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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (5420)	4/8/2003 1:58:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

No it doesn't. It means they want the US to lose, possibly because they would hate this new doctrine of preventive unilateral invasions to succeed. Yeah lose.. To a totalitarian regime. It means the 33% of France has lost ALL GRIP ON REALITY. They would prefer to keep the Iraqi people in terror and oppression, rather than support the goal of the US (even if they oppose the means). It means that 33% of the French people would choose to side with a declared enemy of the United States, rather than reciprocate for the MANY TIMES the US has been there to save the French for the VERY SAME kind of totalitarianism. That's like cutting your nose off to spite your face. And it's HARDLY the attitude of a worthy ally. I certainly wouldn't wish the French to lose to a totalitarian state, no matter how much I might oppose their methods of opposing it. However, most of the world has not been presented with such a "dilemna" since France hasn't been through such a scenario in recent history. They only seem to support dictators and thugs). You are stipulating. UN Sec Council knows better than you what 1441 meant and they say it did not mean authorisation for an invasion. No.. I was interpreting the phrase "final opportunity", as well as "serious consequences". Just as the coalition during the first Gulf War interpreted "all necessary means" to equate to military use of force in UNSC 678. Which 1441 RECALLS as being a precedent upon which 1441 was based. We had a military build-up in the region. The UNSC was given its chance to make Saddam come into compliance and cease being in material breach. They couldn't do it. It was ONLY continuing US military pressure that squeezed the degree of limited "cooperation" out of Saddam as it did. There is NO OTHER VIABLE INTERPRETATION for the phrase "serious consequences" and "final opportunity". It meant military action if Saddam failed to comply. It did NOT mean more votes to determine the actual means of compliance. As I keep reiterating, but which you choose to ignore, the UNSC DOES NOT DECIDE what means will be used to force compliance. Thus, any vote to authorize military force would have been UNPRECEDENTED. Saddam, and everyone on the UNSC knew what "serious consequences" and "final opportunity" meant. And no one could feasibly argue that Saddam had complied. And the line of reasoning behind the Chirac statement is just how far he was willing to drag France in order to support their cynical (sinister) oil relationship with TotalFina and Saddam's regime. Hawk