US/UK forces in Kuwait moving towards Iraqi border

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-19 02:43pm

Zoink, Have you read 1441 and the treaty after the gulf war..They demand that Iraq disarm... If the French did not want Iraq to disarm, why vote for 1441?

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-19 03:01pm

theski wrote:Zoink, Have you read 1441 and the treaty after the gulf war..They demand that Iraq disarm...

Yes I've read the entire Resolution 1441. It calls for Iraq to disarm. It calls for inspections to ensure Iraqi compliance. Material breaches are to be reported to the security council for assesment and action. This action isn't necessarily war. The US wanted a second resolution that specifically said breaches = war. That was the whole argument last week in the UN.

theski wrote: If the French did not want Iraq to disarm, why vote for 1441?

But the French want to disarm Iraq.

Where did France say:

"Iraq doesn't have to disarm"
"Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction"

They NEVER said this. France's position was that inspection should be used to ensure compliance with UN resolution, and if necessary, as a tool to disarm Iraq. France's position was the same as those American's who wanted forced inspections.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-19 03:05pm

Zoink, can you admit that there has been material breaches in 1441?? If so then, why block any action to enforce it..

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-19 03:19pm

theski wrote:Zoink, can you admit that there has been material breaches in 1441??

There has never been argument as to material breaches. Blix stated Iraq was in material breach. France never disputed this. The dispute was how they should be dealt with.

Now that you've put me on the spot: Can you admitt that France never said "Saddam doesn't have WMD"? Since that was the issue I was addressing?

If so then, why block any action to enforce it..

The issue isn't black/white, yes/no, ying/yang, demo/repub, autobot/decepticon: there are in fact different ways other than war to deal with a situation. Being against war doesn't mean you are against action.

US: "Mr.Hussein the missiles you own are in breach of resolution 1441, now you die"

France: "Mr.Hussein, the missiles you own are a breach of resolution 1441, they must be destroyed"

Both options work towards disarmament. One is just slower than the other.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-19 03:23pm

Zoink, I'll admit I could not find the French statement that I need to support my argument.. but I can't agree with the last statement. Sometimes and I will admit it should be virtually never you have to use the big stick! If after 12 years and 17 resolutions please give me a date. When will you use force..

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-19 03:29pm

France's opposition is not so much to support 1441 but to oppose US power. They are trying to lead a coalition of like minded nations to block growing US power and unilateralism. So far, they have done a WONDERFUL job. In one fell swoop they have marginalized themselves, made the security council and the UN in generla look impotent and have gotten us to do stupid things like Freedom Fries. Not to mentnion, once we start going alone, it starts becoming easier to do. I love France, they are the Corky of the world powers.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-19 03:34pm

France's opposition is not so much to support 1441 but to oppose US power. They are trying to lead a coalition of like minded nations to block growing US power and unilateralism. So far, they have done a WONDERFUL job. In one fell swoop they have marginalized themselves, made the security council and the UN in generla look impotent and have gotten us to do stupid things like Freedom Fries. Not to mentnion, once we start going alone, it starts becoming easier to do. I love France, they are the Corky of the world powers.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-19 03:38pm

theski wrote:Zoink, I'll admit I could not find the French statement that I need to support my argument.. but I can't agree with the last statement. Sometimes and I will admit it should be virtually never you have to use the big stick! If after 12 years and 17 resolutions please give me a date. When will you use force..

I don't base it on a date, I would base it on the threat from Saddam, and the ability of the inspectors to do their job.

I know that you, Bush, and a bunch of others think the "time has come for war".... I just wanted to make sure the French position was clear, as there is a lot of rhetoric floating around that anti-this-war people are somehow anti-disarmament or think Saddam is telling the truth.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-19 07:34pm

Everything suggest ground forces will be moving at once, their Calvary screen might be crossing before the first cruise missiles hit. Seizing the southern oilfields before there blown is a big goal, but it only has a chance with an attack at once.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-19 11:21pm

theski wrote:Whats wrong E can't take a little sarcasm

Idiot.

Are you too stupid to realize that "speculation mounting" does not equal "attack will happen?"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-19 11:28pm

Hm ... Bush believes the Pope when he tells him that God said that cloning is wrong, yet ignores him when he says that God said that the war is a bad idea.

I think we've summed up the purpose of religion in the world with this little demonstration.