X
Xtro
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
I can't mate, the UN does fuck all tbh.
I can't mate, the UN does fuck all tbh.
A
Ash!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
Xane.
For somebody who is usually on the ball and reasonably well informed, your comment above is nonsense. Just because France decided to VETO the conflict it does not make their position any less respectable or valid than that of the coalition. I am sure thats what everyone bought into though when they joined NATO, EU, UN et al. One Nation One vote etc. Even if it does defy the almighty and all powerfull.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
It is not nonsense.
France made the _threat_ of veto prior to the vote, this is analogous to the judge telling the jury there's no point finding the defendent guilty as he's going to let him off anyway, this is a serious diplomatic blunder on their part, how can we expect a fair debate if France decides to "go it alone" and announce it will abandon the principles of UN resolution 1441 anyway ?
Interesting you bring up NATO, as France decided to abandon it in 1966 (they rejoined after Gulf War I). Likewise they help set up the "no fly zones", but later withdraw from patrols.
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
The UN is far far more than just the Security Council. This is not the end of the UN, although I think we may see some restructuring of the Security Council over the next few years. In my opinion a lot will depend on how the war goes, and what is turned up afterwards.
A
Ash!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
Fair Point XANE.
A question to the whole post really. After the coalition invaid, liberate Iraq over the coming weeks. What will there position be if the smoking gun is not found. Of course Iraq will have some material to make WoMD. What would the outcome be if the substantial ammount of chemical/biological weapons that we are told IRAQ posses are never actually found. Thus lending some weight to the argument that they did destroy the majority of their stash.
Bear in mind America has reiterated over the last few days that any suspected sites with WoMD must not be targeted as that would be used as proof to the world.
Would America, Britain and Spain loose credibiltity on the world stage and what is the possible outcome of this scenario
A question to the whole post really. After the coalition invaid, liberate Iraq over the coming weeks. What will there position be if the smoking gun is not found. Of course Iraq will have some material to make WoMD. What would the outcome be if the substantial ammount of chemical/biological weapons that we are told IRAQ posses are never actually found. Thus lending some weight to the argument that they did destroy the majority of their stash.
Bear in mind America has reiterated over the last few days that any suspected sites with WoMD must not be targeted as that would be used as proof to the world.
Would America, Britain and Spain loose credibiltity on the world stage and what is the possible outcome of this scenario
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Rest assured some proof will be 'found' regardless.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
This is a good point, and we will see what happens, perosnally I believe they will "discover" something (that they actually know already), for me the presentation by Colin Powell on Iraqi violations to the UN was decidedly muted, I always felt there was a lot more than what was being shown, especially as what was shown was so unconvincing.
I totally agree that the position of the US and the UK will be decidedly dodgy if nothing is found, even now, at best, it will be untenable, it wouldd surprize me greatly if, win or lose, Blair holds on to his job at the end of this.
Then again, if Saddam did have nothing to hide, why did he go to such extreme measures to conceal it ? If he went to all this trouble, taking his country to the brink of war (and as it seems, beyond) for nothing, then surely this is a reason alone to get rid of him ? I'd certainly consider him mad enough to fight over what is essentially thin air. Why didn't he just sit tight, disarm, get rid of the international pressure and then build up his oil reserves ? Without doubt Iraq has the potential to be the economic powerhouse of the ME.
We don't actually have to look far for what is being hidden, Blix already noted that the "discovered" Al-Samoud II and Al-Fatah missile systems were in direct violation of the disarmament required by previous UN resolutions, it used imported rocket engines that bypassed the 1991 sanctions and there was clear evidence (to Blix) that Iraq had continued its missile development programme, it was also suspected that missiles had already been supplied to the army.
Remember, Saddam was supposed to be _disarming_ during this period, not building bigger missiles !
If in the opening shots of this war a few missiles are launched, missiles that Iraq is not supposed to have, that they claimed did not exist, then we will know immediately.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
Similarly if he uses chemical weapons then he can't claim it was in retaliation for being unjustly attacked over his non-existant chemical weapons.
S
Shocko
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
Same goes for the US announcing that they were going to attack anyway, whether or not they got the resoution. With your metaphor, this would be the Judge telling the Jury that he's going to punish the defendent, whether or not they find him guilty.
No-one is doubting that you're one of the most sensible and intelligent members of the forum Xane, but its scenarios like this, where you totally ignore one side of the issue, that you make your right-wing pro-American agenda clear
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
Originally posted by Shocko
Same goes for the US announcing that they were going to attack anyway, whether or not they got the resoution. With your metaphor, this would be the Judge telling the Jury that he's going to punish the defendent, whether or not they find him guilty.
No-one is doubting that you're one of the most sensible and intelligent members of the forum Xane, but its scenarios like this, where you totally ignore one side of the issue, that you make your right-wing pro-American agenda clear
I find this quite amusing coming from someone who has ignored the pro-war side of the issue for pretty much the entire thread.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
Originally posted by Shocko
No-one is doubting that you're one of the most sensible and intelligent members of the forum Xane, but its scenarios like this, where you totally ignore one side of the issue, that you make your right-wing pro-American agenda clear
The point I was defending was my claim that "France is being awkward", not that I support the American proposals and think the French absurd.
Tell me you think the French are right to do so and we'll argue that point, not sideline into some name calling with no factual basis whatsoever.
F
Furr
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
In a large way its France's fault! By implying that they would veto 'any' second resolution, what would have been the point of the US and Britain Continuing the UN route... All in all the French fucked up (again)
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
I say Bomb France as we go
M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
May i say, some clever diplomatic play here from France.
They say that they are willing to change their position and declare war on Irag IF these missiles are found.
Which means that Iraq is in a tight spot, if their used then France can say "oh. you were right. ok, off to war france goes as well" but if they arent then they can say "you war mongering bastards etc."
Places a bit of an obligation for Iraq not to use the missiles, should they exist.
Should be interesting to see if France are really willing to be 'humbled' and admit that they were wrong should any missiles be found
They say that they are willing to change their position and declare war on Irag IF these missiles are found.
Which means that Iraq is in a tight spot, if their used then France can say "oh. you were right. ok, off to war france goes as well" but if they arent then they can say "you war mongering bastards etc."
Places a bit of an obligation for Iraq not to use the missiles, should they exist.
Should be interesting to see if France are really willing to be 'humbled' and admit that they were wrong should any missiles be found
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
TBH I think you would find both the UK and America would tell them to FO, while looking smug of course
M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
then that would prove what arrogant cunts they are. and then we can turn our backs on them for moral reasons.
This sort of "told you so!" whilst another country admits its wrong isnt the sort of thing that is done in the diplomatic world
This sort of "told you so!" whilst another country admits its wrong isnt the sort of thing that is done in the diplomatic world
R
rynnor
Guest
- Thread starter
- #77
Heh - now you are assuming he has WOMD - playing devils advocate if you were Saddam and you didnt have any WOMD how would you demonstrate this to the satisfaction of the americans?
Its basically impossible to prove a negative assertion is true in this kind of situation - if he said "yes here they are" the US would say he has others lets invade and if he said no (as he did) the US says hes lieing lets invade!
The diplomacy was just a sham to make the warmongering more palatable.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #78
That may be true but the fact is that those involved in the start are unlikely to want the French just joining in during the end stages of the war.....and it is done in the diplomatic world, just not quite so publicly.
The French will no doubt do it to us any way, since they're one of the original founding members of the arrogant cunts club.
M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
thats why its called diplomacy mate.
you may not like your next door neighbour but you still be nice to him
you may not like your next door neighbour but you still be nice to him
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
You're being very naive.
No.
No.
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
The French, having failed to protect their interests by keeping the Saddam regime in place, are now hoping to get involved to share in the spoils...
Maybe?
Maybe?
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #82
The UN already determined Saddam has WMD or the means to produce them, also coupled with the means to deliver them (the long range missiles).
This is not assumed, it has been an approved view of the UN or over 12 years.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #83
K
kameleon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #84
They know because THEY sold him the means to manufacture them during the 1980's Iran-Iraq war.
I'm not jumping on the war bandwagon or doing a Claire Short, I just hope that not too many innocent people get killed.
M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #85
naive? Methinks not. This isnt some dispute over the neighbour not returning the lawn mower, this is between two nations, both with WOMD and other such weapons, that can have repurcussions throughout the world. Certain rules have to be obeyed or else it all goes down the pot.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #86
This is a rather vague statement, there were no sanctions in place at the time, anyone could have sold anything to Iraq, and did so, for example, IIRC the balistic missiles that hit Isreal in the last Gulf War were modified by Germany to get the range needed.
Iraq signed a non-proliferation treaty of NBCs, presumably as a precept to being supplied with biological and chemical samples, and nuclear manufacturing equipment, but they then ignored the treaty and developed weapons, and used them too, on Iran and on their own people.
Plenty of countries have been supplied, but normally bio-chemical samples are for use to develop defences against them, and nuclear equipment is for energy use only, Iraq obviously had other ideas.
Iraq threatened the use of WMDs during the Kuwait invasion, this is what led to the UN insisting Iraq conform to the treaties they signed (1991) and let inspections begin, and ultimately to the current situation.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #87
/Childmode
Me thinks you are and seem to be going off on tangents by talking about neighbours and then seemingly cutting yourself down by saying it isn't a dispute over a lawn mowers etc etc.
Rules are how you interpret them, not whether they are just right/wrong in anothers eyes.
Me thinks you are and seem to be going off on tangents by talking about neighbours and then seemingly cutting yourself down by saying it isn't a dispute over a lawn mowers etc etc.
Rules are how you interpret them, not whether they are just right/wrong in anothers eyes.
K
kameleon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #88
<analogy>
Rules involving access to the corridors at playtime are open to interpretation
Rules that determine access to the school chemical cupboard should be rigid and easily understandable
</analogy>
Rules involving access to the corridors at playtime are open to interpretation
Rules that determine access to the school chemical cupboard should be rigid and easily understandable
</analogy>
S
Shocko
Guest
- Thread starter
- #89
And you believe that this is the reason why Britain and the US didn't put Blair's resolution to the vote?
It's either that, or they didn't because they knew they wouldn't get a majority(9 votes for). Think about it. In 20yrs time, people wont remember this shite about how many people were against the war(they'll all change their minds the moment it starts anyway, fickle bastards). They would remember a UN council vote, in which the world said an overwhelming "no" to war on a Iraq, which was then subsequently ignored by the US 2 days later, when they invaded.
The French are just the excuse for not putting the resolution to the vote. Might i also remind you, that the French said they would support the 2nd resolution, if it didn't give the automatic right to go to war - IE, they wanted it so America would have to go back to the council to get authorisation before invading, if Saddam didn't comply with the 2nd resolution(deadlines, and all that).
Xane, i very much think that the French had the right line. They weren't against a resolution at any cost, they were just against giving the US the right to go to war, at this stage. Anyone who would rather go to war, than have a peaceful solution is a warmonger, that's the truth. The argument is, whether or not a peaceful solution was still possible. Blix's last resport was almost a total "Yes, he's starting to disarm" - So why are we going to war now, rather than giving Blix another couple of weeks, and seeing whether the Iraqis carry on as they're doing now?
M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #90
what this chap said. I was trying to say that a dispute over a lawnmower is trivial compared to the movements of world countrys. Easy enough to understand. There is always a form to diplomacy.