No, France saw no reason for an armed conflict, and in its power as a member of the UN security council with a veto, was going to use that veto to prevent any armed conflict.
Only Britain and US wanted a new resolution, and the only reason why they wanted one, is because they needed approvcal for their war.
The reason why Germany, Russia, China and France were opposed to a new resolution, was precisely because they new a new resolution would try and justify a war, a war they saw as uijustifiable
Nobody, I repeat, nobody forced the US to initiate military action, they did that all by themselves (oh, and with British, Polish, and Australian troops).
ElJeffe, the question I posed to you is exactly equivalent to the one you asked in your immediately-previous post. If it seems absurd to you, there’s a good reason.
clairobscur, my thanks also for your heroic efforts in the Fight Against Ignorance. Sometimes one despairs of succeeding in the real world when we can’t even keep ignorance out of our own frickin’ message board.
Anyone else still wearing their membership pins in the We Hate France Club, please explain why you don’t also equally hate Russia, China, and Mexico.
Actually, it would have made a great deal of difference to me - and it has now, as I revise my opnion of what France’s position actually was.
I had grave misgivings about the justice of the war. But France took (or seemed to have taken, based on the reports I read) a wholly unreasonable position in which they excluded any possibility of supporting armed conflict.
If - if - their position was actually open to an armed solution under certain reasonable circumstances, then I can hardly fault them; this was my own position as well.
I’d just like to say how much I respect Bricker’s willingness to revise his views on the basis of new information. That is the very antithesis of “mass psychosis” and, much though I don’t think that exaggerated label is warranted inside or outside of the Bush administration, there has been a shortage of openmindedness.
I’m no expert on where and when and how the Chirac position became so obscure, but I do know that Blair made a point of specifically blaming Chirac, and Chirac made a point of criticizing Blair for doing that. That’s not to say that either American officials or American journalists are off the hook: we still have to answer for our freedom fries ;). But it is to say that in the immediate prelude to the war it was Blair who most avidly sought a successful second resolution. Bush had already decided he could do without that formality and, indeed, he probably sought it only on Blair’s behalf.
Uh, does anyone have a cite for Powell saying France would “pay the consequences”? This seems highly unusual, and not something he would say; he hasn’t been one to initiate confrontation of this sort in the past.
very well then, we’re back to this issue. I would agree that the reluctant Foursome saw no reason for armed conflict and the US saw otherwise. However, all agreed that Saddam was uncooperative and was not in full compliance with resolution 1441. France and its buddies wanted indefinite time for inspections while the US and Britain maintain that prolonging a shell game gets the world nowhere. A new resolution was tabled to justify a war, a war even France says was inevitable but not imminent.
What France did was derail that second resolution. Whether there were 9 or 20 countries with the US, it wouldve voted no. (and Russia echoed behind France) The count was not taken and speculation as whether or not it had the 9 votes is moot because France made it so. It killed the process before the count was made. How well would the position of France have been if it kept quiet about its intentions, have the vote taken and have the US found wanting. But NO, it had to say that whether or not there was a majority (under all circumstances) France will Vote NO!
I submit that US was forced into initiate military action, but not buy any action that France, Russia, Germany or China. The US had to take drastic steps in Iraq because Saddam demanded it. France capitulated against an obviously superior force to save its people. Why didnt Saddam do the same?
Before France said anything, Bush said he was going to topple Saddam with or without the support of the UN. The US had already built up an invasion force that could not remain for any extended length of time. France simply refused to rubber stamp the US position. Claiming France operated in bad faith fails to account for the position of the US.
No one forced the US to initiate military action. And how can you suggest that France’s public statement in any way prevented the US from putting the second resolution to a vote? “Regardless the whip count…”
Very true!!
It became so frustrating that, after having tried to shout back a bit, I have just given up. There’s just too many idiots and the amount of spin doctering too staggering.
I also whole heartily agree with RedFury
After a while of searching on Google, I wasn’t able to find a definitive list of UNSC resolutions against Israel, so I’d like a link if you have it handy. I found a list of the UNGA resolutions against Israel, but those are mostly a bunch of garbage.
Emphasis on the word ‘originally’. I never said that the inspections did not produce some results. Saying they failed is quite different, because ultimately, they did fail. Iraq refused to be in compliance and did not disarm itself of all prohibited weapons.
And then there’s the problem of the stockpiles of chemical and biological agents we KNOW they had but are not accounted for. What happened to them?
Saddam had Roland-2 missiles and launchers, as well as at least one new Roland 3 launcher. These missiles are made by a partnership between French-German manufacturers. We found new Russian night vision instruments and GPS disruptors. Russia was actively helping Iraq by spying for them, among other things. How do explain those away?
Prove the US subverted the process. Prove it is the US’s fault that Iraq didn’t get rid of banned weapons. Prove it is the US’s fault that Iraq was still able to buy new French, German, and Russian military equipment and luxury goods.
The diplomatic process was underway for the past 13 YEARS. That is a STUPIDLY LONG amount of time for a diplomatic process that was in the process of “working”.
And prove the US intentionally subverted the process. Just because “the basics” were debated on the board does not mean your side has ever proven itself. The anti-liberation folks are just as guilty of ignoring the facts and spouting propaganda themselves, so get off your high horse.
[/quote]
Why’d you break down this particular paragraph? These were all questions directed at RTFirefly in response to him saying:
My series of questions are intended to get RTFirefly to tell me how HE would prefer the US to act. The war with Iraq demonstrated prudent use of the armed forces, yet he is opposed to it. He goes on to say that there are numerous other brutal dictators we’re not threatening, and uses that to claim a US double standard. What does he want, the US to attack them all? Or would he have preferred that Saddam still be in power, still torturing and oppressing his people for the next half year or more?
So do I have to post every single reason for going to war against Iraq every single time I mention one of them, just so I don’t get stupid responses like this?
Yes, Bush realized that isolationism won’t do anything to eliminate threats against us and our interests, so he changed his position. He’s actively working to be involved in world affairs, so what’s the problem?
RTF’s comments in THIS thread may not indicate it, but his consistant Bush-bashing posting behavior on the boards indicate that he is against everything Bush, and he is not the only one. I only singled him out because it is he specifically that I am addressing.
In the case of Iraq, yes it did.
So, if we fail to convince countries that have severe conflicts of interest in this case, it’s failure of diplomatic efforts on the part of the US?
And the ignorant, misinformed, or dishonest then pretend that France would have passed a resolution allowing war when they were completely satisfied with the way things were going and had economical interests in keeping Saddam in power.
Right.
France said it wanted to give inspections another 120 days after an overhauled inspections process was adopted by the UNSC. How long would it take the UNSC to develop and agree to such a measure (assuming no vetoes)? And then, considering France was utterly opposed to any resolution containing an automatic trigger for war, they would then have to go back to the UN for an authorization for war. How long would that have taken?
How is this reasonable action? How could they even MAKE a more stringent inspections process? We ALREADY demanded complete, unfettered, unconditional access in Iraq. Saddam’s regime did not cooperate. Again. So, what could have been done, hmm?
Saddam was still getting military equipment/weapons and luxury items, so yes, I consider that part of the UN’s actions in regards to Iraq a failure. And thousands of civilian deaths due to the sanctions are “less inspiring”, while preventing Saddam from buying weapons openly is positive and encouraging?
What the hell?
The US shouldn’t merely be able to dictate as it wishes. That’s ridiculous, and I only know a couple extremely right wing people who felt that way. We also shouldn’t withdraw from the UN, nor should we leave it as it is. That’s what I think. I cannot give you specific suggestions on how this system can be fixed, but I do feel that something must be done to alter the Veto power, while still having something in place that is a similar function. A more stringent and worked out system of checks and balances, perhaps.
What the hell? Your poor illustrations are the absurdities. They are completely ridiculous. I’d LOVE for you to tell me why you think ANY of these statements are similar to the US not following the UN resolution process in pursuit of inspections and sanctions that were not working.
Are you purposely reading this into what I wrote? Because if not, something’s wrong, because this is NOTHING at all like what I’ve been posting. I’d love for you to point me to where I ever wrote off the UN as a “failure”, and how citing the various resolutions against Iraq and the failure of the UN to enforce them creates a double standard.
Hmm. It appears that’s quite enough for now. Not quite as polished as my first one, but written in 1/3rd the time.
I’m sorry if you think that my position is the result of lack of interest and poor insight of foreign affairs. Personally, I chalked our difference of opinion up to… well, difference of opinion. If you’d rather consider me just plain ignorant, more power to you. It’s my opinion that France was engaged in playing word games in order to indefinitely shrug off the need to act - essentially saying “just a little bit longer” whenever the threat of war drew nigh. AZC:
So France says that they will authorize war as soon as the isnpectors say they can’t continue. But the inspectors are headed by Hans Blix, a man cherry-picked by France. So what if France picked Blix under the knowledge that he would never concede that the inspection weren’t working? Given that Blix concealed info, and exaggerated the success they were having, this seems likely.
If I say, “I’ll do X when hell freezes over”, then technically I’m offering sufficient conditions under which I’ll do X, right? Elvis:
The question was valid, it just wasn’t an answer to my question. I’ll answer yours if you answer mine.
Jeff
Well I am sure you acknowledge the distinction between saying something about the average americans interest in and knowledge of foreign affairs, and saying something about you as an individual american.
To bad for you, since it is a severely thwarted description of the actual situation. Sadly enough originating from your government and upheld by your news media.
On the Chirac veto thing, the way I see it now is that Bush / Blair adopted a non-negotiable position, then Chirac – with the support of 3 of the 5 permanent members and 11 of the 15 on the Security Council (to varying extents) – did the same; they simply did not accept that the timescale / momentum issue was as important as Bush / Blair wanted it to be.
So both sides were playing hardball and non-negotiating – the division at that point epitomised, for me, Saddam’s diplomatic efforts of the past decade. It’s exactly what he’d played for so often and got, and he’d got it again.
I’d certainly agree with this. As best we know, right up until the end everyone – including up to Blair – thought the French would continue to deal. I think Blair did flip a little at that point – all those months of increasing pressure with Chirac becoming the unexpected icing on the cake. That was the Big Wobble for Blair, the only moment, IMHO, he seriously questioned whether he could pull the whole thing off.
Indeed, Blair’s whole strategy was based on the French (at least) abstaining on a second Resolution – again everyone (including Blair) believed he had to have that second Resolution in order to get two groups behind him (Parliament and the public) – he’s subsequently stated that he would have resigned had Parliament not supported him (if you remember that huge one-day debate ?).
That Blair didn’t, in the end, need a second Resolution is something many are still wondering at – and it’s not like the US (here) where an external hate figure has been created in order to distract from the reality. It’s odd, given what has gone before, that a majority of the UK public just accepted going into Iraq without UN sanction so … easily.
To be honest, I am reassessing why that was and what it means for the future – as, I believe, are very many political observers. One assumes it was much to do with Blair himself and his demonstrable earnestness / morality, so it’s likely a one-off.
Whatever else, it was a fascinating insight into old-fashioned ‘leadership’ and how individuals can swing around a doubting public.
Fwoiw, this has been a good thread to read and I’m particularly grateful for the contributions of RedFury, clairobscur and Mr Excellent – the latter contributing this link:
Final observation; it is good that Bush has contributed to the politicisation of a generation but I also have to thank Monster104 for reminding me that youth, as always, is on a learning curve. Btw, Monster, he’s the link you wanted about UNSC Resolutions apropos Israel:
Very amusing, Monster, very amusing. The diplomatic process was under way, as you seem to agree, though according to your enlightened opinion it was “stupidly long”. It’s been under way for over a decade, yes, but (if you consider the weapons inspections) interrupted for years. It’s only in recent times that the effort was stepped up, introducing the use of credible threat to force Saddam to comply while sending in the new and improved UNMOVIC.
Weapons inspections are of course one of the tools of the diplomatic process and part of the sanctions system, and only resumed November 2002 before being cut short three months and a bit later. Prior to that, weapons inspections in Iraq were carried out from 1991 to 1998 with good results by a more primitive and less objective body. I invite you to notice the time frame – a number of years versus three months. Perhaps a few more months or at the very least weeks were needed to complete the job that was started (as per the commission’s recommendation and the wishes of the majority of the SC).
Sure, it’s not like it hasn’t been done before. Let’s start with the twin policies of alarmism and providing false evidence to convince the Security Council to rubber stamp an invasion, thereby subverting both the diplomatic and scientific processes. As an example of false evidence, see the Niger yellowcake uranium affair, in which intelligence brought forward by the US and UK alleged that Saddam had tried to purchase said uranium. The IAEA, one of the branches of the UN you seem to think has “failed”, saw right through the forgery.
As for intentionally subverting the process:
Note that since last year both the US and the UK have been issuing authoritative statements about WMD in Saddam’s possession. Indeed, Tony Blair is on record as saying, last year, “No one can possibly deny that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction”, with Bush saying much the same thing.
I would be willing to accept that statement if only it had been supported by adequate evidence. Instead the evidence that is presented turns out to be either excessively alarmist (e.g. the whole affair with the aluminum tubes, or the dire threat Iraq posed) or involves forgeries or false allegations.
I have a hard time believing that two of the most advanced nations on the planet failed to identify false evidence in the reports they submitted over such a crucial topic. I guess it’s possible it was a series of mistakes, but that’s not really in line with their capabilities. It seems more likely that the US and UK wanted to drive a particular result, and thought that subverting the diplomatic process and the inspections, as well as providing false damning evidence, would achieve their goal of going to war.
The funny thing is you should be aware of the above information, since I know you have read another thread that cited much the same thing.
Now, in case the above is insufficient for you, here is an analysis of the forgery problem:
In other words a dishonest approach, one calculated to lead to war and not to investigate and resolve a problem in an internationally accepted forum. Subverting the diplomatic process.
You are in need of some catch-up reading if that is what you seriously think. I rather suspect it’s what you want to think though.
That is also suggested by the use of the phrase “anti-liberation”, which has to be one of the most idiotic monikers ever assigned. Otherwise I guess you belong to the group of “hateful and blind war-mongers”?
Because I felt it distorted the discussion.
Allow me to define prudent according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
Prudent adj. 1 (of a person or conduct) careful to avoid undesired consequences; circumspect. 2 discreet
I don’t see how anything that the Bush administration has done regarding Iraq in the last months had anything to do with the word “prudent”. I also don’t see how an attack against Iraq in the political climate such as it was (and is) could have ever been called “prudent”.
Before you post another non-factual comeback, please skim through Collounsbury’s famous thread:
I realize it’s long, but I provide this link because it contains numerous valuable analyses and cites as to why the attack on Iraq was hardly a “prudent” matter, with special considerations to the cultures and problems in the region. Prudent my foot, this was a risky, reckless action that will bite Americans in the ass at a later date when they become the targets of more terrorism arising from radicalized exponents, to name just one of the problems.
Well, you can start by posting a valid one. Just one will do.
9/11 link has been attempted and proved invalid. Al-Qaeda link has been attempted and proved invalid. WMD assertions invalid thus far, though we had been assured since last year the evidence was incontrovertible. UNSCR 1441 was discussed in a thread linked above. Now the focus for justifying this war has been made on human rights grounds, which is simply laughable. Is there anyone here who can actually support the assertion that this war happened because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant oppressing his people? Of course not – it’s not the way the world works (unfortunately, you could say).
So you’re engaging in a bit of the old ad hominem, targeting RTF and discrediting him with labels instead of tackling his arguments (and I say this because I don’t notice RTF posting items of egregious idiocy or falsehood). As you noted, RTF’s comments in this thread do not indicate Bush-bashing. Besides, there are plenty of reasons to strongly criticize Bush without necessarily being engaged in Bush-bashing. Perhaps you are overly sensitive on this matter. I know that a few posters have been very touchy on this point for months, a couple of them (possibly feverish) compensating by expressing their admiration for the “brilliance” of Bush’s diplomacy regarding Iraq. That needs no comment.
An unsupported assertion indicative at the most of your opinion, also unsupported.
Did you miss, in the last years, the frequent and high profile ways in which Bush managed to alienate almost the entire world, even after the global sympathy engendered by 9/11? It is ridiculous to cultivate poor relations with most of the planet and then magically expect support from the same, particularly in this situation where the case for immediate war was so weak and poorly made.
Bush was simply inadequate at diplomacy, not just in the last months but since the start of his term. He managed to piss off his closest neighbours including Mexico, a state (and a president) that craved ideal relations with the US. No wonder Bush could not get support from any sizeable third group of states apart from ass-lickers like Spain and Italy (looking for a quick way to gain influence and in direct opposition to the democratic wishes of their populations), as well as Australia (still smarting from the Bali bombing and with a few xenophobes at the helm) and had to resort to arm-twisting and the like to form a coalition of the “willing”.
I refer you to the following thread, which also contains a number of good links to outside information:
As for “severe conflicts of interest” give me a break. The objections made by states opposing the war had NO need to be based on conflicts of interest; rather they arose from objections to the piss-poor pro-war case advanced by the US and UK. You can go on and on about your conspiracy theories, but consider this: if you insist on conspiracy theories I can cite them too – as many as I want, starting with imperialism, Halliburton, oil, the subjugation of Arabs or Islam, etc.
Are there conflicts of interest? Of course there are, as always in matters of state. The several UN resolutions on Israel blocked by the US, for example, were blocked based on conflicts of interest and not on the advancement of the common good. Likewise, the US had obvious interest in invading Iraq, and it was a conflict of interest for them to discuss the situation seriously (they couldn’t), instead opting for immediate war. And so forth. Are you sure you wish to open that can?
Pay special attention to clairobscur’s points. Look at the cases that were made before jumping to stupid conclusions. Otherwise, your assertions are no better than the claim that the US simply invaded Iraq for its oil and reconstruction contracts or what have you.
Since you seem fairly sure of the answer, you tell me. And let me remind you that there was NO grave impending threat to base a rushed decision on, so 120 days, even had it taken that long, would hardly have made a significant difference as far as Iraq’s threat level was concerned. The US wasn’t saving the world here though it (and the UK) certainly tried to make that case with several idiotic references to Hitler and Churchill. The US was pursuing its own agenda in opposition to the world, not rescuing it or making a bold move against terrorism or any of the other smoke screens it attempted to raise.
Are you trying to claim that Iraq was not cooperating with weapons inspections? Then I suggest this thread:
Tony Blair’s Speech to His Parliament – the link takes you to page 2 of the discussion, which contains gross mischaracterizations and misinterpretations of UNSC 1441, diligently corrected by AZCowboy and Mandelstam.
Also note that, although weapons inspections are part of the sanctions system, UN inspectors aren’t border police. UN inspectors went into Iraq with a clear mandate: to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction programs. None found on the last trip, but they did set about destroying other materials that were considered dangerous (e.g. al-Samoud II missiles). They were blocked from completing their inspections by the US. That does not equal the statement “Iraq refused to cooperate utterly thus we are forced to invade”.
Saddam had long years of experience in smuggling items to and from Iraq. If sanctions didn’t work 100% (and in my opinion they ended penalizing the Iraqi people excessively, even though they were carefully tailored) that does not mean the sanctions didn’t work at all. In fact, you could argue they were some of the best solutions available at the time, and you can imagine how rampant Saddam’s spending would have been without sanctions. Hardly a failure by any stretch of the imagination.
Quite a reasonable point of view, I am glad to see.
Ah, but why? Because France threatened to exercise its power of veto under certain circumstances that were being dictated by the US and the UK without sufficient basis in fact? And because France’s position was then either misunderstood or intentionally mischaracterized? I don’t completely agree with the power of veto myself, but it was one of the many compromises that had to be made in service to a greater cause (the UNSC). However the veto is the accepted standard of the UNSC, and it is rather useless for the US and the UK, willing members of the system, to whine about the threat of a veto. Such a situation seems to present the US and UK with a convenient excuse to lay the blame of “resorting” to military action on another country that “dared” not to walk along the line laid out by Bush (especially with cretinisms such as “either with us or against us”). The allocation of blame we have seen the US and UK indulge in is another falsehood, given the indications that invasion was always the primary objective.
eljeffe, what??? Who is saying that France cherry-picked Hans Blix? Haven’t we heard enough nonsense and lies for one thread? The second strongest candidate for the job of top UNMOVIC official in 1999 was Mark Moher, a Canadian, and he had rather less experience than Blix. As far as I remember Blix was appointed by the Secretary General of the UN, not by France.
Hans Blix has always enjoyed an excellent reputation as a fair and capable man with a great deal of respect for accurate reporting and the ability to keep his cool. For 20 years he was a member of Sweden’s delegation to the UN General Assembly. He was director general of IAEA for 16 or so years, has been executive chairman of UNMOVIC since 1999 (when UNMOVIC was created to replace UNSCOM, a body that had been found to have some flaws – such as vulnerabilities to accusations of spying for the US). Blix was almost universally well regarded, highly experienced, and endowed with an excellent record, so I find it hard to believe he was “cherry-picked” by anyone and not appointed on the strength of his achievements and considerable experience.
Last year I remember some left-wing nuts bitching about how Hans Blix was a lackey in Bush’s service, how he would bring about war for his secret master regardless of the evidence, and similar rubbish. As usual people like to talk from a position of zero knowledge and full bias. The above allegation, about Blix being in collusion with France, seems rather desperate, even for the propagandaphagous standard of certain spinmaster posters.
The proof of this is that Blair announced 6 steps to avoid war. cite
1: Saddam to go on TV and admit that he was pursuing WOMD
2: Scientists to be allowed to go outside Iraq to be interviewed
3: All Anthrax to be given up and all proof of destruction to be shown
4: The remaining Al-Samoud missiles must be destroyed
5: The unmanned drones had to be shown to have a non-WOMD use
6: Any mobile chemical and biological laboratories had to be handed over/destroyed.
If these points were achieved there would be no war. There is no mention of the regime’s atrocities. There is no appeal to straighten up and fly right. Nope all WOMD related. Now we are asked to believe it was for the people :dubious:
Elvis:
The question was valid, it just wasn’t an answer to my question. I’ll answer yours if you answer mine.
Jeff **
[/QUOTE]
You still don’t, or don’t want to, get it, do you? You’re demanding evidence that Chirac would have given a different answer if he’d been asked a different question.
We now rejoin reality, already in progress.
Upheld by our news media? You mean like the staunchly pro-war, pro-Bush NYT? Or perhaps that lap-dog of the Republicans, CNN? Does the BBC and Telegraph count as “our” media too?, because they seemed to be giving the same accounts. I suppose al-Jazeera and Saddam TV may have been giving different stories.
Helpful hint, Randy - “you’re wrong because your entire nation is ignorant and brainwashed” isn’t a compelling argument, and isn’t likely to win you many friends on this side of the Atlantic, either.
Abe:
Yeah, that was admittedly a dumb-ass mistake, for which I apologize. Next time, I won’t post operating on no sleep. I’d meant to say something that expressed that the Turks and Iraqis are all part of the Middle East, and thus I thought they may have more in common (ie, would hate each other less) than, say Iraqis and Americans, but it came out as referring to them all as Arabs.
All I can say is: Duh.
I’m not talking about evidence admissible in court, or anything. I was just hoping to find some reason to believe that Chirac would’ve supported war under some circumstances.
Kinda like if a man cheats on his wife repeatedly, and the man then claims that he’ll stop. She asks him why she should believe him - ie, present some evidence that you are, in fact, going to stop now when you hadn’t stopped before. That’s what I’m getting at. Why should I believe that France would’ve supported war at some point, when they’ve seemed so dead-set against it thus far?
Jeff
Regarding Hans Blix being handpicked by the French, I suggest everyone read the link that ElJeffe has provided.
In it, they will find:
And I note again, evidence that France would have supported military action under certain circumstances has already been provided. Twice. Further, that France’s position was entirely consistent with the text and intent of UNSC Resolution 1441, sponsored by the US.
I’d meant to say something that expressed that the Turks and Iraqis are all part of the Middle East, and thus I thought they may have more in common (ie, would hate each other less) than, say Iraqis and Americans, but it came out as referring to them all as Arabs.