US one vote away from majority vote on Resolution 2.

[StageLeft]

So says CNN I do hope they get it! Veto or not it will be very very meaningful.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How so? Do you believe countries are converted to Bushes ideology by force of argument about principles?

 

[murphy55d]

It is all moot though since France will veto it, right?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
How so? Do you believe countries are converted to Bushes ideology by force of argument about principles?

How so what exactly...?

My thoughts are that Bush is going in and I'd love to see it with UN backing, since it will happen anyway.

It is all moot though since France will veto it, right?

Functionally it's moot if france or russia veto, but politically it isn't - it will show france and russia underminding the will of the majority.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: murphy55d
It is all moot though since France will veto it, right?

The point is to say that the majority of the Security Council agrees with the latest UN Resolution. Even if France, Russia, Germany, or China, use their veto vote, the U.S. will point to the overall Security Council vote as proof that they are not acting solely alone.

Basically, its a put your card on the table and let it be known where you really stand thing.

 

[desy]

The will of the majority?
Give me a break!
France has used its Veto unsupported 5 times the US? 52 Russia 79. . .
The majority of veto votes the US has used have benn to defeat UN resolutions regading Isreal and thats a fact!
So who is the most disruptive force in the middle east?

 

[Dari]

france will veto and sit back and watch the show. Once it's over, they'll be isolated.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
How so? Do you believe countries are converted to Bushes ideology by force of argument about principles?

How so what exactly...?

Ask yourself why countries are doing this. The US will coerece the council (as any country would if it had the power) to get what it wants. I find the fact that the council has so far resisted more siginificant. France of course is exerting it's influence too, but a majority vote in this case just shows who is the best at whipping other countries into line and not an indication of legitimacy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari
france will veto and sit back and watch the show. Once it's over, they'll be isolated.

Of course, it hasnt occured to you that oblitering many years of diplomacy in so cavalier manner could result in the reverse. When you dismiss the world, it may eventually dismiss you.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
How so? Do you believe countries are converted to Bushes ideology by force of argument about principles?

How so what exactly...?

Ask yourself why countries are doing this. The US will coerece the council (as any country would if it had the power) to get what it wants. I find the fact that the council has so far resisted more siginificant. France of course is exerting it's influence too, but a majority vote in this case just shows who is the best at whipping other countries into line and not an indication of legitimacy.

You've just described about 99.9% of how all votes at the UN go. What's your point?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
How so? Do you believe countries are converted to Bushes ideology by force of argument about principles?

How so what exactly...?

Ask yourself why countries are doing this. The US will coerece the council (as any country would if it had the power) to get what it wants. I find the fact that the council has so far resisted more siginificant. France of course is exerting it's influence too, but a majority vote in this case just shows who is the best at whipping other countries into line and not an indication of legitimacy.

You've just described about 99.9% of how all votes at the UN go. What's your point?

he must think that all countries vote their conscience. hahahahahahahaha

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
How so? Do you believe countries are converted to Bushes ideology by force of argument about principles?

How so what exactly...?

Ask yourself why countries are doing this. The US will coerece the council (as any country would if it had the power) to get what it wants. I find the fact that the council has so far resisted more siginificant. France of course is exerting it's influence too, but a majority vote in this case just shows who is the best at whipping other countries into line and not an indication of legitimacy.

You've just described about 99.9% of how all votes at the UN go. What's your point?

Of course I have. I know that. My question is that in this context, how does that fact make a majority vote very very significant? That we wield the carrot and stick better? I could agree with that, but I am not sure that was Skoorbs point. Only he could answer that.

 

[StageLeft]

The will of the majority?
Give me a break!
France has used its Veto unsupported 5 times the US? 52 Russia 79. . .
The majority of veto votes the US has used have benn to defeat UN resolutions regading Isreal and thats a fact!
So who is the most disruptive force in the middle east?

Well this is more significant than those, but that doesn't really have any bearing on this MUCH publicized situation here even if the US has done scores of vetos in the past.

Ask yourself why countries are doing this. The US will coerece the council (as any country would if it had the power) to get what it wants. I find the fact that the council has so far resisted more siginificant. France of course is exerting it's influence too, but a majority vote in this case just shows who is the best at whipping other countries into line and not an indication of legitimacy.

Regardless of why they vote how they do their votes do still count and they do represent their own nations and if there are 9 votes it will be the will of the majority.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The will of the majority?
Give me a break!
France has used its Veto unsupported 5 times the US? 52 Russia 79. . .
The majority of veto votes the US has used have benn to defeat UN resolutions regading Isreal and thats a fact!
So who is the most disruptive force in the middle east?

Well this is more significant than those, but that doesn't really have any bearing on this MUCH publicized situation here even if the US has done scores of vetos in the past.

Ask yourself why countries are doing this. The US will coerece the council (as any country would if it had the power) to get what it wants. I find the fact that the council has so far resisted more siginificant. France of course is exerting it's influence too, but a majority vote in this case just shows who is the best at whipping other countries into line and not an indication of legitimacy.

Regardless of why they vote how they do their votes do still count and they do represent their own nations and if there are 9 votes it will be the will of the majority.

Using this criteria, Saddam is the peoples choice of President. No matter why they voted for him, it was the will of the majority.

 

[StageLeft]

majority vote very very significant? That we wield the carrot and stick better? I could agree with that, but I am not sure that was Skoorbs point. Only he could

It makes it very very significant because if they don't get a majority vote the UN can accurately say - and the world will see - that the US coalition is acting on its own behalf outside of the UN and it is not a UN supported matter. That is bad "PR". If on the other hand the majority supports it - even if there is a veto - when the US coalition attacks they can say "Well this isn't UN endorsed, but the majority of the UN security council does agree with it. France is tieing our hands and excercising its own miniority opinion on the majority." Then the table is turned towards more negatively towards france.

 

[StageLeft]

Using this criteria, Saddam is the peoples choice of President. No matter why they voted for him, it was the will of the majority.

No. Saddamn was the only one on the ballet and the US isn't murdering the Mexico citizens to get them to vote how they are likely to vote. Saddamn is NOT the true majority leader, since they don't want him there, but this UN election will not be rigged. In fact 99% of Mexicans could hate the idea of the war, but if their leader votes Pro resolution although Mexico's will is not being excercised the legitimate mexican vote DOES represent itself appropriately.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Using this criteria, Saddam is the peoples choice of President. No matter why they voted for him, it was the will of the majority.

No. Saddamn was the only one on the ballet and the US isn't murdering the Mexico citizens to get them to vote how they are likely to vote. Saddamn is NOT the true majority leader, since they don't want him there, but this UN election will not be rigged. In fact 99% of Mexicans could hate the idea of the war, but if their leader votes Pro resolution although Mexico's will is not being excercised the legitimate mexican vote DOES represent itself appropriately.

If you believe saying to a country that if you do not vote for us we will cut off aid, starve you and throw you to the wolves (which we did to Yemen) carries any moral weight, then I leave you to your conviction. Numbers are an empty thing here, no matter how it goes. Most people will understand.

 

[StageLeft]

I think the US/UK knows this which is why they consider it so important to get a majority vote even though the French have assured everyone they will veto (possibly they won't, but they do look like they will).

Looks bad for US: Attacks alone and resolution is destroyed in the UN.
Looks better for US: Attacks alone because a few members of the UN tried to screw a resolution that the rest wanted.

 

[StageLeft]

If you believe saying to a country that if you do not vote for us we will cut off aid, starve you and throw you to the wolves (which we did to Yemen) carries any moral weight, then I leave you to your conviction. Numbers are an empty thing here, no matter how it goes. Most people will understand.

I think you're looking too far into it...Mexico and these other pissant nations were given real worthwhile votes in the security council. Whether they are responsible with the votes or should have been given them in the first place is a non-issue - what is an issue is that they have real meaningful votes - and if the majority of the council votes for a new resolution then that is majority will.

 

[lupy]

Remember "UN is irrelevant", so who cares?

 

[Alistar7]

maybe the tide of evidence like this has finally turned a few heads. Of course there will still be those that read that article and dismiss the al Qaeda presence in Iraq, actively carrying out terrorist activities with help and support from Iran as well. France's business interests, especially recent illegal arm sales to Iraq, make their opinion worthless in my opinion. They should shut their pie holes and have a seat and thank god they are not a TARGET for this reason. They can veto all they want, the fact remains the majority of the nations in the UN support our position. I personally feel the veto power should be rescinded, make it a majority vote. I agree the US has used it's veto far too often to save Israel from being "condemend" for it's policies and practices, don't think this hasn't played a role in how we are viewed by the rest of the middle east. Why do we go to such lengths to protect Israel? why not hold them to the same standard? Is there ANYTHING significant they offer us in return?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: lupy
Remember "UN is irrelevant", so who cares?

That's so wrong - that I don't know where to start. Try searching for the "The end of the UN" thread for starters. That point of view has been debated (unsuccessfully IMHO) many times already. There are plenty of other threads also.

Good luck,

Andy

 

[drewshin]

heh heh, the money is starting to talk now. it's a good thing we've got a lot of it to spread around.

 

[Alistar7]

Agreed, it's pretty sad when we have to basically buy the votes we need with aid packages, etc... Too bad the French already made their own sweet deal, with SADDAM.......


Where was all the uproar about the sanctity of the UN when France was RECENTLY selling arms to Iraq? Why should the Us or anyone else listen to THEM considering they can't even abide by the rules. More and more every day I am convinced we need to add France as a target......

 

[AU Tiger]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari
france will veto and sit back and watch the show. Once it's over, they'll be isolated.

Of course, it hasnt occured to you that oblitering many years of diplomacy in so cavalier manner could result in the reverse. When you dismiss the world, it may eventually dismiss you.

I highly doubt it the world would dismiss the United States. The United States is taking the charge. Not, necessarily a New World Order, but the point it is clear that there is really only one remaining Superpower and most countries know it. I believe China is the only country left to give the United States any concern diplomatically.