France warns about blocking resolution on Iraq war

[Timber Loftis]

Well, France at least will legitimize anything that does happen. They have veto power, and the US most likely will not go ahead without the UN go-ahead. So, if the most stalwart opposition can be negotiated with, then no one will be able to claim US fiat on the whole shebang.

But, you'd think they'd learn a lesson. Best I remember, shortly after France denied the US permission to fly over its air space on the way to Libya, a French Embassy in Libya was accidently hit with a big fat US bomb. Karma, or just a little "oops - tee hee" to make a point? You decide.

[skywalker]

Dude..It's called the pot calling the kettle black. Besides it is refreshing to see another nation getting bashed besides the US.

I never jump on anyone bashing the US because America should be able to take it.

It was over 12 hours before I responded...and I did expect your response, though I did not post just for that reason.

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: We insist on the enforcement of actions prescribed by the UN's SC, ...in an effort to enforce a resolution they signed off on a dozen years ago to protect a sovereign member nation, but we get the reputation of being war-hungry oil mongers.

Oh the SC argument again... You can't say, "we only want to ensure that SC resolutions are adhered to" in the case of Iraq - but ignore Israel which has breached far more SC resolutions. The argument doesn't wash.
As for the reputation of 'oil hungry', it might be to do with the fact that the US quite recently stated that securing Iraqi oil sites was one of its primary aims.
Um, actually I can say it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

There are not now, nor have there been, SC authorizations of force against Israel, but right along your line of the argument, since you don't believe in following the sanctions and actions against Iraq as authorized, then you shouldn't be concerned about Israel or any other UN action.

And yes, the UN has authorized action against Iraq. The authorization from the Gulf War was only suspended if Iraq submitted to disarming and for the past dozen years they haven't. The inspectors have finally been re-admitted, but even they acknowledge Iraq isn't cooperating fully, and they have found unclaimed items.

As to the oil fields being targets, it certainly makes sense to secure the oil fields before they set them on fire, but since it's the French and Russians with the billion dollar contracts, I'm sure they won't mind that objective whether they vote yes, no, or abstain.

As for France, it has ALWAYS maintained that it would not only SUPPORT but also give MILITARY ASSISTANCE to any war with Iraq IF Iraq did *not* comply with the resolution or if Iraq hindered the work of the Weapons Inspectors.

But Iraq is co-operating with the inspectors and it has yet to breach the resolution. So France's position has remained unchanged - no war without a breach of the resolution. Oil has nothing to do with it.

France didn't do anything or offer to do anything until the US forced the issue. As a matter of fact, the entire UN has sat on it's hands for the last dozen years regarding Iraq, including the US under the previous administration.

As I mentioned earlier, even the inspectors admit Iraq is not fully cooperating and has not made a full disclosure.

So despite their billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq, the French and Russians are acting altruistically and the US is the one interested in the oil? You can say, and believe it, but I don't have to think it makes sense. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, for the last round of voting both Russia and France were reluctant to insist upon inspections in a forceful manner until they were guaranteed their billion dollar oil contracts would be honored by a post Saddam regime.

That isn't true. Russia and France agreed to the resolution because if they did not, the US and UK would have gone alone and that would have literally meant the END OF THE UNITED NATIONS. They gave in to political blackmail.
This time round, it seems that France will vote 'NO' anyway - perhaps on the grounds that the UN would be dead anyway.

Remember, if France votes NO and the US/UK go into Iraq - then they would probably LOSE the contract ANYWAY.

So if oil is their motivating factor, then they would signal that they would vote YES in order to retain their oil rights.

You don't think it's true. Your generous description of French and Russian reasoning is nothing more than opinion, while the fact that the French and Russians agreed to vote "yes" after their oil contracts were guaranteed is fact. Of course, I can't prove that's why they changed their minds either, but at least the facts are out there to back my opinion on this matter.

Reality, mere coincidence or a combination of the two?
[/QUOTE]

[ 01-24-2003, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: Dude..It's called the pot calling the kettle black. Besides it is refreshing to see another nation getting bashed besides the US. I never jump on anyone bashing the US because America should be able to take it. It was over 12 hours before I responded...and I did expect your response, though I did not post just for that reason. Mark

[img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Shouldn't every bashing be worthy of comment if any bashing is? After all isn't bashing....bashing?

[skywalker]

Any country that is a player is worthy of being bashed. People should not be offended by bashing because, hey, every nation is a target. It certainly is worthy of comment...crying foul over it is just silly.

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: Any country that is a player is worthy of being bashed. People should not be offended by bashing because, hey, every nation is a target. It certainly is worthy of comment...crying foul over it is just silly. Mark

Crying foul is, of course, silly but isn't France a player and therefore "worthy of being bashed"? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-23-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[skywalker]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Crying foul is, of course, silly but isn't France a player and therefore "worthy of being bashed"? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course it is. I just commented that it was novel that a country other than the USA was being bashed. Did I say there was anything wrong with bashing France?

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Crying foul is, of course, silly but isn't France a player and therefore "worthy of being bashed"? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course it is. I just commented that it was novel that a country other than the USA was being bashed. Did I say there was anything wrong with bashing France?

Mark[/QUOTE]No, I guess you didn't come right out and say it.

Your explanation of the one-liner though seems to be that "nation bashing" is ok all around, and that your "how novel" comment was intended as an "isn't it refreshing to see someone other than the US getting bashed", but then you say you expected Magik's response to your comment?

Why would you have expected that response from Magik based on what you meant? Why wouldn't you have expected a "yep, it is refreshing"? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-23-2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[skywalker]

Let's just say that my reputation preceeds me here. I did expect somebody (not necessarily anyone in particular) to respond to me in a similar fashion. That said this is way to far off topic, I'm very sorry Grojlach, seems I do this a lot lately (having to explain myself, that is!)

Mark

[johnny]

Rumsfeld isn't smoking marihuana, is he ? What does he mean by "Germany and France are "old Europe" ? does he rather seek cooperation from Malta or Albania ? I don't think that was a very smart comment from him. Is he seeking allies or creating new enemies ?