Article

2003-01-21 Axis of Evil

WaPo: Surrendermonkeys vow to block Iraq attack resolution in UNSC

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bent Pyramid 2003-01-21 05:08 am|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Posturing. Bah.
From "le canard enchainÃ©" 01-15-03 (long-standing political/satirical weekly, 80 yrs and counting), off-the record quotes from Our Beloved President Jacques Chirac saying to his gvt cronies he doesn't plan on using his veto : "a veto from France wouldn't prevent the americans from going (to Irak). It wouldn't make war impossible. It would make it difficult", "Bush is determinated and in a hurry. Even if I do everything to prevent it, war will take place mid-february, late february at the latest",...
Of course, Jacques may have changed his mind and willing to help his ex-friend Saddam... Plus, it's unsure USA will bo back to the UNSC before an intervention (only if the political situation is favorable, which is not certain), and if they do, France is probably going to abstain (like China and Russia ?)

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-21 07:15:46|| 2003-01-21 07:15:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Simplisme! Cut the cheese-eating surrender monkeys from any post-war work/oil and expose their contacts in supplying Saddam with WMD. Same goes for Joshka and Gerhard.

Posted by Frank G 2003-01-21 10:26:00|| 2003-01-21 10:26:00|| Front Page Top

#3 The UN (aka The Psychotic Dictator's Club) has been blatantly irrelevant for years. It's a cold-war gas factory designed to *avoid* decisions and action, and it has utterly outlived it's purpose.

Posted by mojo 2003-01-21 11:29:33|| 2003-01-21 11:29:33|| Front Page Top

#4 deBeste has an interesting take on this over at USS Clueless. Basically he suggests what would happen if France and Germany really had sold lots of nasty stuff to Iraq over the past decade and how they would react. Well their current reaction is very close to how they would react in that scenerio.

Posted by anonymous 2003-01-21 12:45:59|| 2003-01-21 12:45:59|| Front Page Top

#5 what trouble me most is that when the French laid their ambush, Powell seemed taken by surprise, and and without a response. Now I know the admin could have deep plans that are not apparent(EG myabe we're not ready to go in till March anyway), but its starting to look like the Powell strategy of going through the UN, and compromising ont he first resolution, is not working. We're looking trapped. Unlike some others Im not sure we'll really go in with the UNSC against - i undestand the difference between multilateral and UNSC sanctioned, but I wonder if the Brits, Aussies, etc really have the nerve to go in without the UNSC. And if they dont, then it is pretty close to unilateral.
Id be happier if I knew of a "plan B" will the admin share more intel??? will we recognize a provisional govt, so we can have a casus belli other than WMD?

Im eager to see how this plays out the next two weeks

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-01-21 14:53:17|| 2003-01-21 14:53:17|| Front Page Top

#6 Another Vichy government working in collaboration with a ruthless dictator. FDR didn't have problems running them over as the first act in the European Theater of Operations via Torch. Let's hope Bush doesn't either.

Posted by Don 2003-01-21 16:01:48|| 2003-01-21 16:01:48|| Front Page Top

#7 The French say there's no proof Iraq has failed to disarm or currently maintains WMD. What tune will we be hearing from the French after Allied Forces LOCATE that which they say doesn't exist?

Posted by Mark 2003-01-21 18:30:54|| 2003-01-21 18:30:54|| Front Page Top

#8 Steve DenBeste indeed has an interesting angle. He also notes that if the French do veto, for all intents and purposes the U.N. is dead as a major political force against terrorism and malignant despots. They'll have shown that the U.N. can't be counted on even to enforce their own resolutions.

The real wild card in this whole game will be the British Labour Party and Tony Blair. If France vetoes, and Blair decides that the Brits will still fight, I think there is at least a fair chance that the more anti-war militants in Labour would try to depose the PM, either through a quick party conference or a no-confidence vote in the House. That would be major trouble for us. Could we continue to mobilize and fight in Iraq if the Brits (by order of a new PM) suddenly backed out? Likewise, would Mr. Howard survive a similar situation in Australia?

I share liberalhawk's concern about the Brits and Aussies. They're our true friends, and you don't want to hang your true friends out to dry. I'm getting worried; I expected the French to growl and frown a lot, and in the end lay down. It's beginning to look like they're serious about a veto.

Posted by Steve White 2003-01-21 18:36:22|| 2003-01-21 18:36:22|| Front Page Top

#9 The French KNOW we do not have to go back to the UN. The French KNOW that we are going into Iraq. What the French are doing is positioning themselves on the world stage for the post Iraq UN. For making a stand now, they stand to gain in stature with the rest of the world. I think DenBestes analysis is a little extreme, but the general trend is apparent. The US is unilateral, the British are toadies for following GW, so who is going to "lead" the world in a multilateral fashion? My prediction: UN headquaters to Geneva in 2004.

Posted by john 2003-01-21 19:29:37|| 2003-01-21 19:29:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Re: John's comments. The UN runs on money, lots of it. Who provides the lion's share? Let them run to Geneva or wherever. Let th French do their political manoevres and become King S--t. Let them finance the new headquarters. Either way, stay or go, they or Ted Turner can finance it, we need to stop putting good money down the drain, and that will put a stop to this BS.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-01-21 20:21:11|| 2003-01-21 20:21:11|| Front Page Top

#11 UN Inspectors' report on the 27th. State of the Union address on the 28th. Why don't we have this conversation again on the 29th?

den Beste says it's standard Bush operating procedure: Let opponents have the floor unopposed initially. Let them get cocky and get way out into the looneysphere, making them easy targets. Then cut them off at the knees with a major speech that changes everything.

SOTU last year featured Axis of Evil. This year, it could be Axing the Evil.

Posted by Patrick 2003-01-21 21:48:40|| 2003-01-21 21:48:40|| Front Page Top

#12 --"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."--

You first, what companies did business w/him, when, what did you supply him with for how long and how much?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-22 00:04:32|| 2003-01-22 00:04:32|| Front Page Top

#13 Den beste, as far as i can tell WANTS the UN to go under- on "jacksonian" grounds - he's positively salivating over it.

While i dont think we we should hold our security hostage to the UNSC, i think the post-cold war UN is, on balance, a good thing, and that its collpase would be a cost to the United States. Of course its collapse would be an even bigger cost to France, and so it seems like both sides are playing chicken. France wants us to not go to war. We want to go to war with UN backing, (or at least with a wink). If we go to war with UN opposition, everybody loses. Its a question fo who will blink.

Im also not sure about dne bestes view that Bush always turns it around with one speech. His UN speech in October didnt turn it around that far - thats how we ended up with res 1441, which still has enought holes for the French to try and squeak through. I think public diplomacy requires more than one speech every 4 months. I think we have a solid case on Iraq, and that we would be much further ahead on this if the admin was better at making it. I think we are paying or dubya's poor oratorical skills, and for the division in the admin, which largely results from - dare I say it - the intellectual weakness at the top. I HOPE to be proved wrong, but fear I won't be.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-01-22 09:58:00|| 2003-01-22 09:58:00|| Front Page Top

09:58 liberalhawk
04:56 Murat
04:18 R. McLeod
03:54 R. McLeod
03:44 Ben
03:42 R. McLeod
03:28 JDB
03:26 Ben
03:17 Ben
01:56 Murat
00:43 Anonymous
00:11 Alaska Paul
00:04 Anonymous
23:45 Down Under
22:57 Denny
22:53 Frank G
22:38 Down Under
21:48 Patrick
21:29 Patrick
21:03 edwardvt
20:37 Frank Martin
20:31 Alaska Paul
20:21 Alaska Paul
20:10 Angie Schultz