Coalition grows. Old Europe still pouting.

[Spiffor]

Maybe I am wrong, but didn't the US and Britain prepared themselves to pass the vote, let France and Russia veto despite a majority in favour of war, and then saying "See ? France and Russia go against the will of the UNSC !".
I wonder why they didn't show for good the UNSC was backing them, despite France's yapping.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
And many Arabs support the overthrow of Saddam.

Sure, so are we. What we are opposing to isn't the end but the means.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Says the one who supports Stalin.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by vee4473


China has not been the major voice opposing the war.

Therefore their opposition to war doesnt count? Thats some pretty twisted logic.

The french have because of their economic arrangement with iraq.

Oh gee, god forbid they look out for their own interests. The US would never do such a thing

And no, russia and germany are not major military powers. I had to point that out??

Not MAJOR if your comparing them to the US. But they could hold their own off. Therefore I consider them military powers.
Because in fact, if you compare ANYBODY to the US.......

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe I am wrong, but didn't the US and Britain prepared themselves to pass the vote, let France and Russia veto despite a majority in favour of war, and then saying "See ? France and Russia go against the will of the UNSC !".
I wonder why they didn't show for good the UNSC was backing them, despite France's yapping.

That's because they couldn't get the nine votes needed, regardless whether the resolution will be vetoed or not.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by vee4473


China has not been the major voice opposing the war.

We oppose it, nonetheless.

Actually, I've seen some Chinese citizens who support the war. They usually finish their comments with, "LET'S ECHO THEM IN THIS JUST STRUGGLE AND NUKE TAIWAN NOW."

etc etc.

The french have because of their economic arrangement with iraq.

So?
It isn't like America didn't back out of various treaties due to economic arrangements.

And no, russia and germany are not major military powers. I had to point that out??

I think you need to redefine "major military power".

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Sure, so are we. What we are opposing to isn't the end but the means.

I don't support the means either. But there is nothing I can do about it. After the war is over though I suspect that many will be relieved that Saddam is gone.

[vee4473]

and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...


so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't support the means either. But there is nothing I can do about it. After the war is over though I suspect that many will be relieved that Saddam is gone.

The only thing is, the region is very likely to be in a worse state without Hussein.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by vee4473
and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...


so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

ahem

That's actually TWO vetoes (France, Russia) and one more possible veto (China). Plus a few more non-permanent members.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by vee4473
and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...


so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

That's only your spin. Let the world decide whatever that means - usually not quite the same way as yours.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by vee4473
and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...


so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

The US specifically said that France could veto it but if it got 9 votes, it could say "The majority of the UNSC is for us! France DARES to defy them!? Infidels!!!" and run off with war.

But you see, they couldnt get the votes so they BACKED OFF. Wisely, too.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The only thing is, the region is very likely to be in a worse state without Hussein.

That is one reason why I really do not support violent intervention in that region. I think that we are opening up a can of worms. But on the other hand, it may work out as planned. I am just waiting to see what happens next.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


I think you need to redefine "major military power".

Well, to be fair, calling Germany a major military power today is not really correct. Generally, our military was not only constantly reduced during the last decade, it is also under-equipped and lacks financial support...

[Spiffor]

vee : the plan was precisely to show how France was isolated, and how much its little voice made the massively pro-war UN a joke.
It is obvious US/UK didn't get the 9 votes. Otherwise, they'd have gone for it, if only to have a diplomatic victory against France, and further legitimate the war to public opinions. The meadia wouldn't have stopped at the actual resolution. The media would have stopped at France stopping the international will.

But please continue to argue how you had the majority at the UNSC and didn't want to show it