As most of you know a new UN resolution regarding Iraq will be up for a vote soon. How do you think the French will vote? Yay, obstain, or veto? And what about Germany and Russia?

It doesn't really matter at this point..

they are ALL (including the US) playing politics... and things are lost in that :(

I think it does matter, but not about the war, that will happen anyway. I think France will shoot themselves in the foot if they veto the new resolution, which isn't needed anyway.

Rob

Originally posted by Digisan
I think it does matter, but not about the war, that will happen anyway. I think France will shoot themselves in the foot if they veto the new resolution, which isn't needed anyway.

Rob

i'd really like to not see the US not disrespect, discredit, and disobey the UN and the rest of the international community even more on this one... but, "thy will be done..." and all that :p

as for whether or not the war is just, i don't know enough to have a stand; all i'm saying is that i really wish the UN really did have some power... just a dream of mine that as a species we could all come together, ignoring our small difference, vendettas and biasses, and really do what's right and good for all involved...

in this instance, okay, i'm leaning toward actively disarming a country which has a dangerous leader... if that means war (because the Iraqi's won't just let people walk in there and take their big nasty guns away), then that's the way it has to be done... *sigh* i should shut up before i get too carried away; there are problems in the world which are tricky to solve, the end.
:)

Originally posted by wakeech


i'd really like to not see the US not discredit the UN even more on this one... but, "thy will be done..." and all that :p

The UN is discrediting themselves, not the other way around. For the last decade the UN has been slowly making itself obsolete by not enforcing the resolutions that it hands down. This hasn't started recently, it's been a trend that's been growing steadily.

As far as the French are concerned, I seriously doubt that they'll vote for the resolution. The fact is that a very large amount of French and German oil is still coming from Iraq (via Syria and other countries) in direct conflict with the trade embargoes imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War. Given the prices of oil throughout much or Europe and the fact that they can get the illegal Iraqi oil at much discounted prices, eliminating that source would prove extremely costly. Also, I find that it's interesting the Iraq has sold oil interests throughout its country to France (though France isn't getting nearly the deals that Russia is getting).

All that said, I'm genearlly anti-war and would like to see more steps be taken. The only real pro-war arguement that I've heard lately is that Iraq has the potential to sell it's weapons of mass destruction to al Quaida, but by that logic we'd have to invade Syria, Lybia, North Korea, Iran and a handfull of other countries as well. I personally don't think that Iraq is in any position to attack the US at this time and there are plenty of other, and in some cases bigger, fish to fry....

I agree the UN is completely toothless. Next week will be the 5th anniversary of Kofi Annan (Secretary General of the UN) saying this is the last chance for Iraq to disarm. Now 1820 days later the UN is still saying the same thing. Much as I hate war unless 'somebody' does something concrete we will be at the same point in 2008.

Washington -- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told reporters at the National Press Club March 12 that "Iraq's complete fulfillment" of obligations to disarm weapons of mass destruction "is the one and only aim of the (February 23)agreement" he negotiated with the Iraqi government.

"I am under no illusion about the inherent value of this or any agreement," Annan said. "Commitments honored are the only commitments that count."

The Secretary General said that with the Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the agreement, "the government of Iraq should understand that if this effort to ensure compliance through negotiations is obstructed by evasion or deception, as were the previous efforts, diplomacy may not have a second chance. No promise of peace and no policy of patience can be without limits. It is my sincere hope that the government of Iraq does understand this and allows UNSCOM to continue its work by giving it full unfettered and unrestricted access to all sites."

The above was said on March 13th 1998. Obviously the UN is an incredibly patient body, especially when some of its members can profit from illegal trade with the country in question.

if the U.S took over IRAQ will we get more oil?
i hope it happens cause i dont like IRAQ:o

I totally agree....the UN doesn't have much respect....or authority.

One of the major problems is that it's structure is ultimately flawed. We have 5 PERMANENT members on the security counsel (US, GB, France, Russia, China) with veto power. That means that if ANY of them say no, the resolution fails. This, in effect, puts the rest of the world at those countries mercy.

Secondly, I think that the US has the right idea, they are just spinning it wrong. Ask yourself, why is there so much terrorism from the middle east? It's not because of US foreign policy, it's not because of Jewish/Arabic relations. It's not because of oil, religion or real estate. What it all has to do with is power and repression. The arabic countries (including Egypt and Turkey) have extremely restrictive societies without much, if any, personal freedoms. It's well known that successful repressive governments have given their people an enemy or someone to blame....such as the "West." So what happens is that these repressed people vent their anger and frustration at the target they have been given.

Where the US has the right idea is this.... By replacing one of the most restrictive governments in the region with one of the most open, that gives others in the region an example of what "could be."

What I am getting is this: The solution to terrorism is to stop the oppression of those peoples that become terrorists.

Overall I think George Bush is making the world more dangerous than safe. The only thing he is demonstrating is that if you are a country with biological or chemical you are at risk of getting invaded. But if you possess nuclear capability than you are immune from attack. Case in point Iraq and North Korea. He are willing to invade Iraq as soon as possible to disarm them and keep them from getting nuclear weapons, but we only enter into negotiations with a nuclear armed North Korea who has expressed their willingness to sell any weapon they own to any country or organization willing to pay. Other countries are taking note and realizing that they must possess nuclear capability in order to avoid invasion. Iran is speed up their nuclear program and other countries are likely to follow suit.

North Korea may pose a greater threat than Iraq, but NK is hard to tackle right now, especially since they declared that if the US attacked them, a nuclear holocaust would ensue. I think the US is taking the correct steps to disarm Iraq, the still are trying to go through the UN for military enforcement.

I like the line:

Besides ending slavery, nazism, communism, and facism, war hasn't solved anything.

Zio you make a good point. I am not saying I am totally against disarming Iraq by force, I just dislike the approach Bush is using.

One must realize that in political terms, the North Korea situation is amazingly new and can be halted in due time.

The disarmament fiasco with Iraq is far more urgent since it has gone on for 12 years without any significant gain (despite what Iraq wants u to think when they destroy 4 missles).

To put in perspective, a while back, the U.N. ordered South Africa to completely disarm. The request was completed in 3 months . It is clear that they wanted to disarm, thus their haste.

Iraq is just trying to buy more time. Like most things in life, a Simpsons analogy can be drawn from all this.

Apu: Mr. Simpson, this is the fourth time I have had to warn you, you leave me no choice but to ask u kindly again to stop.

Not verbatum, but close enough :D

So will the war start next week or the week after?

I say the end of next week...

Rob

Jugding from the presidents address last night, I also think it will be in a week, maybe two.