This French Stodginess is getting ridiculous

hope this link works

This Article has this quote:

What part of the UN Inspection Fiasco has this guy been missing? Does he seriously believe that Iraq is under full and unconditional compliance with UN Resolution 1441? Resolute progress implies that Saddam is going out of his way to prove he is unarmed. Does anyone here think that?

The only reason Saddam is cooperating now is the 250,000 US troops on the ready in Kuwait and even then he isnt fully and unconditionaly cooperating. What is the logic of dragging out the inspections?

The Fiasco part. We’ve yet to see him try to make Americans pee their collective pants with pictures of Balsa-wood and duct-tape aeroplanes, and stories of radio-controlled germ bombs. Only then will he truly grasp the essence of the UN Inspection Fiasco.

France; The mouse that roared.
I believe two things.

  1. France has supplied more than Mirage fighter parts recently and they do not want the information made public.
  2. France has received some of the black market Iraqi oil, in violation of U.N. sanctions.
    Nothing more then gut feeling on both of these, but there is something sinister in their tone and tenor.

It’s obvious France has alterior motives for delaying the UN vote. France is screwd now though, because if they veto, then we go to war… they only have the option to vote.

I think the next time something bad happens to France, we just ignore it. If they get invaded next time… who cares?

and I suppose he also missed the part about Iraq setting conditions on what is supposed to be unconditional compliance. He probably also missed the last 2 Reports that Hans Blix made to the the UN where he emphatically could not say that Iraq was complying fully.

This spindly Balsa wood and duct tape terror destruction of yours, where are the photographs the Iraqi scientists took of it moving around? Where are their emperiment logs, experimental findings, blueprints and research material, production facilities and planned modifications that are inherent in any military development program? How do we know if its the same one that the US photographed with their spy satellites? We do that easily if Iraq complies fully and unconditionally to the demands of the UN inspectors.

Why would they take “research” photos of a crude RC flyer ? It goes up in the air. It flys around. It comes back down.
Where’s the truth on the Al Samoud missiles ?

Where’s the data backing up claims of an Iraqi nuke program ? Even the FBI would like to know where we got some of the wild stories being bandied about as “damning evidence.”
Where’s the limit of credibility for an administration that repeatedly makes false accusations ? France seems to know.
Now despite Bush’s promise of an “up or down” vote, it looks more likely than ever that the US will walk away from the UN and remove all doubt that 1441 was nothing but an American farce from day one. Or do you have evidence showing that the US actually gave inspections a “good faith” effort ?

Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

If this is a “UN Inspection Fiasco”, why state in the same breath that “Saddam is cooperating”.

If Saddam is, as you say, cooperating, why don’t you believe that there is indeed a credible alternative to war? Since you agree that progress is being made, tell us why it can’t continue towards a peaceful disarmament?

Here’s a question: Has Saddam ever shown any interest in complying with the UN resolutions except when it was clear that force would immediately follow his continued non-compliance? And is there any reason to think he will not continue to follow the same pattern he has followed for the last decade?

The part I don’t get is how the people who are arguing against war seem to ignore this history. Iraq has already repeatedly been given the chances to avoid war that people are now saying should be offered again.

Meanwhile, North Korea is months away from actually having weapons of mass destruction.

Gosh, I just can’t understand why the world isn’t lining up behind the USA to stampede into a war against Iraq, which appears to be essentially defenceless. After all, stomping Iraq will prevent the North Koreans from building nukes, right?

cribed Al Hussein class missiles, including 14 operational launchers; the disposition of 9 of the 10 imported trailers used for the indigenous production of mobile launchers; and the destruction of 56 fixed missile launch sites

  1. UNSCOM has supervised or been able to certify the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of large quantities of chemical wea

Well that wasn’t pretty :frowning:

Sure, the weapons inspectors destroyed lots of Saddam’s forbidden goodies back in the nineties when no one believed we go back in to force the matter:

Report of the Disarmament panel 3-30-99
Saddam wanted sanctions lifted, and he was willing to destroy his WMD to get that done.

So what your saying is, Saddam is supposed to cooperate with the inspectors. He only does so, to a limited extent, when there’s 250,000 U.S. troops on his border. Therefore the U.S. should keep 250,000 troops on his border indefinately to make sure he abides by the resolutions he’s agreed to. Who’s going to pay for those troops to sit there? The UN, France? Nope, it will be the U.S. taxpayer.

Nice strawman. What does North Korea have to do with Iraq? One reason we can’t “take care” of North Korea is because we have a bunch of troops, planes & ships in the middle east. There’s also the little problem about not wanting to get millions of South Koreans & probably Japanese killed, which has been discussed before.

So, what costs more? Paying a quarter million troops to sit in Kuwait for another several months? Or paying a quarter million troops to invade Iraq, and occupy it for a year or two?

Also, please note that “There’s too much money at stake” isn’t a valid excuse to invade another country, which will inevitably result in billions in property damage, and incalculable human suffering.

The point is, we shouldn’t have to have ** any ** troops over there. He should just abide by the resolutions he’s already signed. We are incurring the cost of keeping 250,000 troops over there because he refuses to do what he’s supposed to do.

And what happens if he does disarm and we pull all of our people home? What’s to stop him from building up again once sanctions are lilfted. Do we have to keep going back every few years because he’s a homocidal maniac?

What I can’t believe is that the current administration has put everyone in the position of screaming over silly minutia of this sort:

“Balsa wood!”
“Oh, yeah, well…Mobile labs! Nyeh!”

“Did not!”
“Did too!”

Jeez, talk about a public front in tatters. Let’s please reboot the whole US diplomatic strategy back about, oh, six months, and try again. What a fuckup…

A few more months? This has been going on for over a decade now. What makes you think that it will all be over in a few more months?

And it isn’t simply “There’s too much money at stake”. It’s “we shouldn’t have to pay a bunch of money to help out a guy that has reneged on his agreements”.

Well sure he should abide by the UN resolutions. And so should Turkey, Morocco, Israel, Armenia, etc, etc. Oddly enough, it’s the US that has facilitated a lot of the UN resolution defying over the years, which goes some way to explain why the “international community” is doing a bit of :rolleyes: at the strident proclamations of the inviolability of UN resolutions coming from the Bush camp. If you’re going to take a principled stand on something, you need to be principled; opportunistically demanding respect for something you ignore whenever it suits you isn’t a very convincing stance.

As to long term costs - do you understand anything about the internal politics of Iraq? Do you not realize that the situation there is extremely likely to require looking after for a decade or so regardless of who is issuing commands in Bahgdad? Perhaps the military costs for the next 5 years will be lower with an invasion and occupation than with a containment force sitting next door, but that’s far from obvious. And, as I said, financial costs of maintaining an army aren’t legitimate cause for war.

Too true. If I thought keeping a large armed force in Kuwait for a year or two was the answer to this problem, I’d be willing for the U.S. to bear the cost. I just think that sooner or later that army will have to be used. Might as well get it out of the way now and lessen the cost for all involved, including the Iraqi people.

A couple of points about the French.

First, I suspect the reason they want nothing to do with this second resolution is that no matter what it says, it’s going to be a trigger for war. What the British are currently touting around the UN is just a weak affirmation of 1441, but it’ll still be used to justify war. Clearly the French feel that war is not nessecary at this time.

Secondly, to all those who say that the French oppose war because they want to hide their secert deals with the Iraqis. The French are many things but they aren’t stupid. It’s been obvious for a long time that the US are going into Iraq no matter what. Given this would it not make more sense for the French to support the US in exchange for their misdemeanours not coming to light? If they did have something to hide why would they be antagonizing the very people who are going to find it?

I would like a cite to even just a credible guess that it will only take several months. This is the false dichotomy that Ifind exasperating. Saying that we have the choice of going to war now to fix our problem or just wait a few months.