ignored in that case because the authorization would have been vetoed.  Saddam has been laughing at and stomping all over UN resolutions since the end of the Gulf War.  The UN should at best be nothing more than a glorified debating forum for countries at the rate it is going.

Well, we've got to put a stop to that.

It's true that the UN has many flaws, but what's the alternative? The current balance of power can't remain the same forever. Saddam may be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons today (possibly at the cost of a war), but that won't stop Iran or Pakistan or China or (gulp) North Korea from developing better nukes in the future. The trend is irreversible - more countries are developing even more deadly weapons every year. Someday there will be dozens of "rogue nations" with ICBMS (and chemical and biological weapons), and US military power will no longer be effective. We're heading down a road of inevitable destruction if we fail to develop a better paradigm. Flawed and ridiculous as it is, the UN is our paradigm, the only body created for the express purpose of ending war, and we need it now more than ever.

The people who run the world are doing a pretty poor job, but things don't always have to be that way. Maybe it's the job of our generation to make things better. IMO, people should be debating how to fix the UN, instead of waiting for it to wither away.

*steps off the soapbox*

Sorry about that fit of rhetoric. It's just that the UN is one of my hot buttons. The spell is passing now.  ;)

Per aspera ad astra

#27 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 05:14 AM

Personally, I think that the UN as the means of ending war is probably still too much to actually be effective.  Before you can really have peaceful cooperation, you need to organize nations into progressively larger blocs that have very similar interests.  Indeed, I think that NATO is more on track for actually ending problem of warfare than the UN is.

Don't get me wrong, global discussion of issues is good and should happen.  It's an inevitable step in the process.  However, the countries involved are too diverse in their workings for any coherent and effective system of security maintenance or government.  

Indeed, I wonder greatly whether human nature with it's tendency towards competition, will ever allow for there to be a single united government short of us finding something that we can all unite against or at least distinguish ourselves from.  That is to say, world government before we leave Earth or the aliens land might well be impossible, or at the very least unstable.

As a high schooler, long ago, I was president of our Model UN club and attended a great deal of conferences where we acted out being delegates for various countries.  I took my research seriously and on more than one occasion, I managed  t o pick up Best Delegate awards in committee and I chaired some as well.  I point this out only to describe my experiences in actually attempting to get things done in such an environment.  The UN has many, many things that really keep it from being effective, from its structure, to it's bias towards tiny states all the way to the fact that it gives the voices of even abusive dictatorships both legitimacy and even power to thwart any threats to their rule.   At best, such an organization is running a lap behind from the beginning, but once it fails to enforce it's own resolutions and has to be blackmailed into action by the most powerful nation on Earth, it really is pushing towards complete irrelevance.  

If the French and Germans attempt to stonewall the enforcement of ten years worth of resolutions in the Security Council, no matter what their intentions, they are digging a grave for that same organization.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#28 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 08:54 AM

actually, no. never mind, i'm simply not of a mind to have this argument again.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#29 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 09:43 AM

fine

since my retraction was too late

why doesn't it work? why doesn't containment work?

if it's about the 'poor innocent little iraqi civilians' why aren't the US in any of the 40 or so other countries run by peopel just like Saddam Hussein

If it's about oil, then they should get of their high horse and admit it (which they have finally done) and just be honest rather than pretending to be a 'good guy'. They are doing what every powerfull nation has done. They are saying 'my turn' and grabbing resources.

If it's about WMD's then why aren't there two carrier groups lying of the coast of Korea with 200,000 troops plus equipment have a mile south of the DMZ in South Korea.


Quote

On the other hand, the UN has to face that very real possibility if it's sole purpose is to get in the way.

It boggles my mind, that when the UN is looking for a way to do this peacefully, the US, is looking for any reason to go to war and is complaining about the UN getting in the way

funny how they weren't getting in the way when they still supported war in Iraq isn't it.

Quote

If, at this point, the Council voted to absolve Iraq, it would be almost as bad as backing down, it might even be worse.  

Absolutely right. It would be near criminal. However for the US to ignore the US council when it doesn't do what the US wants is also wrong.

Quote

Stonewalling is to prevent action, and the US would like the UN to take action, so what the US is doing is most definitely not stonewalling.

yes they are looking for action aren't they. At every cost, at any cost George Bush will have his invasion. Yes he made great speeches about doing this together and going through the council, but that all got tossed when it became inconenient. Now we're back on the 'wel'll go it alon' bandwagon.

The US as the most powerfull country in the world needs to learn that you cannot pound every problem to pieces, and that the age of being able to bully your way towwards resources you need has to come to an end.

IF they don't learn that, then when they do conquer Iraq, they will drive a whole generation of young people into the arms of organisations who will prey on the attitude of american arrogance that they see to teach a whole new generation of suicide bombers.

And no matter what the US wants, sooner or later, more and more countries will go nuclear. By pushing people into thinking they have no alternative but terrorism, then eventually i will wake up to find a special report on TV that an american city has been nuked. And it rewally doesn't matter whether it is there only option. the point is that they will think it is

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#30 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 02:37 PM

enough with the black and whites

the fact that i don't support the seizure of Iraqi oil fields with the US military and the bombing and and invasion of the country doesn't mean i support Saddam.

I think he should be removed yes, but i do not believe an invasion by the US at this time is the right time and way to do it.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#31 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 03:16 PM

Also remember, Kosovo happened under a different president.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#32 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 05:17 PM

You are probably right G,

my dad said when Kosovo broke that it was the beginning of the end for the UN.

however, because the UN has failed in it's peacekeeping mission, shouldn't be a carte blanch for the US to go to war.

Remember, if a peacekeeper fights, he's already failed in his mission. The Us has never been a true peacekeepr because it only picks fights it has a stake in, or which it is dragged into.

Yes, Europe did drop the ball in Kosovo, no question, but the US 's policy of 'bomb it till it falls over' ultimately doesn't work.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#33 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 08:58 PM

First off, going back to the comment that Secretary Powell made, since you are saying that the government is "admitting that it's after oil with that comment", I would like to point out that I think you're misinterpreting that comment.  People obviously are going to have questions about what is going to happen to the oil, and I think the Secretary simply answered that question.  It does not mean that the US is in it for the oil.  In fact, although many Europeans like to convince themselves that this is the case, it's not.  The US needs Middle Eastern oil a whole lot less than Europe does, for instance.  

Second, the idea that the UN represents the balance of the world is flawed.  It does *not* represent the balance of the world's population.  It represent's the majority of world governments.  That's a big difference.  Since a very large fraction of the world's governments are *not* representative democracies, saying that the UN represents the people of the world is a not an accurate statement.  Indeed, many of these governments oppose initiatives that prevent them from doing what they will in their own countries.  

There is a fundimental clash between the republicanism in the UN's structure and the constituent governments of the UN, which are not truely representative governments.  The UN mandate is to curb dictators and warmongers, if force by necessary, but if it gives into the dictators like Saddam and refuses to act, it is giving into the inertia.  The central challenge of the UN is whether it's high sounding ideas can overcome it's constituent's shortcomings.  At this juncture, it sounds like this challenge is not being met.

Is the war about oil?  Yes, in part.  However, it is not an imperialistic attempt to control oil fields, it is to keep the supply of oil coming.  This benefits Europe just as much, if not more so than it benefits the US.  There is nothing wrong with that goal.  

The other part is that, frankly, the US is sick of footing the bill for peacekeeping operations for an organization that not only is inclined to thwart the efforts of the US as if it had a grudge against us, but is also not inclined to maintain it's own resolutions.  The UN should be there to negotiate, but it was given the power to wage armed conflict for a reason.  Dictators like Hitler and Saddam Hussein are that reason.  After ten years, it's more than about time that UN uses its authority to carry out its own decrees or it loses that authority.  At least the League of Nations had the excuse that they couldn't order armed missions, what's the UN's excuse for being irrelevant?

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#34 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 25 January 2003 - 02:43 AM

Wow, the debate has really evolved!  :cool:

uncle sid wrote:

Quote

Personally, I think that the UN as the means of ending war is probably still too much to actually be effective.  Before you can really have peaceful cooperation, you need to organize nations into progressively larger blocs that have very similar interests.  Indeed, I think that NATO is more on track for actually ending problem of warfare than the UN is.

NATO is too regionally bound to be effective as a means to end all war. As a deterrent to war in its North Atlantic region though, it does work pretty well.

Excellent point about organizing nations into larger blocs.

Quote

The UN has many, many things that really keep it from being effective, from its structure, to it's bias towards tiny states all the way to the fact that it gives the voices of even abusive dictatorships both legitimacy and even power to thwart any threats to their rule.

All good points, and things to work on.

Quote

At best, such an organization is running a lap behind from the beginning, but once it fails to enforce it's own resolutions and has to be blackmailed into action by the most powerful nation on Earth, it really is pushing towards complete irrelevance.  

If the French and Germans attempt to stonewall the enforcement of ten years worth of resolutions in the Security Council, no matter what their intentions, they are digging a grave for that same organization.

There are a lot on UN resolutions that have never been enforced (like UN Resolution 194, which would have stopped a lot of bloodshed in the Middle East), and can't be enforced now without serious international repercussions. But the situation with Iraq is improving now, isn't it? The inspectors are there, and they're starting to actually find the hidden weapons. What would a war accomplish at this point?

Per aspera ad astra

#35 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 25 January 2003 - 09:40 AM

Kevin Street, on Jan. 25 2003,02:43, said:

But the situation with Iraq is improving now, isn't it? The inspectors are there, and they're starting to actually find the hidden weapons. What would a war accomplish at this point?
Well, it's improving in terms of the inspectors finding things, but where there is one thing to be found, there's probably three more things that haven't been found.  

In any event, the problem is that Iraq still maintains that it doesn't have these weapons and says that it "forgot" about the empty warheads, for example.  Given that these weapons would be the regime's most prized and controlled possessions, I seriously doubt that they were allowed out of the direct control of Saddam Hussein's inner circle for a moment.  It's possible that any country could forget about items, but the excellent condition that the warheads were found in is telling.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#36 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 27 January 2003 - 05:31 PM

Well Hans Blix's report to the UN on Iraq was submitted today.  The State of the Union Address should be interesting…  

Iraq must do more, UN told

Quote

- Iraq has not produced proof it destroyed stocks of anthrax
- Baghdad has failed to account for up to300 rocket engines
- There was evidence it had not destroyed all its VX nerve gas
- Its weapons declaration last month contained no new material

Quote

"Washington and London have indicated that any failure of compliance with UN resolutions demanding Iraqi disarmament could be a trigger for war."

Excerpts from inspectors' reports to U.N.

Quote

"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."


Quote

"The [Iraqi weapons report] document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there  is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."


Quote

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist."

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users