main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Cheveyo, Feb 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    I'm not sure, StarFire, but I don't think a 'no' vote constitutes a veto in of itself. Ender will probably know the answer.

    I tend to think that Russia will abstain as well.

    Either way, the French are going to lose. If they veto it and we get a majority, then we get a moral victory. If we don't get a majority and they veto it, we go to war anyway under 1441.

    If the French indeed veto it, they can forget about any business deals or any say in the post-war Iraq.
     
  2. StarFire

    StarFire Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 31, 2001
    Right on. If the resolution fails to pass because of a veto, it'll be bad for them and for the UN. That's why France is pulling out all the plugs on diplomacy to try to swing other SC members around to their point ov view (kinda like we are... :p)
     
  3. SnorreSturluson

    SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Either way, the French are going to lose. If they veto it and we get a majority, then we get a moral victory.

    Really? Everyone knows that all those other security members will be bought by one side.
    That´s not what I call a moral victory.
    Russia vetoes, France vetoes, China vetoes - 3 of the big 5. That will be a big defeat

    If we don't get a majority and they veto it, we go to war anyway under 1441.

    Under 1441? That´s not possible.

     
  4. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    [blockquote]Under 1441? That´s not possible.[/blockquote]

    Oh yea? Wait and see.

    (remeber the 'serious consequences' if Iraq wasn't to comply with 1441?)

    You will see in the end how much the French will lose by acting so incredibly stupidly. They can forget about having any say in post-War Iraq, and they can forget about all those business deals they made with Saddam Hussein.

    Like I said before: Either way, the French are going to lose.
     
  5. SnorreSturluson

    SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 14, 2003
    (remeber the 'serious consequences' if Iraq wasn't to comply with 1441?)

    Yeah and that´s why there´s something like weapons inspections. At the moment the UN resolution 1441 is no legitimation for a war against Iraq.

    You will see in the end how much the French will lose by acting so incredibly stupidly. They can forget about having any say in post-War Iraq, and they can forget about all those business deals they made with Saddam Hussein.

    The USA is acting incredibly stupid. They´ll lose all their allies within months. And then they can handle things alone in Iraq.
     
  6. MRHA

    MRHA Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 23, 2000
    it'll be bad for them and for the UN.

    For possibly veto-states, it is their reponsabilities. I don't want France abstain only because US can tax our wine or cheese, Lol ^^ (this kind of thing is not far from corruption..)

    For the UN, the goal of UN is not to follow US stance more than an other... I think it's good if the UN can promote a diplomatic solution face to an military one, good for UN of course. (hey UN is made for that)

    Today Kofi Annan said that an US action without the support of the international communauty (UN) will be a totally illegal one. He said that in the TPI (Tribunal Penal International in french, dunno the translation) of La Haye.
    Sure USA doesn't recognize TPI, but... It's not a very comfortable position anyway.

     
  7. StarFire

    StarFire Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 31, 2001
    Ya can't break laws you never agreed to follow.
     
  8. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    [blockquote]They´ll lose all their allies within months. [/blockquote]

    If you call the backstabbing French our allies, then with friends like those who needs enemies.

    The fact is we have many allies (about 30 nations) in this endeavor. Including most of Europe outside of the Axis of Weasel "Old Europe".

    I think we will handle things quite well militarily with our UK allies, as I'm pretty confident French support in this area wouldn't mean much anyway. We won't be handling things alone in Iraq during the reconstruction period. But, you can be sure the French will be left out of any business deals that will be offered after the war ends and they will lose their current contracts. I don't suppose Chirac will be able to offer them another nuclear reactor like he did some time ago.
     
  9. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    Snorre: "Yeah and that´s why there´s something like weapons inspections. At the moment the UN resolution 1441 is no legitimation for a war against Iraq."


    With this sort of perception gap, I don't see how the German and US positions can possibly reach compromise.

    The unwillingness to treat 1441 with any sort of seriousness is endemic to the whole disagreement. More Inspections is hardly 'serious consequences'. What sort of joke is this?

    Discussion about whether war is needed or not is up for debate, but not when discussing 1441. At that point, what is up for debate is whether or not Iraq has fully complied. Otherwise, serious consequences are proscribed via unanamous Security Council vote (and underpinned by over a dozen other resolutions).

    As an individual, you might argue that there is no basis for war. As a nation-state that voted for 1441, to not support your commitments is irresponsible and juvenile, and endangers the UN more than bellicose rhetoric from the US.
     
  10. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
  11. Doit

    Doit Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    has anyone heard about Blix lying to the U.S.?
     
  12. Jedi_Xen

    Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Yes I heard about Blix deceiving the UN security council, and like before the Security Council does nothing, just insists that things are working. Ridiculous! How is anybody else going to take them serious when they wont back up their words with action. If they didnt want such a strongly worded resolution they shouldnt have voted for one.
     
  13. darthmalt16

    darthmalt16 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 25, 2000
    France is starting to find that it is the one taking unilateral action. Hans Blix left the fact that Iraq had pilotless drones and missiles capable of spreading chemical weapons out of his report to the U.N. kinda makes you wonder why he would leave such a clear violation out doesn't it. Also the IAEA the people saying Iraq doesn't have Nuclear weapons OR the capability to produce them are the SAME people that said N. Korea wasn't researching nuclear weapons much less actually producing some. Which we all no know wasn't true.

    The only reason we want allies is to help with the cost of rebuilding Iraq. Between the U.S. and Britain we have all the militaryt might that we need.

    How can France sit back and refuse to help Liberate a country from a cruel dictator who murders his own people. Especially after we did the same for them.

    Germany I can understand. I talked to a freind of mine from Germany. She said that they don't have much patriotism over there and are pretty much pacifists.


    Bottom line Saddam is going down. With or without U.N. support The U.S. and Britain have spent too much money and risked too much to pull back now. The U.N. inspectors have been proven to be ineffective. So now it's time to send in another inspection force.

    The U.S. army.
     
  14. MRHA

    MRHA Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Aug 23, 2000
    For that Blix's thing, I wait an official confirmation, I am quite suspicious with the media actually.

    If it's true, he must be blamed, no doubt about that. But it's not a main point.

    On my Radio-Information station I heard that Bush propose the cleaning/amnesty of Sadam'actions(blanchiement in french) if he accept the exile.
    I am suspicious with this information too, but if it's the case, Bush should be blamed too...
     
  15. darthmalt16

    darthmalt16 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 25, 2000
    The Pope is supposed to be floating a plan that gives saddam 72 hours to get out and amnesty for his top generals to allow the U.N. to come in and basically take over the country. I say we go for it Saddam will never leave and it makes us look better.
     
  16. SnorreSturluson

    SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 14, 2003
    The TImes-thing is a fake. Murdoch owns The Times and he wants that war.
     
  17. darthmalt16

    darthmalt16 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 25, 2000
    Yet another case of I told you so. Iran one of the countries we mentioned during the Axis of evil speech. It has just been confirmed by the IAEA that Iran is building a Uranium enrichment facility. Hmm didn't we say something about this a couple months ago?
     
  18. JediBeowulf

    JediBeowulf Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 6, 2001
    Well...straight from the horses mouth (literally), Jacques Chirac has just said:

    "No matter what happens, France will veto the resolution".

    Who's acting unilaterally now?

    No matter what you do Mr. Chirac, we'll find out what your involvement with Iraq is.
     
  19. Madriver

    Madriver Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2003
    The only reason we want allies is to help with the cost of rebuilding Iraq.

    For the first gulf war we had Kuwait pay back the price of the war in oil. I'm sure we will arrange something similar in Iraq.
     
  20. KaineDamo

    KaineDamo Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Beowulf. your talking as though Chirac has some sorta secret connection or deal with Saddam.
     
  21. SnorreSturluson

    SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 14, 2003
    For the first gulf war we had Kuwait pay back the price of the war in oil. I'm sure we will arrange something similar in Iraq.

    Do you want Iraq to pay for bombing them?
     
  22. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Chirac does have deals with Saddam, KD.
     
  23. Madriver

    Madriver Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Do you want Iraq to pay for bombing them?

    A little cynical, but yes. The cost of the war and the rebuilding process should be paid back when Iraq is capable. This might take several years for their infrastructure to be rebuilt and increased so they can produce a decent amount of oil.
     
  24. DarthKarde

    DarthKarde Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2002
    I'm not sure, StarFire, but I don't think a 'no' vote constitutes a veto in of itself. Ender will probably know the answer.

    Just to clear this up, a no vote by a permanent member is a veto.
     
  25. SnorreSturluson

    SnorreSturluson Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 14, 2003
    A little cynical, but yes.

    Okay let me repeat it.
    The USA attack Iraq, destroy the whole infrastructure, kill some 100.000 Iraqis and all that without UN permission.
    And they have to pay for that with their own oil they sell at a low price to the USA?
    That´s mafia business.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.