01-03-2003 00:02									#61
	Remove this text

Sure, Atlanticism is something precious, and we'd all have been better if all the diplomatic barking had been avoided. However, I don't think we should obey the US if we radically disagree with it (for imperialistic or moralistic reasons, whatever), because we are an independent country.
It is normal to look for compromise when both positions are conciliable, but it is abnormal France, as an independent country (I know you Americans hold high standards for independance) would have to obey the US unconditionally for the sake of atlanticism.

	01-03-2003 00:03									#62
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Just a quibble - those in US who support the admin on Iraq are not "pro-war". we long for peace. we feel that this war now, will advance the long term interests of peace. I realize that one might say that about many wars and be wrong, but i refuse to be tagged as less pro-peace than some whose actions i think have in many instances obstructed peace.

My feelings EXACTLY

	01-03-2003 00:05									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Sure, Atlanticism is something precious, and we'd all have been better if all the diplomatic barking had been avoided. However, I don't think we should obey the US if we radically disagree with it (for imperialistic or moralistic reasons, whatever), because we are an independent country. It is normal to look for compromise when both positions are conciliable, but it is abnormal France, as an independent country (I know you Americans hold high standards for independance) would have to obey the US unconditionally for the sake of atlanticism.

No one that I know of is asking you to obey the US.

What the US is asking is for countries to obey obligations that they have already voted for.

	01-03-2003 00:06									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Could you please cite the resolution for us??

37/253 1983, Generally covers the Turkish Occupation.

http://kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/UN...tions-list.html

There are 20+ SC resolutions on Cyprus.

	01-03-2003 00:11									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

LoMa :
Sorry, didn't see your quibble when writing my previous reply. I used "pro-peace" and "pro-war" loosely, for the sake of expressing myself clearly. In my definition "pro-peace" and "pro-war" means whether you favor war against Iraq now or not. These words are not intended to classify between people who want war on principle or not.
France, who seems to support war in an undetermined future, is "pro-peace" at the moment in my vocabulry, but will turn "pro-war" when it'll send troops to kill Iraqis.

However, I'm sure the Bush administration is "pro-war" in the worst sense. I came to think war in itself is not a tool for the Bush admin, but a goal. IMHO, the whole Saddam thing is just an easy pretext for the admin to reach its warlike agenda.

	01-03-2003 00:14									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 What the US is asking is for countries to obey obligations that they have already voted for.

1441 was deliberately poorly worded because the crisis in the UN had to be resolved quickly by the time. The poor wording postponed the crisis on the interpretation, but I guess diplomats were hoping they'd have time to find an agreement in the extra time.
Too bad, the rift between France/Germany and the US has gotten worse, and as such, 1441 still didn't find a unanimity behind the words "serious consequences".

	01-03-2003 00:19									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ozz 37/253 1983, Generally covers the Turkish Occupation. http://kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/UN...tions-list.html There are 20+ SC resolutions on Cyprus.

37/253 is a general assembly resolution(and thus non-binding). We are discussing UNSC resolutions.
The site you point to lists over 70, passed over a course of more than 30 years, including over 20 passed before Turkey invaded Cyprus. Could you please be more specific??

	01-03-2003 00:29									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ozz How many countries are in violation of UN rulings? Turkey, Israeli are for sure, maybe the US should attack them.

Which of those rulings authorize and mandate force?

	01-03-2003 00:33									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor 1441 was deliberately poorly worded because the crisis in the UN had to be resolved quickly by the time. The poor wording postponed the crisis on the interpretation, but I guess diplomats were hoping they'd have time to find an agreement in the extra time. Too bad, the rift between France/Germany and the US has gotten worse, and as such, 1441 still didn't find a unanimity behind the words "serious consequences".

Spiff: I still contend that there is unanimity behind "serious consequences". The debate is over implementation of the resolution. France says that inspections should procede to force disarmament ( with a doubtful chance of success, in my opinion). 1441 says that Iraq must do this both immediately and voluntarily. France's position has been and still is that serious consequences could involve the use of force.

Thus the question is about timing. I believe that France voted for immediate and voluntary disarmament with full knowledge of what it meant. The current debate is eithier due to the fact that they now feel it was an ill considered vote, or they are trying to gain world political stature through "standing up to the US". In eithier case the resolution is binding on all members and their is NO debate on what serious consequences means among any of the parties involved.

	01-03-2003 00:34									#70
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Edan Which of those rulings authorize and mandate force?

General Assembly resolutions cannot authorize force. This is reserved to the security council.

	01-03-2003 00:48									#71
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Plato :
I thought the upcoming "2nd resolution" on the Iraq issue is precisely intended to bring the word "force" in a UN resolution ?
I admit my sources on the topic are biased (French left-wing news). Do you know where I can find the official speeches countries held at the time 1441 was passed ? You seem to know much more about the UN than I do. Thx

	01-03-2003 00:50									#72
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Could you please be more specific??

No,

I'm not searching though all that crap without knowing where your going with this. If you don't believe Turkey is in violation, that's OK. Just say so.

	01-03-2003 00:53									#73
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx The UN should just make resolutions it has no intention of enforcing. -=Vel=-

Like 37/253 it seems.

	01-03-2003 00:53									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Plato : I thought the upcoming "2nd resolution" on the Iraq issue is precisely intended to bring the word "force" in a UN resolution ? I admit my sources on the topic are biased (French left-wing news). Do you know where I can find the official speeches countries held at the time 1441 was passed ? You seem to know much more about the UN than I do. Thx

Spiffor, while the use of force is a componet in the second resolution it is, to my understanding, a resolution that will mainly declare Saddam is in violation of 1441.

The Uk would feel more comfortable using "serious consequences" if all were in agreement that 1441 had been violated. The US position is that it is clear that 1441 has been violated and thus no further resolution is needed.

I will locate the info you have requested and post it here.

	01-03-2003 00:57									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 General Assembly resolutions cannot authorize force. This is reserved to the security council.

That was my point.

	01-03-2003 01:06									#76
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ozz No, I'm not searching though all that crap without knowing where your going with this. If you don't believe Turkey is in violation, that's OK. Just say so.

Your post is the first i heard that Turkey is in violation.

Since you brought that up as relevant to a discussion of Iraq, it is incumbent on you to point out where Turkey is in violation, otherwise I dont have reason to believe you. Especially since you also mentioned Israel, where I am more familiar with the resolutions, and you cited a GA resolution, which is not binding, I tend not to believe you.

	01-03-2003 01:14									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ozz No, I'm not searching though all that crap without knowing where your going with this. If you don't believe Turkey is in violation, that's OK. Just say so.

Ok, you mentioned a GA res form 1983, so i looked at the 3 UNSC resolutions from 1983. 2 dealt with extending the mandate of the peacekeeping force. The other declared that the Turkish recognized state in North Cypurs was invalid called on all states to recognize only the Republci of Cyprus. It did not single out Turkey by name to do anything in particular, nor did it indicate any consequences to member states that failed to adhere to its provisions.
It was therefore profoundly different from UNSC Res 1441.

	01-03-2003 02:21									#78
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Military bases in Iraq would control the entire Gulf oil area. It's not just the oil under Iraq.

Still not enough financial reward to justify the huge cost.

	01-03-2003 02:40									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The fact remains that from the beginning, it has been Saddam's responsibility to cooperate and comply with 1441.

Had he done this, there would have been no missiles found.

But wonder of wonders....there they are!!!

So of course, caught red-handed, what else can he do, but volunteer to destroy them?

This, however, is no more a case of "cooperation" than it is when a child gets caught by mommy with his hand in the cookie jar, and she scolds him and tells him to get down this instant!

He does...is that cooperation????

Hardly.

But of course, the peaceniks now USE this latest episode to say "ohhhh Look! Saddam is such a nice man! He's TRYING to cooperate, but the mean ol' USA won't give him time?!"

Got several newsflashes for you:
1) We've been playing this game for too long already. It's getting old.

2) Saddam is NOT going to miraculously turn over any new leaves and suddenly become the poster child for the Care Bears.

3) Saddam HAS weapons that violate 1441. Blix found them.

4) 1441 says that if Saddam doesn't comply with it, serious consequences will result.

5) Blix has found PROOF....physical proof in the form of missiles that should have been destroyed, but weren't, that Iraq is not complying (as if all the other evidence weren't enough).

Time to stop d*cking around.

-=Vel=-

	01-03-2003 02:55									#80
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx 3) Saddam HAS weapons that violate 1441. Blix found them.

Do we have to take anybody´s word on this, or is there *proof* that the missiles actually *do* violate anything?

Their range is in dispute, remember?

	01-03-2003 03:00									#81
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Do we have to take anybody´s word on this, or is there *proof* that the missiles actually *do* violate anything?

Well, I know I have to take the inspectors words, since I'm not a rocket scientist and I haven't seen the missiles myself.

	01-03-2003 03:02									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Do we have to take anybody´s word on this, or is there *proof* that the missiles actually *do* violate anything? Their range is in dispute, remember?

Blix said they are in violation. Now i dont suppose we have to take Blix's word on everything - i can think of many reasons not to. But dont expect your French pals to suggest that we stop taking Blix's word

	01-03-2003 03:06									#83
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

What'll it take, Comrade? You gonna wait till CNN can get a camera crew in and show live, pay-per-view coverage of the latest round of "Gas-the-Kurds" before you believe?

Nahh, that's right, you'd rather see him lob a few dozen missiles at US ships and maybe damage or sink a few.

And, in the same breath, you'd also rather that the US continue to foot the bill for containment till he (Saddam) dies of old age. No money out of YOUR pocket, after all....right?



Yeah...we know how it is.

-=Vel=-

	01-03-2003 03:08									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Nahh, that's right, you'd rather see him lob a few dozen missiles at US ships and maybe damage or sink a few.

If you attack him: Sure.

I support the right of self-defence, in agreement with International Law and the UN Charter.

	01-03-2003 03:17									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why bring the UN into it? You clearly don't believe they should enforce their own resolution against Iraq....

-=Vel=-

	01-03-2003 03:21									#86
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Why bring the UN into it? You clearly don't believe they should enforce their own resolution against Iraq.... -=Vel=-

The UN SC violated the Charter by going beyond its authority. 1441 is illegal, and therefore void.

	01-03-2003 03:23									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

How's this? And what groups are pushing this angle at present?

-=Vel=-

	01-03-2003 03:31									#88
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Vel :
I think you're the only one to care about the UN in this whole issue.
As far as I've seen, both parties use the UN when they feel it's adapted. I am impressed by the amount of UN-haters who say "we can't let the UN being disrespected by Iraq" to justify an agression. The very same will say "UN is just a bunch of Frenchized sissies" should it refuse the war, and will support a unilateral attack from the US the same.

And I'm sure you'll see many pro-peace people harshly criticizing the UN if it supports war. I already foresee all the critics about backstage negociations, which decide everything in the interests of the powerful, and not in the interests of world peace

Let's face it, for an outstanding majority of people here, the UN is just a cheap way to legitimize his motives and delegitimze the others' motives.

	01-03-2003 03:31									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx How's this? And what groups are pushing this angle at present? -=Vel=-

this was brought up on another thread, where it was fairly definitively shown that the UNSC did not exceed its rights under the charter by passing UNSC 1441. No state that I know of has suggested that it did, Im not sure if this is a meme going around, or if its just the logical response once its proved that the US position is the logical result of UNSC 1441. Remember a forum like this is different from the UNSC - we actually poke holes in each others arguments. In the UNSC France can simply ignore the contradictions between its position and 1441, therefore theres no need to question the legitimacy of 1441.

	01-03-2003 03:34									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx How's this? And what groups are pushing this angle at present?

Have you ever read the Charter? It´s about *avoiding war*, not about constructing casus belli for attackers.

I suppose Libertarians would agree with me on this one, also some on the Left and, of course, Iraq itself. But it doesn´t even matter who agrees: The Law is the Law.