 |
|
Maroule
|
|
as any junior journalist will tell you, most of the leaks are intentional : in that case it could be to test the reaction of voters/allies/the arab world, whatever
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, I'm no intern in the WH (too dangerous)
Anyway, my point was that getting its hands on iraq's resources is in all probability higher on the US agenda than on the French one. We don't have anybody from the oil lobby in our gouvernment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Are you going to answer my question?
"GePap, do you favor of ignoring or enforcing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty solely based upon whether or not the signatory nation that is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States?" |
Enforcement of the NPT would be solely the job of the UN Security Council: there is nothing in the treaty, just as there is nothing within the UN charter, that give s a single state, without the full consent of the SecCouncil, the ability to "enforce" the treaty. And if any single state ever begun to try to do such a thing, the offender could simply decide (as N.Korea has done, and did in 1993) to begin the procedure to leave the treaty, which any state can do if they so whish. As for the reasons to "enforce" the NPT: I am ambivalent. In 'theory' all violators should face consequences for their actions. These consequences though don't mean war. As I said before, any state can at any time drop the NPT, due to the primacy of state's sovereignty on the world stage, and if it is assumed that a state can drop out, it hardly seems likely that one of the possible consequences for breaking it is war. The most obvious penalty is an end of nuclear cooperation with such states, since the deal in the NPT is that small states won't make nukes, and the Nuclear powers will give them help in the civilian uses of nuclear power.
So, in theory Ned, all violations of the NPT should be addressed, but the NPT is a somewhat hollow treaty. It is a promise by the have's to the have not's: we promise never to use nukes against you, and help you build nuclear power plants, as long as you never try to make nukes. It's enforcement depends primarily on the good-will of the "have not's". As long as they think the 'have's' have kept their word, they will follow. If the believe the "have's" have broken their part of the bargain, they are free to drop it. So, a violation of the NPT is not, by itself, a possible causus belli.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
Spence, I don't really see the US outright grabbing oil for itself, either |
That is just one of the side benefits to the US
1. Overthrow a dangerous lunatic (Saddam)
2. Overthrow a regime hostile to Israel
3. Establish a puppet sitting on Iraq oil, kick OPEC in
the stones. Don't have to own oil, just control it.
4. Establish permament US air/land/sea bases in the centre of the mid east, don't need Arab allies/Turkey
to access entire region.
5. Texas Oil Co. s rebuilds Iraq, big bucks for all white
house cronies
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
France is waiting for a pay-off. |
France is always waiting for a pay-off for doing anything.
What I don't understand is why France ever got a veto
in the first case. They were a basketcase at the end of
WW2 (even Canada was more powerful) and they had
firmly established a reputation for selling out and bailing
out.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2003 22:22
That link (source) is not even close to being legitimate. 
|