No 2nd UN resolution

[paulewog]

/me wonders how in the world people complain about spending money on the military but have no problems at all with all the other spending programs in the last 8 years

If Saddam Hussein has nuclear or biological weapons, then he has NOT been a good little boy - he's just been hiding his badness.

 

[datan]

so, why did he withdraw the resolution? Wasn't he at least hoping for a "moral victory" if he could get a majority?

 

[paulewog]

Not that I know of, really. I don't know much about the whole resolution thing. I do know that the 1441 has already been broken by Hussein.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Resolution, schmesolution - UN has been a waste of prime real estate for at least 30 years. We now see what they're made of. M

 

[datan]

Yesterday at 10:46 PM paulewog said this in Post #23

Not that I know of, really. I don't know much about the whole resolution thing. I do know that the 1441 has already been broken by Hussein.

that is for the UNSC to determine--not you, not me, not Bush.

 

[seebs]

I would love to know if there is a relationship between planned security council votes and how recently the country last sold weaponry to Iraq.

 

[seebs]

Today at 09:09 PM datan said this in Post #25
that is for the UNSC to determine--not you, not me, not Bush.

They all agree Hussein broke 1441. The question is whether that justifies a war. The requirement was that Hussein hand over all weapons of mass destruction. Not claim there weren't any, and then have some things found, and say "oh, *those* prohibited weapons".

The burden of proof was on Iraq; they did not meet it. The resolution was clear on this; it is not the job of the inspectors to find, among 26 million people, a program that someone has spent billions of dollars making mobile and hard to find. It is the job of Iraq to provide convincing proof that all prohibited things were destroyed, and hand them over. Iraq is not doing that job, and failure to do that *immediately* is a breach of 1441.

The debate is just over how many "last" chances there are.

 

[Yekcidmij]

some people worship the UN. I think it's nothing but a debating society, im laymans terms(for people like me) the UN is a joke.

 

[stray bullet]

Yesterday at 05:36 PM datan said this in Post #22

so, why did he withdraw the resolution? Wasn't he at least hoping for a "moral victory" if he could get a majority?

Because France was going to veto it.

What's the point of holding a vote and ticking off some of your people if it won't count anyways?

 

[Morat]

Bush said during his press conference. He said it was "important that everyone show their cards".

The problem wasn't France's veto. It was the fact that France wouldn't have to veto it. "Yea" votes happen first. If the Bush/Blair proposal didn't get 9 "yea" votes, no veto...no "nay" votes would even happen.

And Bush wasn't getting 9 "yea" votes. He did not have 9 countries on the Security Council willing to back his amendment. I'd be shocked if he had six.

Bush didn't allow a vote, because he would have lost the vote, badly, and France would not even have cast it's veto.

 

[Oliver]

What's the point of holding a vote and ticking off some of your people if it won't count anyways?

 

If the resolution had been voted, then vetoed, the US could have claimed to have had the majority and France (and to a much lesser extent Germany, Belgium, etc..) would have been isolated. The US could have claimed to uphold the opinion of the majority of governments in the UNSC, and the accusations of unilateralism would have falled apart.

 

But the real point of voting the resolution, if it had a chance of having 9 votes, is to help Blair...

In fact, the announcement that France would veto the resolution must have been a real relief for him: his position would have been much more uncomfortable, had he been forced to withdraw the resolution without the threat of a veto.

 

[datan]

merci beaucoup, Chirac.

 

[stray bullet]

Yesterday at 12:45 PM Morat said this in Post #30

Bush said during his press conference. He said it was "important that everyone show their cards".

The problem wasn't France's veto. It was the fact that France wouldn't have to veto it. "Yea" votes happen first. If the Bush/Blair proposal didn't get 9 "yea" votes, no veto...no "nay" votes would even happen.

And Bush wasn't getting 9 "yea" votes. He did not have 9 countries on the Security Council willing to back his amendment. I'd be shocked if he had six.

Bush didn't allow a vote, because he would have lost the vote, badly, and France would not even have cast it's veto.

Please show me the 7 nations, just 7 that publically announced they were going to vote no.

The resolution was impossible as france was going to veto it.

 

[Morat]

All six of the "undecideds". After all, they were pushing a compromise far closer to France's position than America's. Frankly, you can't show 9 that would have voted "yes". Only four nations were marked as "yes" votes.

Sorry, Stray. Your golden boy withdrew because he had lost.

Seebs: 1441 doesn't support intervention without a second vote. Even our UN ambassador said so, when 1441 was passed. His comments were, quite specifically, that 1441 lacked automacity.

We changed out tune when Blix started outlaying his plan for inspections. Like in 1991, it started slow and began building. They weren't looking at having things going fully until the 27th of this month. We got the resolution passed, and then realized it was outside our timeframe for war.