Daschle's commments

[stray bullet]

Fox News reported earlier that some 10 members were likely to support it.

Sorry, but since no vote took place, you can't claim how many people would or would not have voted for it. There would likely be even more had France not threatened to veto it.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

... Jimmy Carter condemns this war...

Only if you are old enough to remember the Iran hostage crisis will you see the irony of Jimmy Carter commenting on foreign affairs.

If he were still president, those hostages would still be there...

 

[Morat]

That doesn't even make sense, stray. If anything, France's veto would make it more likely other countries would vote in our favor.

It would allow them to vote for us, incurr our goodwill, but not have to actually have their vote start a war. France could take the brunt of the blame.

Sorry, stray, I can claim how many people would have voted for it. Out of the 15 members of the council, 6 were opposed for certain. Three were definetly for. That left six countries. To win, the US needed all six. All six of those countries are on record as supporting an extension of inspections, backed by a specific list of benchmarks. (By "on record" I mean "proposed the stupid thing").

If you got the impression that we had 10 votes, I suggest you check your BS detector, because you got had.

 

[datan]

but I can wonder why no vote took place...was it because Bush couldn't even get nine votes?

 

[datan]

Today at 07:26 PM Morat said this in Post #23

That doesn't even make sense, stray. If anything, France's veto would make it more likely other countries would vote in our favor.

It would allow them to vote for us, incurr our goodwill, but not have to actually have their vote start a war. France could take the brunt of the blame.

ah yes... how I love international politics. Why do all the dirty work when there's somebody dumb enough and loud enough to do it?

Chirac should have just kept quiet until the actual vote.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 02:26 PM Morat said this in Post #23

That doesn't even make sense, stray. If anything, France's veto would make it more likely other countries would vote in our favor.

Absolutely wrong. France vetoing it would make countries ask "Why bother taking the risk ticking off portions of our population?". No point in sticking your next out fror nothing.

It would allow them to vote for us, incurr our goodwill, but not have to actually have their vote start a war. France could take the brunt of the blame.

And in Pakistan? Everyone there would love to give the US permission to attack Iraq? That's absurd.

Sorry, stray, I can claim how many people would have voted for it. Out of the 15 members of the council, 6 were opposed for certain. Three were definetly for. That left six countries. To win, the US needed all six. All six of those countries are on record as supporting an extension of inspections, backed by a specific list of benchmarks. (By "on record" I mean "proposed the stupid thing").

6? Russia, France, Germany, Syria and China were the only ones opposed to it. Pakistan was sticking by 'no support', but we have no idea who they would have supported in the end.

If you got the impression that we had 10 votes, I suggest you check your BS detector, because you got had.

Got the impression we had 10 votes? I suggest you check your reality detector BECAUSE VOTES WERE NEVER CAST.

Unless you can quote 7 nations who said they would have not supported it, France veto or not, you've got nothing.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 02:26 PM datan said this in Post #24

but I can wonder why no vote took place...was it because Bush couldn't even get nine votes?

Show me 7 confirmed no votes.

Bush could have gotten 9 votes and had it get vetoed. All this would do is made the action look even less legal. Besides, not that many countries would have supported sticking out their necks for nothing.

 

[datan]

well...if you prefer to believe in your version of events, I guess I can't stop you.

All this would do is made the action look even less legal.

so you're saying that you think it isn't legal now (not to put words in your mouth of course) ...

 

[datan]

Today at 07:33 PM stray bullet said this in Post
Bush could have gotten 9 votes and had it get vetoed. All this would do is made the action look even less legal. Besides, not that many countries would have supported sticking out their necks for nothing.

well...why didn't he get the 9 votes, and let France veto anyway? He was trying to get his "moral majority" wasn't he? Unless...maybe it never existed in the first place?

OK...let's say a government votes according to the wishes of its population (not too unreasonable assumption?). What you're saying by "sticking out their necks" is that most countries' people do not agree with your resolution. So if we presume that the government doesn't try to usurp the people's will in their countries, that unpopularity at home would translate to 'nay' votes at the UNSC...

hm...I think there are some logical flaws in your reasonings.

The simplest reasoning is that Bush couldn't get his majority therefore he dropped the resolution.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 02:37 PM datan said this in Post #28

well...if you prefer to believe in your version of events, I guess I can't stop you.



so you're saying that you think it isn't legal now (not to put words in your mouth of course) ...

No, apparently have reading comprehension problems.

I said the action is legal. However, it might have appeared less legal had another UN resolution been voted on and vetoed. It's not a matter of if or if not... but simply how it appears.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 02:41 PM datan said this in Post #29

well...why didn't he get the 9 votes, and let France veto anyway? He was trying to get his "moral majority" wasn't he? Unless...maybe it never existed in the first place?

Already explained it, it would make military action appear less legal.

OK...let's say a government votes according to the wishes of its population (not too unreasonable assumption?). What you're saying by "sticking out their necks" is that most countries' people do not agree with your resolution. So if we presume that the government doesn't try to usurp the people's will in their countries, that unpopularity at home would translate to 'nay' votes at the UNSC...

hm...I think there are some logical flaws in your reasonings.

No, you are making assumptions on my post and then arguing them. Let's examine:
"OK...let's say a government votes according to the wishes of its population"
-- I never said they do.
"What you're saying by "sticking out their necks" is that most countries' people do not agree with your resolution."
-- I never said nor implied that. I did suggest that by voting one way,you can tick off a PORTION of your population. Why alienate that portion needlessly?
"hm...I think there are some logical flaws in your reasonings."

No, what you see is flaws in your own reasonings you try to make up for me.
I suggest you stick to arguing my points, rather than the ones you make up for me.

The simplest reasoning is that Bush couldn't get his majority therefore he dropped the resolution.

And the facts are Bush couldn't pass the resolution no matter what, because of France.

 

[datan]

Today at 08:00 PM stray bullet said this in Post #31

And the facts are Bush couldn't pass the resolution no matter what, because of France.

sure...let me use your argument now: since there was no vote, France NEVER vetoed anyone.

So you can't bring that in.

So why didn't Bush push for a vote, when he promised two weeks ago that "everyone would show their cards?"

No--you can't bring France in since they never vetoed anything.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 03:06 PM datan said this in Post #32



sure...let me use your argument now: since there was no vote, France NEVER vetoed anyone.

So you can't bring that in.

So why didn't Bush push for a vote, when he promised two weeks ago that "everyone would show their cards?"

No--you can't bring France in since they never vetoed anything.

Wrong, France said they would veto it. Just as China, Russia, Germany and Syria all publically announced their opposition to the resolution.
Other nations announced publically their support of it.
However, other nations made no public announcements, which is why neither you nor I can suggest which way they were going to vote. This is why your claims that the resolution would not pass is wrong. You need 7 annoncements of opposition, and you ain't got it.

 

[datan]

your argument is that was NO vote so we don't know what would have happened.

 

[stray bullet]

Datan, you were the one trying claim what would happen, not I.

I've been the one telling you that since there was no vote you can't claim it would have been a loss or not. It's nice to see you finally agree with me.

 

[datan]

I'm not agreeing with you.

Your argument is that there was no vote, so we cannot speculate what each country would have voted, therefore we cannot speculate that the US would have lost.

That being the case (using your argument), why did the US yank the resolution off [remember there was no vote so you can't use what France would or would not have done]

 

[stray bullet]

i never argued why the US did it. You and I both know you can't make the claims you did when you never had an offical announcement from the other countries on which way they would go.

I did, however, suggest a reason why the US might have dropped, the reason they say, that France said they'd veto it no matter what.

 

[datan]

but wasn't plan B to seek a "moral majority"? why was it dropped? Because you couldn't get a "moral majority"?

 

[stray bullet]

datan, we JUST went over this.

 

[datan]

No we didn't,
Given that France had been loudly posturing to block the vote, the administration's plan was to go ahead with the vote anyway, and hope to secure a majority. Why was this plan dropped?