Garry is right, Vortex. If France would have been the country to veto the war-resolution, i think the Axis of Chickenhawks would have pushed the resolution anyway. The French veto could then be used indefinately to accuse the French of blowing the whole thing – and no matter what your stance in this, rightfully so because it would indeed have been an action of only France blocking the internationally wanted justification for war. Now it seems that France is just an easy scapegoat to hide the total lack of diplomatic skills within the Bush administration.

The reason why the resolution wasn’t even brought up, was that it could not even get the 9/15 majority vote in the UNSC. This would mean that France didn’t have to use it’s veto right, because the resolution wouldn’t have made it anyway. And this would then not only imply that the world is generally against this war (which it appears to be, also considering the public opinion of a number of the pro-war countries), but also that Amero-British diplomacy has failed in gathering a broad coalition.

The way I see it, Bush (and Blair even more so) did make an effort to get large international support for their cause. I happen to think that it’s mostly due to the total lack of diplomatic skills amongst the Bush administration that this has failed. You can blame it all on the French if you like, but that doesn’t do away with the fact that Germany, Russia, China, the non-permanent members of the UNSC and quite a number of other countries are not behind this war.