It’s been six weeks since President Bush went to the UN Security Council and asked for an Iraq resolution. France and Russia have not agreed to terms that meet what Bush wants. Is it time for the US to propose our preferred wording to the Security Council and force an up-or-down vote?
This article from the Ottawa Citizen says it’s time. It attributes venal motives to France and Russia:
If he demands an effective UN resolution and gets it, our alliance could move forward on Iraq. If the Security Council doesn’t pass his resolution, that’s even better in some respects. Our alliance could still move forward, but free of meddlesome UN restrictions.
Taking this action right before the election could do great things politically. It would put Iraq back on the front pages. It would show Bush standing up to effete Europeans. It would be wildly popular in America (though not in Europe.) I think this is a win-win for Bush.
If the US calls France and Russia’s bluff, and it turns out they’re not bluffing, and actually veto the resolution, and we go to war with Iraq anyway, then, in terms of international relations and perceptions of US unilateralism, we’re worse off than if we never sought a resolution in the first place.
That’s not going to help Bush politically, and it’s not going to be popular in America. Polls consistantly show general support for a war with Iraq, but only if it’s conducted by the United Nations. When people are asked about going to war without the UN, support drops dramatically. Plus, our entire casus belli for the war is Iraq’s flaunting of Security Council resolutions. A no vote on the proposed resolution would, in effect, be the UN saying, “We don’t think war is appropriate for this flaunting of our resoultions”, and, if we attack in spite of the resolution being voted down, we’ll be the ones ignoring the Security Council.
The Ottawa Citizen eh? The editorial of the Managatang Bugle said the same. And perish the thought that the BwB Administration might have less than ultruistic motives here.
You’re playing the pink oboe. GwB rhetoric has been hosed down with ice water at a phenomenal rate, for good reason. Hell, they are even starting to get concerned about the not Australians going with him in the wake of Bali. He ain’t going without the sanction of a UN resolution.
I must confess to having had occasional impure thoughts that GwB might be looking at Iraq as a re-election strategy rather than a component of a War on Terrorism. BTW, wasn’t the US’s lack of venal motives mentioned earlier in the OP?
The Ottawa Citizen eh? The editorial of the Managatang Bugle said the same. And perish the thought that the GwB Administration might have less than ultruistic motives here.
You’re playing the pink oboe. GwB’s rhetoric has been hosed down with ice water at a phenomenal rate, for good reason. Hell, they are even starting to get concerned about the Australians not going with him in the wake of Bali. He ain’t going without the sanction of a UN resolution.
I must confess to having had occasional impure thoughts that GwB might be looking at Iraq as a re-election strategy rather than a component of a War on Terrorism myself. BTW, wasn’t the US’s lack of venal motives mentioned earlier in the OP?
Actually, the veto is only a secondary issue. Before any veto would be used, the resolution would have to be voted by the Security Council, and it’s unclear whether it would be voted or not (apparently, most non-permanent membersof the security council would rather prefer that a common text would be found, rather than to have to vote for or against the US text (or whatever other text).
By the way, I personnally don’t findthe american text acceptable. Basically, it would mean that the US could begin a war just because they state that Irak didn’t comply to his obligations (caricatural example : “he made the inspectors wait for three whole minutes at the door before letting them enter the factory. That’s a blatant refusal to comply to the UN resolution…so, we can bomb Irak”. The french proposal basically state that the UN must decide whether or not Irak didn’t comply and whether or not this break would justify a military reaction.
Sorry, but I’ve zero confidence in Bush intends to objectively judge alone whether the resolution is respected or not and whether this justifies a war or not. It’s blatantly obvious that he wants a war, so one can assume he will seize any pretext to launch an attack if no other UN resolution is necessary before that.
woolly, have you read a blessed thing about the issue? The primary reason the Russians are withholding their approval of a resolution is because they recently signed a $40 billion commercial treaty with Iraq, and they are demanding guarantees that the treaty would be honored by whatever regime replaces Saddam.
If the Russians got those guarantees, they would approve the resolution tomorrow.
I don’t think it is an unkind assessment. I think it is refreshingly frank, proves that the French and Russians certainly aren’t stupid, and have a crystal-clear understanding of what Koko & Co. have in mind with this “regime” change. Bully for them.
Just for the fun of it, what is YOUR definition of “rogue nation”?
Yeah, Koko’s manly penis will beat the tar out of those faggy frogs, eh?
Let me get this straight, Stoid - removing a genocidal regime is impermissible when you can financially benefit from the removal, but it’s perfectly fine to support that genocidal regime when it’s in your financial best interests?
So, in terms of the OP, why do you consider that to be a bluff?
And as the Russians aren’t asking for $40 billion compensation or a bribe, rather just the discharge of an existing contract, why is it any skin off the US’s nose to grant it?
I think that this would be a perfect time for Bush to call their bluff. At the end of the day, France and Russia will sign whatever resolution we wave in front of them. The alternative is to let the US go ahead without their approval, which would erase the last remnants of credibility the UN has. France and Co. aren’t going to let that happen. And if they aren’t bluffing? No problem. It’ll just give us an opportunity to either reform the UN into something meaningful, or create something new from the ground up.
First of all, the US wouldn’t be so foolish as to attack Iraq for something as trivial as what you suggest. It may be painted that way by European intellectuals (“So what if Iraq just refused to let us into this building to inspect for weapons, in blatant violation of our agreement, after we received word from a good source that Saddam had a half dozen nukes ready to launch in there? The US is just looking for an excuse to attack. Damn cowboy Americans!”), but that doesn’t make it so.
Secondly, the whole point of this exercise is to give the US an open-ended trigger to allow us to attack, so that we don’t need to keep going to the UN and asking permission. What happens if we set very explicit conditions, and then Iraq does something that’s blatantly a cause for attack, but isn’t technically in the condition list? (“What? You said we couldn’t transport WMDs with our trucks. You never said anything about transporting them on camels!”) We then would need to go through Official UN Channels, which would take another few months. France, in particular, has shown that they will never approve war, under any circumstances, without us lighting a fire under their ass. If Saddam publicly announced tomorrow that he was going to nuke the US in six months, France would still be discussing how we could diffuse the situation with a good round of chats over a nice warm glass of cheese. That’s why we want this to be open-ended - we don’t want to have to go through this crap all over again.
Of course, Sua. Don’t you love the pristine, untarnished purity of motive among the members of the institution that’s supposed to be exercising moral authority here? We’re a bad, bad country if we don’t abide by the rulings of an organization motivated by their pocketbooks.
Jeff
Because it ain’t the U.S.'s $40 billion to give away. A new Iraqi regime should have the right to decide whether or not it will honor treaties signed by Saddam.
So no, it wouldn’t be any skin off the U.S.'s nose. But it sure would be skin off the Iraqi’s nose. And it’s not nice extorting money from poor countries.
Sua: *…it ain’t the U.S.'s $40 billion to give away. A new Iraqi regime should have the right to decide whether or not it will honor treaties signed by Saddam.
So no, it wouldn’t be any skin off the U.S.‘s nose. But it sure would be skin off the [Iraqis’] nose. And it’s not nice extorting money from poor countries. *
Trouble is, this kind of extortion from poor countries—also known as odious debt*—is everywhere, and in many cases is firmly supported by the US. (For example, in the case of many World Bank loans to corrupt Third World dictatorships, which the US expects the post-dictatorship governments of those countries to continue repaying.)
If we’re going to complain about Russia’s insisting that any future Iraqi regime must honor Saddam’s contracts, we’re going to have to come up with a consistent rule for determining when it is or is not “nice” to “extort money from poor countries”, and learn to abide by that rule ourselves.
Well, this was fun—back to grading papers, see y’all in another few months…
“If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State.” — original articulation of principle of “odious debt” by law professor Alexander Sack in 1927
For chrissakes, man. You think you could approach something as somber as global war without lobbing adolescent taunts of ‘sissy’ at an entire continent?
And didn’t you just spearhead a five page pissing match about Montana democrats who in your opinion showed a shameful lack of class and professional ethics by hinting that their opponent was gay?
Of course it is oil!
If You say that it is oil, when You speak about US, the whole thread will be filled with glees about “thin foil hats” and "idiotic concpiracy theories.
When You say the magic word “Russia”, every puzzle drops in it’s place.
Facts: Lukoil and the other guys are just criminals that stole as much as they could grab under Jeltsins rule. They can call a cow a cow. They can tell You very frankly what it is all about. They do not give a shit how people are voting in this country. It is oil!!!
China and Russia has deals with Iraq worth 1,1 trillion US dollars!!!. Yes, trillion! The word billion is just out of date.
The guys US wants to put there, the opposition outside Iraq, has said that the first thing they do when they come to power, is to flush these contracts down the drain.
So, where do You think they will sell the oil, to the guys who put them into power, or, let’s say - Mosambique???
OK begin with Your tin foil hat discussion. I plead guilty. It has never occured US that the oil has to be sold somewhere. It is just a evil concpiracy of Henry.
He is so evil that only his brains can come up with this theory!!
About the OP: December wrote:
Read the European version (the thin-foil-hat-version):
It has been six weeks ago since President Bush told UN to sign the paper his guys has composed.
France, Russia and some other 165 states have not agreed.
The sited paper writes about “the fruits of that invasion…”
Nice.
Dumbguy, the definition of effete is:[ol][li]Depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness; exhausted: the final, effete period of the baroque style. []Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence: an effete group of self-professed intellectuals. []Overrefined; effeminate.No longer productive; infertile. [/ol]I see that definition #3 is what you said. However I meant the word in its primary meanings, which are #1 and #2. [/li]
These two definitions describe how many Americans view France, IMHO. In fact, the two examples are spot on to this image. I would say many Americans consider France to be depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness, and marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence. This may not be a fair evaluation, but it’s a widely- held opinion in this country.
Do you speak for the Zeitgeist or do you speak for yourself?
Okay, Senator. Have it your way. In december-ese, Europe means France, and effete means having qualities commonly associated with the French.
If you really believe war is necessary, then have the decency to make that agrument on its merits and leave aside the notion that France doesn’t live up to our standards of macho. If it comes to war, tens of thousands of people are going to die, and you and I aren’t going to be among them. How about we show a little class, and at least pretend we’re taking this thing seriously.
I have done so in other threads. The point of this thread was to predict when Bush would ask for a Security Council resolution on Iraq, even without advance agreement from France and Germany. This London Times article suggests that my prediction was accurate.
From a purely numerical POV, war is mandatory. Saddam has already killed thousands of this own people. He allowed God knows how many Iraqi babies to starve by squandering his country’s resources on armaments. He started a war against Iran 20 years ago in which around a million people died. Imagine how many more would have died if he’d had nuclear weapons. :eek:
I don’t buy your estimate that a war will cause tens of thousands to die. I expect a very rapid surrender. However, even if your estimate is right, leaving Saddam in power is likely to lead to a much greater number of deaths.
War is not mandatory. There is no requirement for the U.S. to invade a sovereign country in order to plunder its resources. In fact, you might say that that sort of thing would be something to avoid. I mean, you know, death, destruction and all that?
According to Madeline Albright, a half million dead Iraqi children is “worth it.” However, it is not Saddam that has prevented necessities from getting into Iraq, but rather the U.S., which announced in 1991 that the sanctions would not be lifted unless a U.S. puppet was installed in Bagdhad.
Since the U.S. supported Iraq in that war, this cannot possibly be a reason for a U.S. invasion.
It brings up an interesting point, though. If what Bush says is actually true, then there is a simple solution to the problem: simply support an Iranian invasion of Iraq. This would get rid of Saddam with no loss of American or Israeli lives, and solve all of our problems. But, since this would not leave the U.S. in control of Iraqi oil fields, this is, of course, unthinkable.
What are you basing your expectation of a rapid surrender on? And, as for your predictions on the deaths caused by leaving Saddam in power, I would say that leaving Bush in power will cause many times more deaths than Saddam in charge of Iraq.
