21 Sep 04
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeFrom reading the translation of the Villepin statement, it seemed to me that he was saying the France would not accept any resolution that could only lead to war (note his use of the term 'inexorable'😉. In other words, France wouldn't accept any resolution that could not, realistically, enable a peaceful resolution to the situation with Iraq. This doesn't seem to me like the wholesale rejection of the possibility of the use of force. It seems to me that France merely wanted to keep the option for peaceful resolution on the table for as long as possible. Am I missing something in that quote?
No1, you are being so clever. Of course no Frenchmen ever said LITERALLY : "We will never use military force against Iraq". The French aren't that stupid. I had hoped you weren't so stupid to assume I was so stupid to assume that the F ...[text shortened]... to ...... Please take good notice of the date when it was said ?
21 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauder
Really? Here's the FIRST sentence in your FIRST post in this thread:
Instead, de Villepin stayed behind at the U.N. and announced to the world that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam Hussein.
So, what's this thread about again?
This thread isn't about one of my statements. If you read the link I gave, I bet you haven't, you will see this is the first quote, others followed from that link. It merely shows that I'm not the only one with that particular interpretation of facts.
No1. You like to pick a fight. You are on an offensive and I get the impression that the issue at hand isn't the real issue for you. Tell me, what is your mission, no1 ?
21 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolytePlease this thread isn't about my statement, an interpretation of the situation, in another thread. I never, oops, claimed that the French said this literally. That's why I gave all the qotes in the other thread. It is about interpretation. We are dealing here with diplomats, not streetfighters.
"We cannot accept an automatic resort to force." That sounds even more opposed to force than the quotation in English, but it still isn't saying that France would never approve of force, merely that it would oppose any resolution which insisted on the use of force after a certain time.
"We cannot accept an automatic resort to force". This means in the given context that they will not accept a deadline. A deadline thought necessary by the US/UK to keep on pressurising the Saddam regime to comply fully with the Security Councils will, the resolutions in question. Not wanting a deadline means that a lot of the military ànd diplomatic pressure built up by the US/UK will vanish into thin air. That was what the French wanted. The cat & mouse game between the UN and the security council could start all over again. It was clear the US/UK weren't prepared to let this happen. The French knew this.
21 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeGee, it's kind of amazing how many incorrect things you can say in two short paragraphs! I read the entire link you gave; I'm not that lazy and it's basically a bunch of unsupported assertions made by anonymous members of the Bush administration to a right-wing journalist. Of course, you're not the only one with "that particular interpretation of the facts" it's all a standard talking point of the administration, the Republican Party, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. That doesn't make it any less of a bunch of BS.
This thread isn't about one of my statements. If you read the link I gave, I bet you haven't, you will see this is the first quote, others followed from that link. It merely shows that I'm not the only one with that particular interpretation of facts.
No1. You like to pick a fight. You are on an offensive and I get the impression that the issue at hand isn't the real issue for you. Tell me, what is your mission, no1 ?
Has for "picking a fight" are you being ironic? I am, has I have many times, arguing against the untruthful rationales that put the US into a an unnecessary, illegal war which has caused the deaths of ten of thousands of people. Bush was "picking a fight"; I'm debating a point in the DEBATES Forum! My mission (and I've chosen to accept it) is to bring to lights the FACTS concerning the war against Iraq and if the FACT that I am demolishing your pathetic belief system by bringing forth such FACTS, that's your problem. So you can either whine that I'm being too tough on you or bring forth real facts supporting the thesis that the French ever "lied" to the US about supporting a war against Iraq BEFORE the weapons inspectors completed their mission unless they were stopped by the Iraqis in 2003. Up to you.
21 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "From reading the translation of the Villepin statement, it seemed to me that he was saying the France would not accept any resolution that could only lead to war .... "
From reading the translation of the Villepin statement, it seemed to me that he was saying the France would not accept any resolution that [b]could only lead to war (note his use of the term 'inexorable'😉. In other words, France wouldn't accept any resolution that could not, realistically, enable a peaceful resolution to the situation with Iraq. This ...[text shortened]... peaceful resolution on the table for as long as possible. Am I missing something in that quote?[/b]
The aim of the second resolution was to explicitly force Saddam under threat of military force to comply with the Security Councils will. If he, Saddam, decided to comply and cooperate fully, there would not be any war.
Your interpretation can only be accurate if the French knew Saddam wasn't going to comply and cooperate fully. Only and only then would the implementation of the second resolution lead to war.
21 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, it's kind of amazing how many incorrect things you can say in two short paragraphs! I read the entire link you gave; I'm not that lazy and it's basically a bunch of unsupported assertions made by anonymous members of the Bush administration to a right-wing journalist. Of course, you're not the only one with "that particular interpretati ...[text shortened]... inspectors completed their mission unless they were stopped by the Iraqis in 2003. Up to you.
I have the impression what you are doing has nothing to do with France whatsoever.
21 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's because you're a paranoid, Ivanhoe.
I have the impression what you are doing has nothing to do with France whatsoever.
The weapons inspectors in their February reports had made it clear that Iraq WAS cooperating; I've cited Hans Blix's statement in the report to that effect in the other thread (I'll dig it up again if you insist). The resolution prepared by the UK/Spain would have set a March 17,2003 deadline for Iraq "fully comply" but as they were already complying according to Blix in actuality it was simply a device to start the war, probably on the same timeline that the US government intended all along. The majority of the Security Council (at least 10 members, including three with the veto) opposed the resolution so it was never sent to a vote. The French government had been utterly consistent that while they wanted Iraqi disarmarnment, they viewed military force as a "last resort" in line with the UN Charter. That's what they always said publicly; the assertion that they ever "lied" to the US is based on sources inside the administration who claim they said something different in private. The administration has been proven to be liars concerning Iraq; why should I believe them about France?
21 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow long did the second resolution give Iraq to fully comply? I was under the impression that the weapons inspectors said the inspections were working, and that Saddam Hussein was complying to a much greater extent than he was after the first Gulf War.
BBarr: "From reading the translation of the Villepin statement, it seemed to me that he was saying the France would not accept any resolution that could only lead to war .... "
The aim of the second resolution was to explicitly force Saddam under threat of military force to comply with the Security Councils will. If he, Saddam, decided to comply and co ...[text shortened]... ate fully. Only and only then would the implementation of the second resolution lead to war.
22 Sep 04
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrIraq was not complying fully. That's what it is all about. Blix said in a reaction about his report that he had to put information in it that was usefull for the French to back up their political stance and information that could be used by the US/UK to back up their position. I'm sure if you read the report you will find this to be true.
How long did the second resolution give Iraq to fully comply? I was under the impression that the weapons inspectors said the inspections were working, and that Saddam Hussein was complying to a much greater extent than he was after the first Gulf War.
We all remember hopefully the cat and mouse game Saddam played with the International community. The inspectors were doing their jobs, he threw them out, the UN complained, had to raise the pressure on Saddam, Saddam let the inspectors in again, the pressure went down, Saddam threw them out again, the UN protested, raised the pressure again etc, etc. The US/UK decided it had to stop. Saddam had to comply fully, not next year or in two years, but now.
What would have happened with the inspectors if the French would have had their way ? Do you think Saddam would have complied fully by now ? I don't think so.
22 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeBlix's full report of March 7, 2003 is at:
Iraq was not complying fully. That's what it is all about. Blix said in a reaction about his report that he had to put information in it that was usefull for the French to back up their political stance and information that could be used ...[text shortened]... k Saddam would have complied fully by now ? I don't think so.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
I urge everyone who is interested to read it. It lends no support to the UK/US/Spain Resolution and says full completion of the weapons inspectors' mission would take "not years or weeks, but months". Perhaps Ivanhoe can twist that into supporting a 10 day deadline after which war was OK by the Security Council,but no rational person can. Iraq's supposed prior non-compliance was not at issue in March, 2003; it was presumed and Iraq was given a "last chance" by Resolution 1441 to comply with the disarmnment requirements or the Security Council (not individual member states) would decide on "serious consequences". Those are the facts; read the report in full (it only takes a few minutes) and see.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIraq was complying, however. I thought that Blix reported that the weapons inspections were working, and the Saddam Hussein was disarming. Am I incorrect? If not, then why was there a need to go to war, given that the justification for going to war was that Saddam posed a threat of WMD proliferation (if you go by the text of 1441)?
Iraq was not complying fully. That's what it is all about. Blix said in a reaction about his report that he had to put information in it that was usefull for the French to back up their political stance and information that could be used by the US/UK to back up their position. I'm sure if you read the report you will find this to be true.
We all rememb ...[text shortened]... ve had their way ? Do you think Saddam would have complied fully by now ? I don't think so.
22 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWow, the US/UK proposed a second resolution that only gave Iraq 10 days? No wonder the French claimed the second resolution would lead inexorably to war. 10 days is a ridiculously short amount of time. Good for the French!
Blix's full report of March 7, 2003 is at:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
I urge everyone who is interested to read it. It lends no support to the UK/US/Spain Resolution and says full completi ...[text shortened]... ts; read the report in full (it only takes a few minutes) and see.
22 Sep 04
Here's an interesting little link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
In it, arch hawk, neocon Richard Perle conceded back in November, 2003 that the US invasion of Iraq was in violation of international law. Of course, he still supports the war and argues that international law is meaningless! Maybe Milosevic's defense team should call him as a witness (at Nuremberg the same argument was unsuccessfully urged).
22 Sep 04
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrNo it's not. Saddam was playing this game for years and years. Saddam could have shown his cooperation within a couple of hours by delivering the documents the inspectors had asked for, for instance. You don't need another year to be able to tell whether Saddam was cooperating fully. Saddams tactic was to give a little bit to the inspectors so they would not be able to write in their report that he was NOT cooperating.
Wow, proposed second resolution only gave Iraq 10 days? No wonder the French claimed the second resolution would lead inexorably to war. 10 days is a ridiculously short amount of time. Good for the French!
On top of that the period of ten days isn't that important as the French clearly stated they were not willing to accept a deadline. I remember Colin powell saying the number of days was open for negotiation, however not the notion of the deadline itself.
22 Sep 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeSure, he could have delivered documents in a couple hours. Did he not give the weapons insepctors the documents that were requested? I thought he gave the weapons inspectors all sorts of documentation. What did he fail to provide?
No it's not. Saddam was playing this game for years and years. Saddam could have shown his cooperation within a couple of hours by delivering the documents the inspectors had asked for, for instance. You don't need another year to be able to tell whether Saddam was coopating fully. Saddams tactic was to give a little bit to the inspectors so they would no ...[text shortened]... he number of days was open for negotiation, however not the notion of the deadline itself.