Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:51:01 -0800
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> France? Even if they offer to help, I doubt we'd let them. I
> think more Americans are more pissed off at the French than they are
One quote from an 'unnamed American official' said that France would
have to *fight* to get into this one.
I'd add: unless they were volunteering to be targets.
With an ally like France, who needs enemies?
My optimistic scenario is that we declare, regretfully, that the UN
Security Council has rendered itself useless. [Only after Iraq fighting
has stopped.] Obviously the US will still show up for the debating
society, since we owe the World our opinions. But we must regretfully
insist that until reforms are made to make the council relevant we must
veto all resolutions even if we agree with them.
We are of course willing to enter extended diplomatic discussions about
how to make the UN Security Council relevant again. We are willing to
give those discussions the same amount of time and good faith diplomacy
that France waged in support of Saddam. Namely, those discussions could
take months, years, maybe decades.
But if France permanently surrenders their veto we might shorten those
negotiations a bit.
Until then, 1441 is the last resolution that passes. Ever.