The US, The UN and Iraq

george wrote

"I believe Secretary Rumsfeld's comments have been deliberate and pointed. They are acts of diplomacy, intended (at least by him) to focus attention on the on the self-serving obstructionism of France & Germany. Those of you who entertain each other wth expressions of your hope for his early demise may find yourselves both disappointed and proven wrong by unfoldng events".

Well of course they were "deliberate", as in being deliberately rude. "Diplomacy" ! not worth a comment
"self serving obstructionism" what the ? does that mean?

I don't hope for rumsfeld's early demise any more than he does me. Read what I said.

"United States sales of military hardware and related manufacturing equipment are utterly dwarfed by those of France and Germany. "
Rubbish. And even if they were, its their use not their sale that I object to.

timber said

"It would appear The Apostates would like to begin to work on talks about a new plan, not that they have formed and are presenting a new plan. "

Calling Germans and French apostates is no better than calling Americans the Great Satan. Get a grip. Do we all have to follow the one true (american military) faith?

There is a detailed plan worked out and it will be presented to the UN soon. That it could lead to a peaceful solution you might find distressing, but some of us are going to try anyway.

"delay in British acceptance of the Euro, which will be a blow to EU economic schemes" Utterly irrelevant to this debate.

"What The Apostates have done is to cripple The UN and Nato, and may well prove the deathblow to the two institutions. "

The US to its shame, despite being a founder member of the UN has done more to undermine its credibility than any other nation. In this instance it is the US insistance on attacking another member of the UN if necessary without UN approval that brings that body's authority into disrepute, not the other way round. Nato can go to hell as far as I am concerned. It has no relevance in the 21st century.

Its not America getting along without old Europe, its whether America can get along on its own against the wishes of the rest of the world. You might do so to start with but in the long run it will be disastrous for all.

Trespassers wrote

"Speaking of those who are against the war, has anyone considered the point that this issue is mostly about oil for those who oppose war--France, Russia, China? Isn't oil their primary concern here? "

You cant have it both ways. The argument goes as I understand it from the pro war camp that oil is not the major factor. So don't bring it into play to attack the anti war faction.

ci - I get the feeling that you are reacting to what I wrote without considering what I wrote. If war occurs in Iraq, the object of that war would be to achieve a more palatable peace than the one we have now. Whether that peace is preferable is a good question for debate. You however seem to take the untenable (in my view) position that military action can never be considered. You also continue to ignore the stats I shared regarding the fact that far more people die at the hands of despots like Hussein than do in wars, yet you maintain your objection to war based on the seemingly flawed premise that avoiding war will save civilian lives.

Those who are not absolutely and unthinkingly opposed to war are not clamoring for it, we are merely not blind to the reality that war is sometimes necessitated by the actions of others. I am as yet unsure whether this is one of those cases, but I realize--as you and others seem not to do--that I may never have the information to make that call, while my leaders may well possess it now. You also consistently write of the US' reasons for wanting war while ignoring the very real, very selfish reasons countries like France have for opposing it.

And let's stick with a legitimate stating of facts and try to avoid the hyperbole. Many "citizens of the world" are against war in Iraq. Many others are willing to accept a war if they believe it is warranted. 75% of citizens in England say they would support war if backed by UN resolution. While that number drops to 20% if the US and UK go it alone, these people are clearly not "crying for peace" in the way you claim (which I take to mean "opposed to war"). Rather it would seem they simply trust that if the UN backs the action it is more likely warranted than if they do not.

Nobody "wants" war anymore than a cancer patient "wants" surgury. Like an invasive, dangerous surgical procedure, sometimes war is the best chance we have of achieving the best possible peace for the most people. (I do not know whether or not this is one of those times.)

We are all "crying for peace". I ask again: "Which peace is best for the most people?"

Can't have it both ways?????

You might as well claim that I can't say that Hitler was trying to take over all of Europe in WWII if I argue that the United States was not trying to do so.

There does not seem to be any question that this issue is about oil where France and Russia (and some others) are involved. These countries have extremely lucrative standing contracts with the Iraqis that would be jeopardized by a change of regime, and it is clear that this economic (read: "OIL") interest is of greater import to them than any other issue; including UN sanctions, Saddam's illegal weapons programs, or human rights in Iraq. (Hell, France is now willing to jeopardize the entire NATO framework rather than risk losing Iraqi oil and money.)

You can certainly question whether oil is a primary concern for the US in this equation, but where France and Russia are concerned, it is a certainty.

If the US simply wanted increased access to Iraqi oil, they would have asked the UN to drop sanctions--with which France and Russia would happily have gone along--and then purchased the increased flow of Iraqi oil on the open market like anyone else. The only way can see to logically argue that the US' primary interest here is the oil, is if you think that the Bush administration sat down and tried to come up with the most complicated, most expensive, and least popular method they could consider to achieve that end.

tres, Forget twelve years ago. We are talking about today's issues. If Saddam as much as tiptoes into another country, the world community will be ready to pounce on him. He is contained, and he is "not" a threat to anybody. If he kills again, that's another scenario that the world community can react to with justification. But until then, a preemptive strike is uncalled for. c.i.

ci - With all due respect, I find your unwillingness to directly respond to the statements I have made to be frustrating, disappointing, and a bar to any useful discussion. I see no reason to run through my points yet again, since you have educated me as to your unwillingness to consider or address a single point I have made.

I understand that you are absolutely and unwaveringly opposed to war with Iraq. Fine.

I could challenge your assertion that Saddam is currently "contained", but I have no reason to believe you would respond to a single point I made in so doing, and I'm not one to knowingly waste my own time.

Please understand that I do not write any of this with hostility. I believe you are a person of good conscience who feels strongly about this issue. I merely question whether you may feel so strongly about it that you are unwilling to consider the merits of any other point of view.

Regards,
TW

I'm just practicing the white rectangle stuff, but I'm with you here, c.i.

"The bandwagon of peace is rolling from Paris"

Allez la France! Vive Chirac!

Now what ya gonna do?

Bomb Paris
Bomb Berlin
Bomb Moscow

Well actually I'm rather concerned you might.

Somehow, that brings to mind a picture of Lord Raglan and General Canrobert looking on during the battle of Inkerman, and Raglan turns to Canrobert:

"Nous sommes, nous sommes . . . il y a un mot d'argot qui exprime ce que je vuex dire, mon Général . . . "

"Ah, nous sommes foutus . . . mais, j'espère que non, milord."

Just replace Raglan with the Shrub, and Canrobert with Chirac . . .

"Look, if Hussein were to make a threat or flaunt his weapons -- like, say, North Korea -- let's drop the first bomb on his head. But we're on the verge of starting World War III without having gotten close to last resorts, and without having discussed whether such a war puts us in greater danger, rather than less. I don't care how many canisters Powell can point to in a photograph. What I still want to know is why now, why Iraq, how will we pay for it, why are we in such a hurry, and what will it cost each and every one of us?"
--Steve Lopez, Our Rush to War in Iraq May Backfire, latimes.com

Text of the Russian-French-German Declaration:

DECLARATION COMMUNE RUSSIE - ALLEMAGNE - FRANCE

"Russia, Germany and France, in close coordination, reaffirm that disarming Iraq, in accordance with the relevant resolutions since U.N. Resolution 687, is the common objective of the international community and must be achieved as soon as
possible.

"There is a debate on how this should be done. This debate must continue in the spirit of friendship and respect that characterises our relations with the United States and other
countries. Any solution must be inspired by the principles of the United Nations charter as were recently quoted by the secretary-general Kofi Annan.

"U.N. Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, provides a framework of which the potential has not yet been fully exploited.

"The inspections led by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have already produced results. Russia, Germany and France favour the continuation of the inspections and a substantial reinforcement of their human and technical capacities through all possible means and in liaison with the inspectors, in the framework of the U.N. resolution 1441.

"There is still an alternative to war. The use of force can only be considered as a last resort. Russia, Germany and France are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to
disarm Iraq peacefully.

"For the inspections to be completed, it is up to Iraq to actively cooperate with the IAEA and the UNMOVIC. Iraq must fully accept its responsibilities.

"Russia, Germany and France note that the position they are expressing is similar to that of a large number of countries within the Security Council."

voila!

Set, pdiddie. walter

all absolument vrai

except that je ne connesaiz pas que vou parlez Setanta, translation s'il vous plait.

Lord Raglan (commanding the British Army in the Crimean) sat on a ridge overlooking the Inkerman ridge, where the Russians seemed about to overwhelm his army, and he turned to Canrobert, the French commander, who was rushing troops over to shore up the British line.

Translation:

"We are, we are . . . there's a slang term which expresses what i'm trying to say, my General."

"Ah, we are f*cked . . . but i hope not, my lord."

Thanks Set, you have a way with words.

Eh maitenant, mon brave, qui est f*ucked?

sorry about this, can't even spell f*cked properly, let alone les mot francais.

Aren't we fortunate here in a2k that we are allowed to post words that has asterisks and underscores and whatever to communicate vernacular! Sometimes, only the vernacular 'crudities' will work, right?

I always read this thread every log-in to a2k: while on the road again for a month, I will be a rather infrequent poster, but please know all that I really value this dialog!

Keep the faith cobalt!

Hi Cobalt! Keep in touch...

There are many of us who have seen war up close that just want to holler out loud...VIVE LA FRANCE! Thank you Europe for making Dr. Strangelove (Rumsfeld) uncomfortable. Belgium, France, Germany, Russia...thank you. Oh, my, I feel so much better these last few days. My country has been taken over and held hostage, in my opinion. Saddam Hussein is not a direct threat to our national security no matter how many times this administration reiterates this. Even if war comes, and it probably will, (as I write this I am listening to the Lehrer Report that Iran is building up their nuclear arsenal), we will not be one fraction of a nth safer because of it. We will be one gigantic bullseye.

Well, I guess that will put an end to any pretence of rational thinking.