At 08:08 AM 3/10/2003 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
>> Unfortunately, as Gautam brilliantly pointed out in a recent message, the
>> actions of the French have no gone far beyond those of friends.
>
>What did you mean to write here? I can't quite figure it out, but there's
>obviously a typo.
That should be a "now."
>> The French, however, are sacrificing NATO, the UN Security
>> Council, and the
>> Trans-Atlantic Relationship on the pyre of their own obstinancy.
>
>How is is their opposition to war sacrificing those organizations?
>Certainly they are more fragile, but threatened with non-existence???
>France is not alone in its opposition; Russian and China clearly are with
>them.
Russia and China probably would not veto this were it not for France.
>It seems damaging to the institutions for us to *demand* unanimity,
>effectively dismissing their concerns. It reminds me of those who *demand*
>explanations or demand apologies -- such demands escalate differences, don't
>they? (I demand that you reply! ;-)
NATO requires unanimity under its charter.
It also requires mutual self-defence, a principle France violated in
opposing NATO help for the defense of Turkey.
>> Even if
>> the French don't agree with what we are about to do.... they could at
>> least at some point offer to stand aside, and start planning for us how to
>> make the post-Saddam Iraq the best possible place for al those involved,
>
>Certainly they could, but do we know that this is the time? Pardon me if
>this is hyperbole, but similarly, you *could* stand aside and start planning
>for abortion to remain legal?
Actually, yes. I have many times considered how I would handle the
abortion issue, were I to be elected President - and a majority still
plainly supported some form of legalized abortion. I have a lot of ideas
as to what I woudl do.... but I would not sacrifice my Party nor my
Presidency, on the altar of my obstinancy to try and overturn the legality
of abortion - which is probably inevitable (in the short run) anyways.
>Which is more damaging to the U.N., opposing war in its debates or going to
>war without U.N. authorization? To me, the latter is far more damaging,
Based on the evidence of Kosovo, clearly the former is much more damaging,
once the former is properly equated with the current reality - that is
failure to enforce a unanimous UNSC resolution that plainly stated itself
to be the "final opportunity." If the UNSC's final opportunity to avoid
"serious consequences" really isn't final, then the UNSC is dead.
>You mean like we did in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, etc.? But
>wait, we're not *supporting* the present regime in Iraq, like we did in
>those countries. I'm not sure what you're really trying to say...?
Well, what I should have said is that the source of Al-Qaeda is Saudi
Arabia, and more directly, our support of oppression in Saudi Arabia. Our
support of oppression in the first four above conutries probably did not
result in terrorism due to the overarching Cold War and the lack of support
for terrorism in those cultures at the time.
>> TotalFinaElf has a $40billion oil contract signed with Saddam Hussein.
>> The phrase "No Blood for Oil", couldn't be a more accurate description of
>> the oppression in Iraq being wholeheartedly support by the French
>> government.
>
>Wholehearted support??? Surely you don't mean that. Hyperbole, right?
I stand by that statement.
If you have a single bit of evidence that France supports regime change in
Iraq, I'd love to see it.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
