It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

France, Germany & Russia threaten veto

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2003 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The French, German and Russian foreign ministers said Wednesday they will not allow a U.N. resolution that justifies war against Iraq to pass, erecting a major obstacle to U.S. efforts to get backing for military action.

Foreign ministers from the three countries two of which have the power to veto Security Council resolutions met in Paris to plot strategy for a vote on the measure that would pave the way for war, which was authored by the U.S., Britain and Spain. A vote on the proposal could come next week, on the heels of the next report by weapons inspectors, due Friday.

"We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said at a press conference. "Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point. "

De Villepin's statement strongly hinted that Russia and France would use their vetoes to block the U.S.-British-Spanish measure, which, while not explicitly approving war, would declare Iraq to have failed its disarmament requirements and reiterate the council's threat of "serious consequences."

The three ministers said that inspections were producing results and that weapons experts should be
given more time to search for arms that Iraq is not supposed to have, as set out in U.N. resolution 1441.

Link - www.cbsnews.com...




posted on Mar, 5 2003 @ 12:04 PM
link   
That UN backing just isn't going to happen...

No amount of time, or ineffective inspections is going to change this situation. Those three nations do not wish to lose a valuable customer, and the bribes needed to change those tunes simply aren't worth it...

It's time to go before we lose the window...and it costs money to have all those troops sitting on their arses all day....



posted on Mar, 5 2003 @ 01:42 PM
link   
The way I see it is that, if the US doesn't do *something* about the world-reaching organizations of terrorists, nobody else will. I think the US should tell the UN that if America backs out of the fight against terrorists, then the *other* UN member nations will take responsibility for *not* fighting against a threat that goes beyond the borders of soveriegn nations...In essence, it means that the US would be accusing the UN of not living up to its Charter to address threats that cross borders.

I wonder if any US speakers assigned to the UN have already tried that tactic?...



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 09:24 AM
link   
What has a war in Irak to do with terrorism ?

www.rense.com...

I know some won't believe it, but please give it a try....and read it all.

[Edited on 6-3-2003 by TigeriS]



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Saddam himself gives $10,000 to surviving families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and has stated this publicly. Why is it so hard to believe that he harbors other anti-american/anti-jew terrorist groups. Frankly, I'd more surprised to find that he didn't... Even if one of the groups being harbored isn't Al Queda, our plight is against terrorism in general. Add to that, the blatant non-adherance to cease-fire agreements of the Gulf War, and there is more than enough to justify deposing Saddam...



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I want to know what the hell russia is doing in UN?

First russia, now turkey blagging its way in, what the stereophonic flying fluke is going on?



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Members:

In my opinion what our President should have done was to have advisedthe UN that due to intelligence obtained by the US Government, Iraq was supporting the world-wide terrorist network, therefore we (along with our only true ally, the UK) were striking Iraq. And then by God, do it!

The Iraq Military does not want, nor will they support Saddame once the shooting starts. But this constant "pussy-footing" around this issue must stop. There are many Iraqi's who will join with us once the war begins, but we owe them our fidelity and protection,
We (the world) can not let this mentally deranged madman continue to rant from his oppressed country.

Strike; With the full might and force of the US-UK Expeditionary Forces, Victory will be quickly garnered.

God bless the Leaders, Peoples and Armed Forces of the US-UK Alliance.

USAFSS-SP



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Well stated USAFSS-SP


Step on the rattlesnake, you gonna get bit, seriously hurt and possibly die!

Go USA,
Deep

[Edited on 6-3-2003 by deepwaters]


dom

posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I'd just like to add my 2 pence, and I know I'm in a massive minority on these boards in being anti-war, but here goes.

I honestly can't see any real justification for attacking Saddam Hussein right now. He's currently destroying missiles which only exceed UN regulations because we tested them without warheads, he is being increasingly co-operative with the inspectors (says the chief inspector) and there is no credible evidence that he is still developing WMD's. I know the CIA says he is, but then the CIA is about as trustworthy as rense.com, and as yet, has not released any real evidence which stands up to scrutiny.

I honestly think that if the US want to launch an unprovoked attack on a soveriegn nation (no matter how bad that nation's leader) then you've got to have a legitimate excuse for doing so. Legitimate means :
a) There is a credible threat from Iraq to another country in the region, on which the whole UN agrees, and therefore you get a resolution under chapter 7.
b) There is credible proof that Saddam is not disarming, in which case you get a resolution explicitly allowing the use of force under chapter 7.
c) You have been attacked by that nation, and therefore the attack is not unprovoked but simply retaliation. (not the case here)

Legitimate reasons do not mean:
a) Extending US geo-political interests in the region.
b) Settling daddy's old scores.
c) Attacking the nearest nation that can't fight back because you're scared.

I'm afraid to say that unprovoked attacks are fairly rare in history (check the books), and you've got to have a very good reason to launch one.

Incidentally, if you're going to argue about unprovoked, there is no evidence that Iraq is connected with 9/11.



posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I have always disagreed with the way that Bush is pursuing this, but I do agree with the idea that something must be done, and that something is ousting Saddam. We should have taken him out last time, but the world community didn't see it that way, so we backed down. So, 12 years later here we are again. This time, we can't afford to turn our backs to it, even if the rest of the world does. It is true that technically, there is no backing for this war under international law. Sometimes though, you simply have to do what's right, not necessarily what's "legal"....


dom

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Gazrok - Well, I can see the argument, and I don't disagree with that point of view absolutely.

But... since the Gulf War it's estimated that inspections have destroyed as much as 90-95% of Saddams WMD's (US estimate) so we aren't really back in the same position as 12 years ago. Also, containment has worked perfectly well for 12 years, no new WMD programs, no new attacks on neighbouring countries... I'm just not sure that we gain any moral high ground by attacking Iraq now.

Personally I think we should have just given him enough rope to hang himself with... i.e. that first resolution should have been clear that we were going to give him one last chance to disarm, then we should have kept our troops in our own countries. When Saddam starts playing games we should just stick a new resolution in and begin a fast multi-lateral military build-up, we could have attacked within a month. The problem with all this comes about because we gave him "one last chance" which he has actually taken. All the while we've been plowing troops into the Gulf making it look like all we (US/UK) want is a war (which it probably is), which has turned a lot of countries against the "rush to war". There was a lack of intelligent planning about this whole thing, and right now the only way out without causing huge international ruptures is for the US/UK to back down and accept that they went the wrong direction...

Perhaps we still attack Iraq if Saddam kicks inspectors out, or if Blix states that he is not in compliance. But those are the only ways to get multi-lateral backing. Remember that although Afghanistan wasn't backed by the UN, it did have wide support from the international community. This time there isn't any international support.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I wou;ldn't say containment has worked, as Hussein has helped train and finance terrorists, and that all it would take is WMD to be smuggled out and placed in the hands of those who have the will and way to harm innocent people in cities.

You people that are against us defending ourselves now better pray to God that the worst case scenario never happens. If we're wrong and we topple Hussein, what has the world lost? The Iraqis will still win. If you're wrong, we stand to lose alot. Funny how people and willing to gamble with the lives of my friends and family.


dom

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 06:34 AM
link   
TC - nice to see you again.

Containment has woked in many ways. There is no real evidence that he's been helping to train terrorists, the financing is of families of terrorists, I don't believe anyone complained about Noraid doing the same thing for members of the IRA, a terrorist funding organisation allowed to carry out it's work unmolested by the US govt for over 30 years...

And if you're wrong, the US/UK attack on Iraq could start WW3. It'll certainly have a destabilising impact on a region which could do without being messed with any further. I think any course of action in the Middle East is a gamble, and it's far more of a gamble when it doesn't have the backing of most countries in the region (Israel is the only active backer, Kuwait lets the US park it's troops there in exchange for $$$, but still says it would prefer to avoid a war).



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join