It's confirmed: France WILL veto no matter what!

[LH]

Clinton's negotiation with the North Korea resulted in tens of nukes that did not get built.

Is that why they have upwards to 100 nukes?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Michael
Frace promising to veto may make it easier for the US to get the 9 votes. That way the other countries can vote yes and not piss off the US and still not have the resolution pass.

If France does veto the resolution, then I will stop buying the 30-50 bottles of French wine I buy every year.

Michael

I hadn't thought of that, but if true it's a shame. Having to worry about pissing someone off when voting on whether a war is warranted.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: arynn
After the news of the ommissions by Blix in his presentation to the UN regarding the UAV and missiles that were found by the inspectors, I expect more countries will support the US stance as it is apparent that the inspectors are not being entirely forthright. Also, there is word of the deadline being negotiable thereby garnering more support from the undecided countries.

I'm not up to date with this - are you saying that these were dicovered before the last report? that they were significant findings and that that Hans Blix deliberately didn't mention them? I find that very hard to swallow (I've been wrong before though!).

I don't really have a problem with France being against the war; however, they can not honestly think that inspections will work. However, if a resolution is passed it would serve to alleviate some of the opposition to war as many have people stated that as long as the UN supports it they are not against it. If France were to veto the resolution, they would prevent this and destroy the UN.

Maybe they think inspections can work - with sustained military pressure (not inavertable war), or maybe they don't think inspections will work - but would like the UN to be more than a tool for the US - and so would veto out of protest at the way this whole fiasco has been handled. I'm not sure. There have been many other vetoes in the past (as thankfully someone above has pointed out). The only reason I can see that this time "the UN will be destroyed" is because the US would be on the end of the veto - and they don't like the thought of their power being undermined.

The UN should have acted on Saddam's violations a long time ago. However, they never seem to accomplish anything. The US and UK have finally told them that with or without the UN's approval, they will disarm Iraq (unless Saddam leaves the country or actually disarms). This leaves the fate of the UN in the hands of the security council and France vetoing could effectively kill the council and make themselves even less relevant than they are now.

IMHO thanks to some rather lovely diplomacy - the current US administration has unerringly set itself on a collision course with the UNSC. Maybe if the US had consulted the UN rather than ostrasizing some of its members and then basically asking for backing for a war it was already gearing up for - we wouldn't be in this mess right now? Impossible to tell I know - but its my gut feeling. Yes - this should have been dealt with long ago - but it wasn't, by anyone.

I never saw how this situation would be resolved without the "credible threat of force". My objection is the way that this has been handled - and the thoughtlessness of endangering the existance of the "last best hope" the world has to keep talking and not get into these situations in the first place.

Andy

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

So what should be done with Iraq?

Containment is working out just fine. Saddam's army is much weaker than in '91, as well as his WMD capabilities. He is little threat to the world and region.

I guess we can hope containment will work as well as it has for NK?

The North Korean's began breaking containment when Bush ignored them and included them in the axis of evil. Containment was working with Clinton, but now that the cowboy is in office, negotiations are so 1990's.

So NK built a nuke literally overnight?

Containment did not work with Clinton, as their nuke program started under the Clinton admin.

Perhaps because they are trying to make uranium bombs. Clinton's agreement stopped the NKs from making weapons grade plutonium. Clinton's staff then told Bush's transition team that they knew the NKs were enriching uranium. Bush did nothing for two years until the press got hold of Bush's coverup. Now we're in the crisis we're in now as a direct result of Bush's "do absolutly nothing but talk trash" policy regarding NK.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: LH

Clinton's negotiation with the North Korea resulted in tens of nukes that did not get built.

Is that why they have upwards to 100 nukes?

What are you talking about? Most estimates say NK has 1-2 crude uranium bombs.

 

[EXman]

France=Oil interests

and will lose them with a regime change.

France is Suck!

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: EXman
France=Oil interests

and will lose them with a regime change.

France is Suck!

OK, if you want to go there:
US = oil interests
and will gain a bunch with a regime change.
Believe both or believe neither.

 

[LH]

What are you talking about? Most estimates say NK has 1-2 crude uranium bombs.

No they have for sure have 3-5 nuclear missles. Some experts think they may have as many as 100 nuclear devices.

 

[arynn]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: arynn
After the news of the ommissions by Blix in his presentation to the UN regarding the UAV and missiles that were found by the inspectors, I expect more countries will support the US stance as it is apparent that the inspectors are not being entirely forthright. Also, there is word of the deadline being negotiable thereby garnering more support from the undecided countries.

I'm not up to date with this - are you saying that these were dicovered before the last report? that they were significant findings and that that Hans Blix deliberately didn't mention them? I find that very hard to swallow (I've been wrong before though!).

I don't really have a problem with France being against the war; however, they can not honestly think that inspections will work. However, if a resolution is passed it would serve to alleviate some of the opposition to war as many have people stated that as long as the UN supports it they are not against it. If France were to veto the resolution, they would prevent this and destroy the UN.

Maybe they think inspections can work - with sustained military pressure (not inavertable war), or maybe they don't think inspections will work - but would like the UN to be more than a tool for the US - and so would veto out of protest at the way this whole fiasco has been handled. I'm not sure. There have been many other vetoes in the past (as thankfully someone above has pointed out). The only reason I can see that this time "the UN will be destroyed" is because the US would be on the end of the veto - and they don't like the thought of their power being undermined.

The UN should have acted on Saddam's violations a long time ago. However, they never seem to accomplish anything. The US and UK have finally told them that with or without the UN's approval, they will disarm Iraq (unless Saddam leaves the country or actually disarms). This leaves the fate of the UN in the hands of the security council and France vetoing could effectively kill the council and make themselves even less relevant than they are now.

IMHO thanks to some rather lovely diplomacy - the current US administration has unerringly set itself on a collision course with the UNSC. Maybe if the US had consulted the UN rather than ostrasizing some of its members and then basically asking for backing for a war it was already gearing up for - we wouldn't be in this mess right now? Impossible to tell I know - but its my gut feeling. Yes - this should have been dealt with long ago - but it wasn't, by anyone.

I never saw how this situation would be resolved without the "credible threat of force". My objection is the way that this has been handled - and the thoughtlessness of endangering the existance of the "last best hope" the world has to keep talking and not get into these situations in the first place.

Andy

Apparently, in the report Blix gave to the US and UK prior to his UNSC presentation, there was no mention of the UAVs or missiles (or cluster bombs... not sure what they were called, but it seems they disperse chemical agents). In his presentation to the council, Blix didn't mention the discovered weapons. He said he was pleased with the recent progress but that Iraq was still not fully and actively complying. He distributed a report after the presentation with an addendum with the information regarding the UAVs and missiles. I think they actually discovered the weapons a while back (not sure of the timing, not that it is overly relevant as it was obviously before the last presentation).

So, if the inspectors can not be trusted it makes the entire process a farce. (Not that it hasn't been for quite some time now.)

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: EXman
France=Oil interests

and will lose them with a regime change.

France is Suck!

Surely you can apply such "conspiracy theories" equally well to the US being "all about oil".

Thers no way to really prove any of it - just suppositions and heresay. IMHO I see no reason why its about oil.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Apparently, in the report Blix gave to the US and UK prior to his UNSC presentation, there was no mention of the UAVs or missiles (or cluster bombs... not sure what they were called, but it seems they disperse chemical agents). In his presentation to the council, Blix didn't mention the discovered weapons. He said he was pleased with the recent progress but that Iraq was still not fully and actively complying. He distributed a report after the presentation with an addendum with the information regarding the UAVs and missiles. I think they actually discovered the weapons a while back (not sure of the timing, not that it is overly relevant as it was obviously before the last presentation).

So, if the inspectors can not be trusted it makes the entire process a farce. (Not that it hasn't been for quite some time now.)

I saw the whole presentation - you are right that drones, etc. were not mentioned. I'm just curious as to whether these were discovered after the report was presented. Surely if Blix was witholding evidence I'd be reading about it all over the BBC by now?

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

So what should be done with Iraq?

Containment is working out just fine. Saddam's army is much weaker than in '91, as well as his WMD capabilities. He is little threat to the world and region.

I guess we can hope containment will work as well as it has for NK?

The North Korean's began breaking containment when Bush ignored them and included them in the axis of evil. Containment was working with Clinton, but now that the cowboy is in office, negotiations are so 1990's.

So NK built a nuke literally overnight?

Containment did not work with Clinton, as their nuke program started under the Clinton admin.

Perhaps because they are trying to make uranium bombs. Clinton's agreement stopped the NKs from making weapons grade plutonium. Clinton's staff then told Bush's transition team that they knew the NKs were enriching uranium. Bush did nothing for two years until the press got hold of Bush's coverup. Now we're in the crisis we're in now as a direct result of Bush's "do absolutly nothing but talk trash" policy regarding NK.

If you define did nothing: as continue supporting the treaty already in place until NK announced it had broken the treat. ONly after they broke the treaty did we cut the NK feul supply off. Btw, we are still shipping them food.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: EXman
France=Oil interests

and will lose them with a regime change.

France is Suck!

Surely you can apply such "conspiracy theories" equally well to the US being "all about oil".

Thers no way to really prove any of it - just suppositions and heresay. IMHO I see no reason why its about oil.

Andy

No, there is hard evidence for French/Russian and Chinese economic dealins with Iraq.

Yes, the US did buy oil from Iraq via the oil for food program.

 

[arynn]

He handed out the written report with the addendum from what I heard in the news reports. So, it would be expected that he had read the reports (or was at least familiar with their content) prior to distribution.

I expect the information was known prior to the presentation as both the US and UK are pissed at Blix for hiding it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: arynn

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: arynn
After the news of the ommissions by Blix in his presentation to the UN regarding the UAV and missiles that were found by the inspectors, I expect more countries will support the US stance as it is apparent that the inspectors are not being entirely forthright. Also, there is word of the deadline being negotiable thereby garnering more support from the undecided countries.

I'm not up to date with this - are you saying that these were dicovered before the last report? that they were significant findings and that that Hans Blix deliberately didn't mention them? I find that very hard to swallow (I've been wrong before though!).

I don't really have a problem with France being against the war; however, they can not honestly think that inspections will work. However, if a resolution is passed it would serve to alleviate some of the opposition to war as many have people stated that as long as the UN supports it they are not against it. If France were to veto the resolution, they would prevent this and destroy the UN.

Maybe they think inspections can work - with sustained military pressure (not inavertable war), or maybe they don't think inspections will work - but would like the UN to be more than a tool for the US - and so would veto out of protest at the way this whole fiasco has been handled. I'm not sure. There have been many other vetoes in the past (as thankfully someone above has pointed out). The only reason I can see that this time "the UN will be destroyed" is because the US would be on the end of the veto - and they don't like the thought of their power being undermined.

The UN should have acted on Saddam's violations a long time ago. However, they never seem to accomplish anything. The US and UK have finally told them that with or without the UN's approval, they will disarm Iraq (unless Saddam leaves the country or actually disarms). This leaves the fate of the UN in the hands of the security council and France vetoing could effectively kill the council and make themselves even less relevant than they are now.

IMHO thanks to some rather lovely diplomacy - the current US administration has unerringly set itself on a collision course with the UNSC. Maybe if the US had consulted the UN rather than ostrasizing some of its members and then basically asking for backing for a war it was already gearing up for - we wouldn't be in this mess right now? Impossible to tell I know - but its my gut feeling. Yes - this should have been dealt with long ago - but it wasn't, by anyone.

I never saw how this situation would be resolved without the "credible threat of force". My objection is the way that this has been handled - and the thoughtlessness of endangering the existance of the "last best hope" the world has to keep talking and not get into these situations in the first place.

Andy

Apparently, in the report Blix gave to the US and UK prior to his UNSC presentation, there was no mention of the UAVs or missiles (or cluster bombs... not sure what they were called, but it seems they disperse chemical agents). In his presentation to the council, Blix didn't mention the discovered weapons. He said he was pleased with the recent progress but that Iraq was still not fully and actively complying. He distributed a report after the presentation with an addendum with the information regarding the UAVs and missiles. I think they actually discovered the weapons a while back (not sure of the timing, not that it is overly relevant as it was obviously before the last presentation).

So, if the inspectors can not be trusted it makes the entire process a farce. (Not that it hasn't been for quite some time now.)

Actually all of this stuff is in the appendix of the report. However, these items were not discussed at his breifing last week.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

If you define did nothing: as continue supporting the treaty already in place until NK announced it had broken the treat. ONly after they broke the treaty did we cut the NK feul supply off. Btw, we are still shipping them food.

When NK was developing weapons in the early 90's, the Clinton admin actively engaged the NK government in negotiations, and developed a framework in which NK would stop developing plutonium reactors. This worked.
The Bush admin steps in, and in response to reports that NK is making enriched uranium, does nothing. 2 years, no negotiations with the NKs. No demands by the US to stop nuclear weapon production. Bush insists that China, Russia, SK deal with the situation, while they in turn tell us to deal with is.

 

[arynn]

[Actually all of this stuff is in the appendix of the report.[/quote]


Yes, but he should have mentioned such critical information in the presentation. The way the information was disseminated (in an appendix) seems a little shifty.

 

[JYDog]

Originally posted by: Michael
Frace promising to veto may make it easier for the US to get the 9 votes. That way the other countries can vote yes and not piss off the US and still not have the resolution pass.

If France does veto the resolution, then I will stop buying the 30-50 bottles of French wine I buy every year.

Michael

You can also say, the other countries knows now a veto is ahead thus whats to bother voting YES?

 

[jahawkin]

Oh ya, Blix did mention the drones in his report.
Linky

Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq?s programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

If you define did nothing: as continue supporting the treaty already in place until NK announced it had broken the treat. ONly after they broke the treaty did we cut the NK feul supply off. Btw, we are still shipping them food.

When NK was developing weapons in the early 90's, the Clinton admin actively engaged the NK government in negotiations, and developed a framework in which NK would stop developing plutonium reactors. This worked.
The Bush admin steps in, and in response to reports that NK is making enriched uranium, does nothing. 2 years, no negotiations with the NKs. No demands by the US to stop nuclear weapon production. Bush insists that China, Russia, SK deal with the situation, while they in turn tell us to deal with is.

So you are completely convinced that NK did not develope nukes under Clintons watch because there was an agreement in place? Please dont tell me you are so naive.

 

[arynn]

Originally posted by: JYDog

Originally posted by: Michael
Frace promising to veto may make it easier for the US to get the 9 votes. That way the other countries can vote yes and not piss off the US and still not have the resolution pass.

If France does veto the resolution, then I will stop buying the 30-50 bottles of French wine I buy every year.

Michael

You can also say, the other countries knows now a veto is ahead thus whats to bother voting YES?

If they know that France is going to veto anyway, they may feel it is in there best interest to vote yes and give the illusion of support for the US. That way, they don't piss us off and the UN still doesn't support us. It's a win-win situation for them (unless they piss of their citizens).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Oh ya, Blix did mention the drones in his report.
Linky

Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq?s programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.

Yes and why were these drones not mentioned at his breifing. If this is not a smoking gun I dont know what is.

 

[Fencer128]

Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq?s programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.

Now I remember! I don't see this as a problem. They are doing the responsible thing and checking out the programme fully before making a (possibly unfounded) comment about it that could trigger a war.

Everyone was clammering to say how Iraq was procuring nuclear materials and the capacity to refine them - until the Atomic Inspectors shot that arguement to pieces. Lets just wait and see what the inspectors conclusions are first.

Andy

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

If you define did nothing: as continue supporting the treaty already in place until NK announced it had broken the treat. ONly after they broke the treaty did we cut the NK feul supply off. Btw, we are still shipping them food.

When NK was developing weapons in the early 90's, the Clinton admin actively engaged the NK government in negotiations, and developed a framework in which NK would stop developing plutonium reactors. This worked.
The Bush admin steps in, and in response to reports that NK is making enriched uranium, does nothing. 2 years, no negotiations with the NKs. No demands by the US to stop nuclear weapon production. Bush insists that China, Russia, SK deal with the situation, while they in turn tell us to deal with is.

So you are completely convinced that NK did not develope nukes under Clintons watch because there was an agreement in place? Please dont tell me you are so naive.

I never said that. There's a difference between plutonium and uranium nukes. Clinton stopped the NKs from developing plutonium nukes (which the NKs have resumed as a result of Bush's policies).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

If you define did nothing: as continue supporting the treaty already in place until NK announced it had broken the treat. ONly after they broke the treaty did we cut the NK feul supply off. Btw, we are still shipping them food.

When NK was developing weapons in the early 90's, the Clinton admin actively engaged the NK government in negotiations, and developed a framework in which NK would stop developing plutonium reactors. This worked.
The Bush admin steps in, and in response to reports that NK is making enriched uranium, does nothing. 2 years, no negotiations with the NKs. No demands by the US to stop nuclear weapon production. Bush insists that China, Russia, SK deal with the situation, while they in turn tell us to deal with is.

So you are completely convinced that NK did not develope nukes under Clintons watch because there was an agreement in place? Please dont tell me you are so naive.

I never said that. There's a difference between plutonium and uranium nukes. Clinton stopped the NKs from developing plutonium nukes (which the NKs have resumed as a result of Bush's policies).

No, the agreement was to stop all nuclear weapons programs. That was the deal, read the treaty. Or is that too much to ask.