US losing faith in Canada

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because a no vote by any of the five permanent members is a veto.

WRONG
You can vote no, it's not an automatic veto, the veto nulifies the resolution, a no vote is simply to disagree with it.

Why don't you name all nine countries in favor?

Why don't you name the all 10 against?

Ok, so it was a request. They still didn't follow it.

And why didn't they?

Even as missles sail over Kuwait, traling 150+ miles and more, Blix says Iraq used nor had illeagal weapons, despite the fact that all missles that travel beyound 93 miles are prohibited.

[Tingkai]

What gets me is that you get people complaining about France saying that it would use its veto no matter what, meanwhile the Bush administration was saying that it would go to war with or without the UN, in other words it would go to war no matter what.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Willem
He was reacting out of principle of course. He simply didn't believe that war was a viable option at that time. It wouldn't matter to them whether the US had the votes or not, their veto would stand regardless.

Did you write this with a strait face?

Principle and France's actions do not equate as far as Iraq is concerned.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Even as missles sail over Kuwait, traling 150+ miles and more, Blix says Iraq used nor had illeagal weapons, despite the fact that all missles that travel beyound 93 miles are prohibited.

As I've mentioned in another thread, how do we know that those weren't part of the ones that were in the process of being destroyed just before the war? We don't even know where they were launched from, it could have been very close by. So it's ludicrous to say they were illegal until we have more proof. People are clearly jumping the gun on this issue.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Did you write this with a strait face?

Principle and France's actions do not equate as far as Iraq is concerned.

I see no reason why it would be anything else. It didn't matter to France whether the US had the votes, since they, the Russians and possibly China were also going to veto. So it didn't make any difference to them; there was no political advantage for doing so.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
WRONG
You can vote no, it's not an automatic veto, the veto nulifies the resolution, a no vote is simply to disagree with it.

Any resolution requires the consensus of the five permanent members. That means either a yes vote or an abstention. A no vote from any of the pernament members is a veto. From the UN website, "Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members."

Why don't you name the all 10 against?

I never said there were ten against. I said that the US didn't have enough votes to carry the resolution. China, Germany, France, Russia, and Mexico were all going to vote no. Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan (at least) were still undecided, but were leaning towards no. Even if every other member voted yes, that's only eight votes, which is one short of the nine needed.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I never said there were ten against. I said that the US didn't have enough votes to carry the resolution. China, Germany, France, Russia, and Mexico were all going to vote no. Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan (at least) were still undecided, but were leaning towards no. Even if every other member voted yes, that's only eight votes, which is one short of the nine needed.

From what I've read, the Bush administration screwed up with Russia and Mexico. The Bushies thought they had both wrapped up. The failure to get support from both countries was a major diplomatic defeat.

[Willem]

I just saw a story on CBC with some recent comments by Cellucci where he once again mentioned how Canada was indirectly supporting the campaign, because of our anti-terrorist activities in the region, than most of the current coalition members. So relations between our countries can't be all that damaged if he feels compelled to emphasise that.

[notyoueither]

Well, gee.

We have boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and the Navy is patrolling the Gulf. I was wondering how long it would take for him to realise that.

[muppet]

I thought Canada was involved since Gulf I, and Afghanistan.

With the exception of US, Britain and Australia, doesn't Canada do more than the rest of the coalition of the willing combined?

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We have boots on the ground in Afghanistan...

And blood.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Spiffor
to have developed predjudices on Albertans

You should see yer doctor, maybe he can give you a shot for that.

I'd would n't judge any group based on the opinions in
this forum. The west (and Ontario) are only represented
by the not so extreme left wing and one american troll
running a canadian flag.

As to the question, "US losing faith in Canada" who cares, they treat us like **** whether we're good or
bad in their eyes . Makes absolutly NO differience
whatsoever.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by muppet
With the exception of US, Britain and Australia, doesn't Canada do more than the rest of the coalition of the willing combined?

Apparently we've even got troops inside Iraq, according to reports coming out today. They're on officer exchange programs with Britain and Australia, though only in logistical positions, we're assured.

More goddamned fence-sitting from our federal government; if they were serious about upholding some moral principle, those troops would be ordered home, no matter whose command they're under. No, I'm becoming more convinced by the day that Chretien is pandering to anti-American sentiments in Canada while at the same time doing just enough in & around Iraq that he can play a "See? We've got troops at risk," card with Bush at some point down the line. Mother****er .

We should be there, dammit. If it were our asses in a sling, the USA would be there for us in a heartbeat. Now the USA/UK/Aus are out to rid the world of a murderous tyrant, and we sit on our hands in pursuit of, what, exactly? Pacifism? Looking the other way? Or that great benevolent agency, the UN? The same body with Libya as head of its human rights agency and Iraq as head of its disarmament commission?

[KrazyHorse]

Bull**** (on the last paragraph).

We've never started a war. The US has started way too many. If and when the US is attacked, we'll be there. That's what Afghanistan is/was about. That doesn't mean we should jump on what adventure they've decided to go on this week.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ozz
I'd would n't judge any group based on the opinions in
this forum. The west (and Ontario) are only represented
by the not so extreme left wing and one american troll
running a canadian flag.

You aren't around much, are you?