An Interesting McCain Statement...

[melon]

"Let me be clear: I believe that the French government is pursuing a systematic campaign to undermine American leadership in Europe and the world." -- Sen. John McCain

Interesting...I didn't realize that America led Europe and the world. Oh well....carry on...

Melon

 

[DrTeeth]

I heard he's going to be Bush's running mate again, so he'll be needing a few nice one-liners. Be prepared for more of this. I find it disturbing that the Democrats are obviously that weak, that the Republicans can get away with a controversial 2nd hand like McCain.

 

[nbcrusader]

Interesting...I didn't realize that America led Europe and the world. Oh well....carry on...

Shhhh. Don't tell them.

 

[verte76]

McCain is talking about the French government, not the French people. As such I think it's fair game. I haven't much cared for the French government's behavior on humanitarian aid for Iraq. Those people need help and I don't think it's anything to play politics with. What with all of the anti-Americanism that's going on right now I don't know if we are really leading anyone.

 

[Klaus]

verte76:

it's the leadership that frightens me - no Countries at a equal level
1st US - and they decide what the world has to do?

 

[Screaming Flower]

I heard he's going to be Bush's running mate again, so he'll be needing a few nice one-liners. Be prepared for more of this. I find it disturbing that the Democrats are obviously that weak, that the Republicans can get away with a controversial 2nd hand like McCain.

i think you're thinking of dick cheney.

 

[sue4u2]

The US is also first in with Aid to almost every country also... If you want help we'll send it. I don't agree with alot of the policies this gov. has to offer but I can say I'm proud of the humanitarian work that comes from the US. What I don't get at this point is "why" is Bush practically having to beg the UN to lift sanctions from Iraq? I heard a short clip this morning - about Bust appealing to the UN to lift the sanctions. Why is there even a delay? Can France and Russia or whoever, not agree on this issue?

 

[melon]

That's because the sanctions in question were placed, contingent that Iraq was verifiably disarmed of all WMDs. It was not contingent on regime change, and Iraq is not verifiably disarmed of all WMDs. Just because Bush may be the leader of the sole global hyperpower, it doesn't mean that he is the sole leader of the UN.

Melon

 

[verte76]

verte76:

it's the leadership that frightens me - no Countries at a equal level
1st US - and they decide what the world has to do?

I understand this. My government thinks they can just order the other countries around. This is not cool. I don't want my government to play world traffic cop. Other democracies don't need a traffic cop. They already have leaders. It's like meddling in their political elections.

 

[ALEXRUS]

The US is also first in with Aid to almost every country also... If you want help we'll send it. I don't agree with alot of the policies this gov. has to offer but I can say I'm proud of the humanitarian work that comes from the US. What I don't get at this point is "why" is Bush practically having to beg the UN to lift sanctions from Iraq? I heard a short clip this morning - about Bust appealing to the UN to lift the sanctions. Why is there even a delay? Can France and Russia or whoever, not agree on this issue?

We (Russia) are ready to agree but first let inspectors do their job, i.e. ascertain there is no WMD in Iraq. This is the reason for the delay. If US thinks it needs no inspectors to do that - ok, do it yourself but UN is not going to undersign whatever you do in Iraq on your own...

 

[STING2]

ALEXRUS,

The UN already approved the forceful disarmament of Iraq. US, British, and Australian troops are currently engaged in that process. Peaceful inspections with unarmed weapons inspectors ended months ago when the war started. That process is over and will not resume. It will not resume because military enforcement and inspection has been chosen as the means to disarm Iraq.

Since the Iraqi military is destroyed. The Iraqi regime of Saddam destroyed. Iraq has not way of deploying WMD. There is no reason to keep sanctions on a government and regime that no longer exists.

 

[ALEXRUS]

ALEXRUS,

The UN already approved the forceful disarmament of Iraq.

Oh, really? That's news for me.

"US, British, and Australian troops are currently engaged in that process. Peaceful inspections with unarmed weapons inspectors ended months ago when the war started. That process is over and will not resume. It will not resume because military enforcement and inspection has been chosen as the means to disarm Iraq."

It was chosen and done by the US... What does UN have to do with that?

"Since the Iraqi military is destroyed. The Iraqi regime of Saddam destroyed. Iraq has not way of deploying WMD. There is no reason to keep sanctions on a government and regime that no longer exists."

Well, there's no government in Iraq at all now. What I see there is an occupational regime. Until there is a new, legitimate government sanctions will remain. Why should we facilitate things for another illegal regime that replaced Saddam?

 

[verte76]

Alex, you're right about the occupational government being illegal. I don't like this state of affairs, either. I'll tell you what's making me nervous right now. There are terrible problems because of the lack of basic services in Iraq right now. There are reports of cholera in Basra, a crisis at the main hospital in Baghdad because so many of their supplies were looted, etc, etc. I saw all of this on an Iraqi discussion list that has news on it. They need $$ in Iraq now. The sooner a legitimate Iraqi government is in place the better. Right now I'm just really nervous about a potential humanitarian problem in that country. I know the Iraqis don't want to be occupied but they'd like help with these terrible situations as soon as possible.

 

[STING2]

ALEXRUS,

UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all approve the use of military force if Iraq is in military breach of its obligations. All resolutions against Iraq were passed under chapter VII rules which allow for the use of force!

"It was chosen and done by the US... What does UN have to do with that?"

Wrong the UN already voted in resolutions 678, 1441, and the first Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, that member states of the UN were authorized to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance if it was found to be in material breech of its obligations.

It is true that the United States, United Kingdom and Australia are the only members states with troops on the ground in Iraq, but they have full authorization to be there according to the UN resolutions. There are several other UN operations in other countries where only one or two countries actually have troops on the ground.

"Well, there's no government in Iraq at all now. What I see there is an occupational regime. Until there is a new, legitimate government sanctions will remain. Why should we facilitate things for another illegal regime that replaced Saddam?"

In order to ensure that Iraq remains disarmed in the future, a stable government most be allowed to be built. Keeping Sanctions that were designed for a prior regime only hinders the building of a new democratic government.

The Russians, Germans and French, need to wake up to reality. Their Business partner Saddam is gone. Causing problems by not supporting the lifting of sanctions is not going to bring Saddam back.

 

[ALEXRUS]

ALEXRUS,

1. UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all approve the use of military force if Iraq is in military breach of its obligations. All resolutions against Iraq were passed under chapter VII rules which allow for the use of force!

2. The Russians, Germans and French, need to wake up to reality. Their Business partner Saddam is gone. Causing problems
by not supporting the lifting of sanctions is not going to bring
Saddam back.

1. Wel, that is where we disagree. If you insist that 1441 authorises use of force on Iraq, keep it to yourself. Of course, you can bring numerous experts who may try to convince me that black is white and that leopards are fishes but I think certain things are self-evident. No comments on 1441 anymore on my side.

2. We are wide-awake. We are not sleeping. The only positive outcome of the US-led operation in Iraq is the removal of Saddam's regime. Which does not necessarily mean that democracy will take over. Why do you need UN to do things you started doing in defiance of UNSC opinion? You want to control all the proceeds from sales of Iraqi oil and want us to help you? Well, sanctions can be lifted but this is most we can do to please the US, I guess...