Printable View
haha
There's nothing to be sorry about ;). I should be more sorry probably. I seem to have this problem pretty often, but mostly I don't explain. I mostly get stuck with the misunderstandings, or people just ignore my post. I have to be more clear and to the point I guess. Ow well... maybe tomorrow...
btw
Congrats with yer 400 posts ;) I have erm... two to go.
heh, I see you have made your 400...
gratz
8)
Lol Bugsthecat
More seriously there is no point at debating why the war, it's real for
-the iraqui civilian that got shot (btw cnn barely shows images of hospitals in iraq while skynews does ... another example of manipulation)
-the iraqui soldiers bombed back to the stone age
-the iranians civilians killed
-the british soldiers killed by friendly fire
-the american soldier bombed(?) shot at whatever
THAT is a reality: the war is there so you can accept it and deal with it or argue about the sex of the angels and fall like the byzantiens...
To do war it takes more then 1 country to do it; they had at least to be 2 and in the iraq case even more. What this whole thing only shows is that all these leaders have failed. From chirac till bush ( No i won't capitalize either name they don't deserve it) they are both failure because they could not come to an agreement.
SO they failed ok so now what. can the us alone reconstruct iraq or at least respect the rules of war. Yes because even during war there are ruels that even the nazi respected. one of them is to take charge of the civilians they control food, water, power ... this is yet to be done .
Can the us do it alone i doubt it for the us economy is in the gutter, the major tax cut will pass and the gov will double its debt ... so no, economically it doesn't make any sense. they will need the help of international comunity
The internationnal comunity does not like the idea of boycotting any country's prodcut because they can be the next in line. Plus it's not like if the cokes are all made in the states and shiped over in europe. Same thing for the french fries, for the wine it is different but don't worry , the japanese will be more then happy to get it ....
the boycott is really stupid especially coming from the us because there are a bunch of countries that have been boycoting you for ages and you are simply closing your eyes. Oh but no there is nothing to do about that because the only products the us import from there is oil. In case you haven't gotten it i'm talking about saudi arabia, koweit, all of these countries. YEap, there there are major compaingns against coke and mcdonalds ( they even had to invent the Mc arabia... i dure don't have that one in my local mickedies) ....
So if you are so keen on boycotting countrries, please do boycott the arabic gulf countries for they have been doing it for years and they keep on doing it...
i think most of you are missing the argument. u notice no one is calling for the boycott of germany or russia? its not that france was aginst the war, its the fact they left no alternative to it. the us left no alternitive for "immediate disarmament". they wanted the NBC's removed NOW. that what 1441 was about. us said it would go to war if it wasnt enforced. russia, uk, and germany all begain offering iraq and the us deals trying to compramise. what does france do? it announces it will VETO any action that allowes for anykind of military action, or even if it has a deadline for disarmament, effectivly saying, no matter what iraq does, it will no have any more punishment from the un. by doing that, france KILLED any hope of a deal, hell, france vetoed the UKs(i think it was) deal before iraq did. the US left open a chance(albiet not a very likly one) for a deal, france didnt. that is why americans are so upset with the france. the us did was put a deadline on diplomacy by saying you do NOW your way or we will will do it our way. the french killed diplomacy by saying we will not allow any changes that allow any more pressure to be braught against iraq.
I don't think we are missing the arguement. I think your time-line is ****ed up...
On March 10th, President Chirac of France announced on French television that France would not support any measure at the UN that would lead to military action against Iraq until the weapons inspectors said they could do no more on the ground .
He said that he did not believe the resolution had sufficient support to be passed by the Security Council. If it would, France would use its veto (De Villepin: "We find it paradoxical and contradictory to resort to force while we're making progress on disarmament ").
Hours EARLIER, Ivanov had said the same.
It was France following the Russians.
Start boycotting wodka, guys.Quote:
BBC
France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.
sorry your wrong. that was for tha ONE vote with the march 17th deadline. russia and germany both said it would consider a deadline with sufficant safegaurds agasint fighting. france said it would allow no war under any conditions.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the war, Worm Wood is correct.Quote:
Originally posted here by Worm Wood
sorry your wrong. that was for tha ONE vote with the march 17th deadline. russia and germany both said it would consider a deadline with sufficant safegaurds agasint fighting. france said it would allow no war under any conditions.
France tried to backtrack afterwards claiming that their comments were mistranslated.
What a load of b*llocks. As Germany didn't have a veto, their position wasn't so important, but given their constitution, you can understand why they are opposed to war under any circumstances.
China would have supported or abstained; Russia would have abstained, providing that its oil interests in Iraq were protected. That deal was in the diplomatic pipeline i.e. the US would have agreed to a clause/understanding that outstanding debts & contracts would be honoured. So this is about oil after all.
What the French were trying to cynically exploit was to delay any militiary action for months, as they knew that the conditions would then make it very difficult to fight a war.
France could then extend its influence in Iraq and sign a few more lucrative contracts with a loathsome regime.
France acting out of principle? You must be joking.
I'm sorry but as Negative said the veto comes from Russia and France just follow it. France just said that they will veto any new resolution. US wants to make a 2nd resolution but stop after France telling that. I don't know if France would have veto this 2nd resolution since that did not arrived (that depend of what there would have been inside).
So, to get this straight... I was talking about the March 7 "Resolution" (the one with the March 17-deadline), while you were talking about the Februari 24 "Resolution"... right?
OK then.. about the Februari 24 "Resolution"...(the proposed resolution by the US and Britain, that is)
On February 24, France, Germany, and Russia submitted an informal counter-resolution to the Security Council that states that inspections should be extended and intensified to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort." Belgium 'forces' the three countries to des-informalize (?) the counter-resolution, and really put it down at the Security Council.
A veto wasn't mentioned at this time as far as I know...
The first mentioning of using a veto is March 7, when France clearly stated that it would veto the MARCH 7 resolution.
Two days before that, the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany release a joint declaration stating that they will 'not allow' a resolution authorising military action to pass the UN security council. Doesn't 'not allow' not mean they'd veto it? France AND Russia?
So, unless I'm wrong: if you're talking about a French veto, you're talking about the March 7-"Resolution". A resolution that would be vetoed by Russia as well.
And if you're talking about the February 22-"Resolution"... could you guide me to a source where a French veto is mentioned? A veto that wouldn't be backed up by Russia?
Lets keep this in some prospective here...so France and Russia vetoed our security council vote… so what we have vetoed something around 20 votes (mostly censures of third world dictators that we support like Israel). As the aftermath unfolds it turns out that France and Germany and Russia where right there are no non-conventional weapons in Iraq. So from bushes point of view we did the right thing by going early if some resolution was passed that let the inspectors do the job he would have never gotten his war.
We should all prepare for round three next ... Syria.