If anyone is checking out the board, I just wanted to point out that it is about 10:15 EST and the UN Security Council is about to hear the report from the weapons inspectors.

It is off to a quick bang, as the Russian Foreign Minister handed over a letter refuting (point-for-point) Colin Powell's presentation before the Council a couple of weeks ago.

So far noone with an important vote seems to have changed position due to the latest Blix report.

I thought though that French Foreign Minister Villepin was very eloquent, and that British Foreign Minister Straws pithy, though humorous, response approached the situation a bit too lightly.

[ February 15, 2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Looks like the Bushies aren't going to get their resolution at the U.N., unless they can strongarm or bribe enough Security Council members (increasingly unlikely, after all the insults they have hurled at France & Germany). But in the end, Bush & Blair will have their war, resolution or none. They have been checkmated diplomatically, but Bush will pull out the sledge hammer & smash the chess board. I can't predict an outcome, but I will say that this is a turning point in the history of the world.

The analysis I heard this afternoon was very intriguing. It basically went like this:

* Tony Blair is now in a relatively untenable position. He cannot back down from supporting the US, but there was not enough from the weapons inspectors today to get the people of Great Britian on board. The old stuck between a rock and a hard place.

* The US/UK alliance will be trying to sell a new resolution authorizing force. There is little chance they will get 9 votes for the resolution. Plus, you have three vetoes sitting on the other side of the table.

* France may or may not submit a resolution extending the time and scope of inspections. If they do, the world will see one of the more interesting diplomatic dilemmas in several decades. There will most likely be nine votes for such a resolution. This would force the Bush Administration to use its veto. And that is where life gets very interesting. The rift forming between old allies would only get bigger, and the US would be entering the conflict with very limited support from other world powers.

It is interesting how quickly Americans have forgotten that France and its people were the most responsive and supportive of our tragedy on 9/11. Some analysts finally pointed out today that we have slandered them for their current position, and in doing so have burned up considerable goodwill that existed between our countries.

The US has been check-mated (barring some unforeseen development). And the US is determined to initiate a military conflict. However, the collateral damage to our foreign policy and relationships is going to be more significant than if we had handled this differently from the beginning.

It is interesting to see that the world is unwilling to be bullied and shamed into something that is not currently required. The weapons inspectors made it very clear that despite hundreds of inspections, they have found no evidence of ongoing programs of mass destruction weapons. They also very smoothly tweaked the US for not providing more detailed information about its intelligence, and trying to make things bigger than what they probably are. I appreciated the chutzpah of the two inspectors.

Did they also remind everyone that Iraq has 16 times violated UN resolutions? Of course, this doesn't matter, does it. Nope. Hussein just continues violating UN resolutions, we ask that the UN stand behind its resolutions, and people filled with naivete keep living in a fantasy world of \"more time, more time.\"


France didn't give a crap about what happened to us on 9/11. Let's be realistic here. Moreover, a good number of their citizens felt we got our comeuppance that day.

France (and Russia) is in this for one thing only: MONEY. Their reason for opposing us is obvious. They have 85 to 100 BILLION dollars in OIL contracts with Iraq, and a regime change means the complete end to these contracts, costing France a staggering amount of money. That's the only reason, and the real reason, why the French don't support us.

And people say WE are the greedy ones?

Despicable.

[ February 15, 2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Your viewpoints, while valid, are not shared by many of the experts who have spoken on this topic. And you are actually incorrect about the French response to 9/11. They were one of the quickest friendly nations to respond, and their support was noted throughout the press for its strength.

Would those be the same experts who seem to so casually forget the decades of repeated UN violations by Iraq? Oh, I forgot, that doesn't matter.

Let's follow the money trail. It smells like it's leading all the way to Paris.

M.I.B. is correct. Iraq has a history of violating U.N. resoultions, and the U.N. have a history of not having the "balls" to stand behind its resolutions. The U.N.'s visibility in the past coupe of months has damaged its credibility extensively. Whether or not the U.S.A. goes to war, damage to the U.N.'s credibility has already occured. When this is all over, the U.N. will be known as a little more than a debate club for rich men. All talk and no action.

Even though France has a favorable oil contract with Iraq that does not justify a war initiated by us against Iraq. It would effectively amount to us taking by force what the French were willing to pay for, however little.

That contract would give some economic leverage over the Iraqi regime and act as a moderating force. Our attack will further suggest that the only way we can get what we want is by violence.

Though our military might has always been implicit in our foreign policy, it has rarely been so blatantly used to confiscate.

It is really unsettling to see people bashing the UN just because it is trying to follow a route that might maintain peace in the world. Why save thousands of people from death and destruction, when bombing the hell out of them is so much more straight-forward?

You all need to do your homework before you flap your fingers on this board. Here are some ACTUAL facts about the US and the UN:

* There are over 90 UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq. The United States has blocked the enforcement of the vast majority of these since they involve important U.S. allies such as Morocco, Israel and Turkey. In addition, over the past thirty years, the United States has vetoed over 50 Security Council resolutions, more than all the vetoes by all other members of the Security Council during that same period combined . In all but a few cases, the United States cast the sole dissenting vote in the 15-member body. Indeed, the United States has done more to undermine the authority of the UN Security Council than any other member state.

* The Security Council is the only body of the United Nations with an enforcement mechanism and the United States holds veto power in the Security Council, the UN has no authority to dictate what the United States can and cannot do. The only exception is in regard to the United Nations Charter, which the United States signed and ratified and therefore, under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, must be treated as supreme law. The United States did not have to sign the Charter, but having done so it is thereby obliged to uphold it. (It should also be noted that the United States was the principal writer of the Charter.) Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter specify that UN Security Council resolutions cannot be enforced by military action unless the Security Council as a whole determines that the government in question is in material breach of the resolution, that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of force. This was reiterated in Article 14 of UN Security Council resolution 1441 targeting Iraq, that was introduced by the United States last fall, which states that the Security Council “remains seized of the matter.” In other words, only the Security Council as a whole, not any single member state, has the right to determine what happens next.

The only thing that is jeopardizing the legitimacy of the UN is our own leadership's attempts to use it only when it serves their purposes. Perhaps if we paid our UN dues, supported initiatives put forth by the world community, and stopped acting like the only prima donna at the opera, we might see a more effective body. We love them when they let us do what we want, and deride them when they stand up to us. Hmm, that seems right and moral.

Of course, since these facts don't support the viewpoints of those wanting to open Pandora's Box, they are ignored. It is always interesting how quickly you point out the information that supports your position, but conveniently leave out the rest. Must have learned that from watching the White House.

Point of fact: NO law by any nation can supersede the U.S. Constitution. Your reference to Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution is improper.

Art. VI specifically means that any law made by the Federal Government, including any treaty, overrides any state or local law. It does NOT mean a U.N. resolution carries the force of Law over the United States.

Art. VI is commonly called the "Supremacy Clause." One example: California or one of its cities permits the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. However, Federal Law prohibits this entirely. The draconian aspect of our national drug laws notwithstanding, California's actions would be illegal.

Again, U.N. resolutions do not legally obligate the U.S. to anything.