Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (73537)	2/13/2003 7:21:38 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

France and Germany do not support a unilateral action by the US. Resolution 1441 is not unilateral action by the US, and if France and Germany would be interested in ENFORCING Resolution 1441, and the other 16 or so resolutions on Iraq, the US wouldn't HAVE to threaten unilateral action. Had the US practiced diplomacy instead of amateurish ranting then this crisis about Turkey would not have happened. If France and Germany had not attempted to use NATO as yet another political tool in their pissing contest with the US, this UNPRECEDENTED crisis would never have happened. If there has EVER been a situation where NATO members have obstinately REFUSED to properly take the defense of a member nation into account, I don't know of it. As to the rest of your post, it's plain you don't "get it." If the UN can not enforce its own resolutions, it's done for. Over. Kaput. On to the ashheap of history to join the League of Nations. After 12 years, and a FINAL WARNING in 1441, if the UNSC refuses (because of France, Germany, Russia and China) to live up to its own demands and obligations, it is totally impotent. Useless. THAT is what Bush has warned will happen, and what Powell has done his best, to his credit, to avoid seeing happening. We can certainly agree that the EU and NATO should present a unified front. And they do, just not the one Bush wants That's funny. It's France, Germany, and Belgium that oppose the unified front. THE REST are in opposition to the troublesome three. Why doesn't France, Germany and Belgium "support NATO unity"? Does France/Germany/Belgium comprise the EU? No? How many of the 8 nations supporting Bush are EU members? Seems a majority of the EU, and NATO, support the US position. 1441 does NOT require finding WMD for there to be material breach. REPEAT: 1441 does NOT require finding WMD for there to be material breach. 1441 requires two things: 1. inaccurate declaration 2. absence of active Iraqi cooperation and compliance with inspectors. Both of those conditions have been violated, last chance spent. That doesn't mean Iraq gets another chance for another chance. Anything less than finding Iraq in material breach is complete capitulation by the UN. As far as your statement "...shut up, and put up.", that does not support the UN. That is precisely what is required to "support the UN" because they are ACTIVELY OPPOSING what is clearly required of the UNSC, as spelled out, as a BINDING RESOLUTION in 1441. As far as non-compliance with UN regulations and the support the US gives to implementing these resolutions, Israel has the record for non-compliance and the US does nothing to rectify that. But we aren't talking about Israel, are we? Derek

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (73537)	2/13/2003 11:14:50 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>France and Germany do not support a unilateral action by the US<< How many more countries need to be on the side of the US before you recognize that the US isn't acting unilaterally? If we have enough, is it ok to act? Is it a raw number, or do only certain nations count, in your opinion? Maybe you could say, "France and Germany do not support the US acting without the approval of the country which makes some of the world's best wine and the country which was the birthplace of some of the world's great composers."