France Calls Emergency U.N. Meeting on Iraq's Peaceful Disarmament, Ignoring U.S. Deadline

Associated Press ^ | March 17, 2003 | Edith M. Lederer and Dafna Linzer

[JudgemAll]

It's a veiled threat against the US and a veiled preemtive condemnation for attacking Iraq. The French want to advocate the destruction or the weakening of the US, clear and simple.

[Publius Maximus]

The French want to advocate the destruction or the weakening of the US, clear and simple.

On the other hand:

Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French seriously."

[Jonathan E]

If Blix has not removed the inspectors from Iraq before the Monday dead line, he is setting them up to be mayrters for the UN. IMHO. And look for the French and Blix to creat an international incident out of it. Chirac and the UN expose themselves to thier real intent, world domination through the UN, and the distruction of the USA. The future world will look back and see that President George W. Bush saved our sovereignty by not signing the KYOTO treaty (ENRON thought it was a done deal) or allowing control of US soldiers by the world court. The watermelons of the world were not happy.

[DugwayDuke]

On Monday, ou can expect France to propose a resolution that Iraq is cooperating and an attack is not justified at this time.

On Tuesday, you can expect France to propose a resolution that the "US has committed agression" by attacking Iraq on Monday.

On Wednesday, you can expect the US and Great Britain to veto the resolution stating the "US has committed agression".

On Thursday, you can expect France will attempt their resolution to the floor of the General Assembly.

[The Wizard]

I don't think Powell is available......

[ImpBill]

Just remember we have the VETO as well. Two can and will play at this game. Mark my words.

[elfman2]

Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French seriously.""

Classic!

[Beck_isright]

"How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?"

---Charles De Gaulle, in "Les Mots du General", 1962

[Stultis]

For that reason, France pressed for a Security Council meeting at 3 p.m. EST Monday to discuss a joint declaration by France, Russia and Germany calling for foreign ministers from the 15 council nations to meet Tuesday to discuss Blix's key remaining disarmament tasks and agree on a "realistic" timetable for Saddam to disarm.

Hmmmmm. Realistic. Well, let's see. Twelve years wasn't enough. Maybe we should give Saddam twenty-four years this time?

[Cboldt]

But Bush and Powell have both already made it clear that they will insist on a vote to clearly show where all sides stand.

Yesterday, Bush said it was he who asked for the second resolution (he said this to deflect heat away from Blair), but he also said that France has already said it would veto a resolution that had teeth, so in effect the vote has already been taken. There is no need to insist on an actual vote when one member has already showed its intent to use the veto.

It'll be an interesting day, but don't expect a "second" resolution or vote. Everyone will pick sides, and France has been exposed (as has the UN). Larger mission accomplished, and the mission of Iraq is all but in full swing.

[slimer]

CNBC: US Warns UN Weapons Inspectors To Leave Iraq Immediately

[guitfiddlist]

France called for an emergency U.N. ministerial meeting Tuesday to set a timetable for Iraq's peaceful disarmament, ignoring a Monday deadline...

zook wrote: I was just thinking that I'd like to have a link to that punk from "The Simpsons" who's always singing "Ha, ha!" I'd like to play it every time I hear Blix or any French guy speak.

Or to paraphrase Homer, "Can't talk, busy...whomping the hell out of the Republican Guard."

[strela]

"May you live in interesting times."

Well, I believe these events qualify as such. What a great (and scary) time it is to be a news junkie.

[lawdude]

"Yup... the Frogs hope we will waver and give in."

They have no concept of leadership and resolve.

[Sloth]

If the resolution is defeated, an attack against Iraq would violate international law.

Stated as fact... AP sucks.

[steveegg]

So when does the frog boil start?

[San Jacinto]

Incredible that the AP reporter poses as the penultimate expert on international law.

The assertion does not even make logical sense. Why would the defeat of another resolution cause a subsequent attack to violate international law?

The last resolution providing for "serious consequences" is sufficient. Let's Roll!

[Paulus Invictus]

Excalibrates??? Whazzat? My Webster does not list that esoteric word.

[Cicero]

If the resolution is defeated, an attack against Iraq would violate international law.

Says who? Edith M. Lederer?

International law, if it means anything, can be defined in one of three ways. 1) It's a matter of sovereignty. He who has the power makes the rules. 2) It's a matter of consensus. It's international law if everyone agrees that it is. 3) It's a matter of Natural Law. This is the correct answer according to traditional belief, but the problem is that very few people in positions of authority believe in natural law any longer.

So. We're back to power and consensus. The U.S. has the power, and it doesn't consent to have the UN tell it not to defend itself. Plus, natural law is on our side as well, because natural law includes the rights of self defense and just war against an aggressor.

[LurkedLongEnough]