SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (5430)4/8/2003 7:57:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) of 15987
 
I don't agree with you re French, obviously. Let's leave it at that.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing a couple of hours after I wrote that..

Yes you were. And you shouldn't have even tried, when the people who WROTE THOSE WORDS say it doesn't mean "war".

So now words, or in this case, pseudo-international law, is not supposed to be interpreted??

Maybe it should have been more black and white, stating that Saddam would face "serious consequences", should a majority of the UNSC develop the spine to enforce them.. And maybe it should have stipulated that all the UNSC members who voted against 1441 (oh wait.. none of them did), would replace US troops with their own forces for the purpose of containing Saddam and enforcing compliance.

You're just being plain silly in trying to tell me that I don't have the right to interpret those words. You're interpreting it to mean that it didn't mean war, BUT IT DOESN'T STATE THAT.... And it was implicit that the UN was conducting the renewed inspection regime as a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to avoid the serious consequences (IE: war) that everyone knew Bush was proposing.

If the UNSC didn't want 1441 enforced by military means, they should have SPECIFICALLY STATED that in 1441.. even if would mean a US veto. Make Bush have to vote no... (and defy the UNSC)..

But they didn't. And even France was not claiming military action was out of the question. They justed claimed to want 30 more wasted days for Saddam to defy the will of the UNSC and make them look even more foolish. And of course, the more the French could delay, the more they could cause the US to face conducting such an invasion during the stifling summer. And Bush wasn't going to fall for such BS.. and rightfully so..

France and all the rest, could have avoided this issue coming to a head like this had they shown the spine to enforce all of the previous UNSC resolutions, instead of trying to constantly get sanctions lifted so they could do their oil deals.

So if you want to know why we're at war, ask yourself why France has done little in the way of honoring the intent of UNSC resolutions related to Saddam prior to the past 6 months.

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext