Well, George W. Bush has given his address to the nation about 30 minutes ago at the time of my posting this thread. Personally I was impressed. He was well composed, and he delivered his message well. Saddam Hussein has 48 hours to get out of Iraq, along with his sons.
So you anti-war people, your “cause” is lost. Time is up, and the right thing to do in this case, will get done. France might as well get over it. There’s nothing changing things now.
I hope in time you will all see that this isn’t an evil deed, that the United States isn’t an evil country, and that George Bush isn’t the war-monger that your blinded biased views make him out to be.
Resolution 1441 has given the United States, Britain, and Spain (along with others) all the authority they need. Iraq hasn’t complied and the Iraqi gov’t will pay for it. So again I say, there’s nothing any of you can do, so stop complaining about it. I for one, am glad that vote for a new resolution wasn’t voted on. France isn’t even giving anything a chance. They deserved not to have the opportunity to veto anything.
By: Arthur - 18th March 2003 at 21:20
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.
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th March 2003 at 20:06
Originally posted by GarryB
“I for one, am glad that vote for a new resolution wasn’t voted on. France isn’t even giving anything a chance. ”The reason it didn’t go to a vote was because the US knew it wouldn’t even get the votes it was hoping for, let alone change the minds of the other three veto capable members.
I’m not angry… I expected as much, though I thought the US might have put a bit more effort into bribing or forcing the other nonpermanent members of the security council to comply with the US’s demands.
Wonder how this effects British participation, as Blair always said he needed a second res before he’d act.
most professional analysists agree that France didn’t leave any room….so i guess Garry you are beyond professional… 😀
By: Glenn - 18th March 2003 at 12:43
Wonder how this effects British participation, as Blair always said he needed a second res before he’d act.
I think at the Azores summit he pretty much made up his mind. Besides one of his senior cabinet members has already resigned in protest! So I guess its GO for the UK forces..
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th March 2003 at 03:01
“I for one, am glad that vote for a new resolution wasn’t voted on. France isn’t even giving anything a chance. “
The reason it didn’t go to a vote was because the US knew it wouldn’t even get the votes it was hoping for, let alone change the minds of the other three veto capable members.
I’m not angry… I expected as much, though I thought the US might have put a bit more effort into bribing or forcing the other nonpermanent members of the security council to comply with the US’s demands.
Wonder how this effects British participation, as Blair always said he needed a second res before he’d act.
Sign In
March 18, 2003 at 1:49 am