• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

France to veto another U.N. resolution *Poll Included*

Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- France will veto a United Nations resolution to lift sanctions on Libya if the vote is held this week, a French diplomat told CNN Thursday.

The British -- who have readied a draft U.N. resolution to lift sanctions on Libya -- have indicated they are hoping for a vote Friday.

The French are seeking more time from the British while the French government tries to negotiate additional compensation for families of people killed in a 1989 French airliner bombing....



63% of people responding to the CNN online poll say France should not veto this resolution. I am part of that 63%. My question is:

Do you think France should veto this resolution and hold out for more money; if so, how much money do you think is 'fair', given the immeasurable value of human life....
 

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
france negotiated their own deal with libya--it's there own problem if they didnt get as much money as they could have. it's just like someone who pays too much for a car, then talks to someone who negotiated for a better price. that person cant go to the car dealership and stop the sale of any more cars until he gets the price he wants. france should simply realize they screwed up and remember it for next time. they learned the hard way.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Is Libya really a threat anymore? They seem to me kinda like Cuba; they were a thorn in our side years ago but are not important now.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: dexvx
France has given only 5 solo vetos. Compared to over 80 for the USA.
I guess we are not in bed with everyone like France is then
 

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: dexvx
France has given only 5 solo vetos. Compared to over 80 for the USA.
you should read some of the resolutions that come up for discussion in the un. plus i dont see how the number of resolutions veto'd in the past should affet our views on current one's. that would be like keeping track of how many times you have said 'no' to your child--each resolution should be individually evaluated.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Galt: To me, the main reason France wants to veto this resolution is because of the pending Pan-Am 103 settlement with Libya. The French, apparently in their own minds, received too little from their own negotiations with the Libyans after one of their planes was blown out of the sky by a similar act.

If the PA 103 settlement is blocked because of blatant French greed, I'll really have a case of the ass for very personal reasons. We required one helluva long time to bring the Libyans this far along.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Galt: To me, the main reason France wants to veto this resolution is because of the pending Pan-Am 103 settlement with Libya. The French, apparently in their own minds, received too little from their own negotiations with the Libyans after one of their planes was blown out of the sky by a similar act.

If the PA 103 settlement is blocked because of blatant French greed, I'll really have a case of the ass for very personal reasons. We required one helluva long time to bring the Libyans this far along.
Just split the PA103 settlement money with the French.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Ending the UN sanctions won't affect the sanctions the U.S. has in place. UN Sanctions have already been suspended since 1999, so it's largely ceremonial at this point. However, it seems like France is trying to tie the Lockerbie case to the case involving the bombing of a French UTA Flight 772 over Niger almost 15 years ago. I can see why they would want to do what their doing, but it's unnecessarily complicating the situation.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Basically, the US shouldn't have promised the lifting of the UN sanctions in exchange for money, because it's not just up to them. Now they have to get France on board. If US can do it, so can France.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: burnedout
Galt: To me, the main reason France wants to veto this resolution is because of the pending Pan-Am 103 settlement with Libya. The French, apparently in their own minds, received too little from their own negotiations with the Libyans after one of their planes was blown out of the sky by a similar act.

If the PA 103 settlement is blocked because of blatant French greed, I'll really have a case of the ass for very personal reasons. We required one helluva long time to bring the Libyans this far along.
Just split the PA103 settlement money with the French.
Splitting the settlement is an easy fix, for sure. 'Something' is always better than 'nothing'. But the PA 103 victims, including the Scots, have further insult added to their injury. A compromise is then made with an outside third party who had nothing to do with the act in the first place.
 

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Basically, the US shouldn't have promised the lifting of the UN sanctions in exchange for money, because it's not just up to them. Now they have to get France on board. If US can do it, so can France.
it wasnt just the US that promised it; the entire UN was on board until france realized they could have gotten more money.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: burnedout
Galt: To me, the main reason France wants to veto this resolution is because of the pending Pan-Am 103 settlement with Libya. The French, apparently in their own minds, received too little from their own negotiations with the Libyans after one of their planes was blown out of the sky by a similar act.

If the PA 103 settlement is blocked because of blatant French greed, I'll really have a case of the ass for very personal reasons. We required one helluva long time to bring the Libyans this far along.
Just split the PA103 settlement money with the French.
Splitting the settlement is an easy fix, for sure. 'Something' is always better than 'nothing'. But the PA 103 victims, including the Scots, have further insult added to their injury. A compromise is then made with an outside third party who had nothing to do with the act in the first place.
Confucius say, 1.5 Billion in the pocket is better than 2.7 Billion in Swiss escrow account.
How is it adding insult to their injury that they share some money with other victims of Lybian terrorists, unless they are in it for the money, and not to punish Lybia.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: kaizersose
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Basically, the US shouldn't have promised the lifting of the UN sanctions in exchange for money, because it's not just up to them. Now they have to get France on board. If US can do it, so can France.
it wasnt just the US that promised it; the entire UN was on board until france realized they could have gotten more money.
So UN wasn't really on board. Gotta give out the dough to keep the UNSC machinery lubed.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: burnedout

Splitting the settlement is an easy fix, for sure. 'Something' is always better than 'nothing'. But the PA 103 victims, including the Scots, have further insult added to their injury. A compromise is then made with an outside third party who had nothing to do with the act in the first place.
Confucius say, 1.5 Billion in the pocket is better than 2.7 Billion in Swiss escrow account.
How is it adding insult to their injury that they share some money with other victims of Lybian terrorists, unless they are in it for the money, and not to punish Lybia.
Because of the inherent principle. A compromise would then be made with a third party not related to this particular act. Such compromise would only invite further appeasement.

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,966
11,774
136
I guess we are not in bed with everyone like France is then
Nitemare hit it on the head.

France fuct up, and they know it. Oh well! Not that I'm in hurry to see sanctions end for Libya. Sure they should end at some point - when gophers are bringing Gadhafi his mail.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: burnedout

Splitting the settlement is an easy fix, for sure. 'Something' is always better than 'nothing'. But the PA 103 victims, including the Scots, have further insult added to their injury. A compromise is then made with an outside third party who had nothing to do with the act in the first place.
Confucius say, 1.5 Billion in the pocket is better than 2.7 Billion in Swiss escrow account.
How is it adding insult to their injury that they share some money with other victims of Lybian terrorists, unless they are in it for the money, and not to punish Lybia.
Because of the inherent principle. A compromise would then be made with a third party not related to this particular act. Such compromise would only invite further appeasement.
Of who? Lybia would still pay that 2.7B.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: burnedout

Splitting the settlement is an easy fix, for sure. 'Something' is always better than 'nothing'. But the PA 103 victims, including the Scots, have further insult added to their injury. A compromise is then made with an outside third party who had nothing to do with the act in the first place.
Confucius say, 1.5 Billion in the pocket is better than 2.7 Billion in Swiss escrow account.
How is it adding insult to their injury that they share some money with other victims of Lybian terrorists, unless they are in it for the money, and not to punish Lybia.
Because of the inherent principle. A compromise would then be made with a third party not related to this particular act. Such compromise would only invite further appeasement.
Of who? Lybia would still pay that 2.7B.
Sure, Libya would still pay the $2.7 Billion. But not all to the party in which originally negotiated. By allowing France to whine and dine their way into this deal largely because of their own shortsighted and limited pursuit of justice, we would set a bad precedent for future negotiations with other rogue nations.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Damn, you can't even practice extortion any more without a bunch of imitators trying to get into the act.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY