Do you think the new US sponsored UN resolution will pass? And what do you think Pres Bushy will do if it doesn't?

[freegeeks]

I always have a good laugh when I see the posterboys in this forum yelling against the fact that France / Russia / China would use a veto against an US sponsored UN resolution.

The US has vetoed 38 resolutions to shield Israel. Many of these resolutions had to do with crimes against Palestinians civilians.
two examples

01 Apr. 1982 Condemned Israel mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions Protocols of civilized nations. Vote: 14 to 1
02 Apr. 1982 Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Moslem worshipers in the Haram al Sharif near Al Aqsa mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1

And now the flagwaving crowd is whining that the attitude of France is making the UN useless.
Yip -- the US certainly made a large contribution the last 30 years to make it useless.

Get a brain

 

[etech]

I'm just wondering how many people debating this have actually read the draft resolution?

Draft resolution on Iraq: text

The Security Council:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president,

"Recalling that in its Resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

"Recalling that its Resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

"Recalling that in its Resolution 1441 (2002) the Council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution would constitute a further material breach,

"Noting, in that context, that in its Resolution 1441 (2002), the Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,

"Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its Resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution,

"Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states,

"Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

"Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

"Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,

"Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

"Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002),

"Decides to remain seized of the matter."

 

[ToBeMe]

It will pass.............mainly due to Saddam's refusal to destruct the missiles which he has already indicated. Germany has already positioned itself to join the coalition when that occurs, and France will most likely also when Saddam "officially" makes the announcement. Russia and China will abstain and well, there ya' go........................

 

[SagaLore]

Hmm wonderful poll choices.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
It will not pass, the US will go ahead without UN support and no KK, most of the world will NOT rejoice as an overwhelming majority of the world is against a war with Irak at this point...

Next up is China invading Taiwan because they percieve them as a threat (possible links to whatever), UN support is no longer needed so it's all cool....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

I think you got my point anyway, you do not seem all that stupid...

But i will change that to "Next up is China going to war against Taiwan because they percieve them as a threat (possible links to whatever), UN support is no longer needed so it's all cool...."

Sorry the UN has officially become a toothless debating club. Saddam is using the UN as a tool on the world stage.

No, actually he isn't... It will take time to convince the world (and it should) that the only way to disarm Saddam is a war...

The UN is worthless? Okey, you usually ask for solutions, so i ask you, what would be better? Is it ok for any nation to wage war on any other nation because they can and THINK it is necessary? Or is that up to the US and the US alone?

The UN in its current form is worthless. I agree there needs to be a forum for nations to discuss issues. But when such an organization cant back up its own statements, it becomes worthless. Quite frankly after 12 years and 17 resolutions, iraq should not be an issue. I firmly beleive that if the UN security council stood together, Iraq would be disarming peacefully right now. However, Iraq has been able to to split the council, and the UN becomes his tool.

A couple major problems with the UN.


1. Funding. The US provides 25% of the UN budget, plus the UN building itself. This gives the US much leverage on its issues that it thinks important. If the US were to leave the UN(a real possiblity right now), the UN would be very by this.

2. Military. Pretty much the same as above, except the US provides about 75% of the military force.

Until more equitable solutions are found in funding and enforcement of resolutions, the UN will remain toothless.

1. What is the solution, a different way to pay for it? A percentage of the BNP is probably as just as it gets, almost all world funding is made this way...

2. Well, i cannot disagree there, but are really 75% of all UN soldiers American? or are they in fact US soldiers?

What you are basically saying is that there are enough countries who do not agree with eachother and therfore the US must act alone... that is pretty much like saying that the only way for the UN to become less toothless would be if everyone always agreed with the US, that is not going to happen...

Think about it for a second, if you were the leader of France or Germany, an overwhelming majority of the population don't want war, what would you do?

I heard on the radio this morning it was less than 40%. That's a majority?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

A poor leader is one who does not know right from wrong, and thus portrays these same views onto the people. In all seriousness, the france leadership is leading the blind just as saddam is. I guess you can say the same for the US too though, but I would rather be lead in a republic than in a dictatorship.

KK

And who decides what they should think is right or wrong? the us or themselves?

Being lead, and being forced to think a certain way is two different things. In Iraq, people are forced to think. In the U.S., people are lead because we are a Republic. But, our votes choose who becomes the leader. They don't get that in Iraq. So, WE decide what is right and wrong and that is reflected by our elected leaders.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

A poor leader is one who does not know right from wrong, and thus portrays these same views onto the people. In all seriousness, the france leadership is leading the blind just as saddam is. I guess you can say the same for the US too though, but I would rather be lead in a republic than in a dictatorship.

KK

And who decides what they should think is right or wrong? the us or themselves?

Being lead, and being forced to think a certain way is two different things. In Iraq, people are forced to think. In the U.S., people are lead because we are a Republic. But, our votes choose who becomes the leader. They don't get that in Iraq. So, WE decide what is right and wrong and that is reflected by our elected leaders.

Except the last election.

 

[snooker]

from looking at your poll options you do not agree with Bush on anything.

I am not voting in this poll since all the options are insulting to say the least

 

[StageLeft]

Depending on the next little while and if Iraq absolutely refuses to kill those missiles France may or may not abstain. Eitherway Bush is going on. The political aftermath if there is full UN backing will be fine and if the UN doesn't back it it won't be as good