TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Since I'm feeling it
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Since I'm feeling it

U.S gets 2nd resolution.

WTF???

I wouldn't be so sure. They may get the 9 votes, but they're going to be struggling to convince France and Russia not to use their veto.

The Security Council countries and where they stand as I understand it:

For:

US
UK
Spain
Bulgaria

Against:

France
Russia
Germany
Syria

Undecided:

Mexico (but likely to vote for the US if only for economic reasons)
Chile (ditto)
China (against a war, but may abstain from voting rather than using their veto)
Angola (Aprehensive about a war, but could be swung relatively easily with proper evidence)
Cameroon (Ditto)
Pakistan (Ditto)
Guinea (Ditto)


So I dunno. The US and UK face an uphill battle I think - not that it's going to stop them from going to war of course.

Nonetheless, even if we assume that Mexico and Chile vote with the US and China abstains from voting (neither of which is guaranteed) the US still need to convince three of the remaining four (Angola, Cameroon, Pakistan and Guinea) to vote for their resolution and hope that neither France nor Russia use their veto.

It's pretty tough to see it happening, but if any country could get it passed it'd have to be the US I suppose.

It'll die by veto ... I don't see any way it'll make it past France and Russia.

Remember my prognostication on Turkey....

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ... So I dunno. The US and UK face an uphill battle I think - not that it's going to stop them from going to war of course. Nonetheless, even if we assume that Mexico and Chile vote with the US and China abstains from voting (neither of which is guaranteed) the US still need to convince three of the remaining four (Angola, Cameroon, Pakistan and Guinea) to vote for their resolution and hope that neither France nor Russia use their veto. It's pretty tough to see it happening, but if any country could get it passed it'd have to be the US I suppose.

but like i said somewhere else - is the UN still relevant? the UK and US can fight this alone...whether they should or not is all thats being debated. they chose to talk to UN in an attempt to make things run more smoothly. Russia was claiming a no veto, and France may veto, yet that means very little. the US and UK are going to war by 17th barring a miracle, and the world will do little to intervene besides holding poster boards....|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but like i said somewhere else - is the UN still relevant?

I bet that's making you loads of friends in Sweden.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I wouldn't be so sure. They may get the 9 votes, but they're going to be struggling to convince France and Russia not to use their veto. The Security Council countries and where they stand as I understand it: For: US UK Spain Bulgaria Against: France Russia Germany Syria Undecided: Mexico (but likely to vote for the US if only for economic reasons) Chile (ditto) China (against a war, but may abstain from voting rather than using their veto) Angola (Aprehensive about a war, but could be swung relatively easily with proper evidence) Cameroon (Ditto) Pakistan (Ditto) Guinea (Ditto) So I dunno. The US and UK face an uphill battle I think - not that it's going to stop them from going to war of course. Nonetheless, even if we assume that Mexico and Chile vote with the US and China abstains from voting (neither of which is guaranteed) the US still need to convince three of the remaining four (Angola, Cameroon, Pakistan and Guinea) to vote for their resolution and hope that neither France nor Russia use their veto. It's pretty tough to see it happening, but if any country could get it passed it'd have to be the US I suppose.

OK, I think you did something wrong or this are just new news.I thought that it was France, Russia, Germany, and China that were AGAINST. Also, I never saw Syria against so if anything, that'll be an ADD up. And, I read that Chile says that the time that the US/Britain gave Iraq (10 days) Is not sufficient, and that he does nto want war either, and that the US has to give the amount of whatever chemicals, and weapons to be destroyed. And Mexico is standing just as Chile.

Okay Iron, I assume u read it? France just proclaimed it'll veto any resolution proposed by the US and Britain. I think Chriac definitely went too far with that. Apparently he's not aware of the disastrous consequences such a behaviour will cause. Boys and girls, what we are currently witnessing is a hitorical change of today's world order! I really thought this opposition to the US position was a temporary ego-boost(France, the new European "boss") or avertion from domestic problems(Germany..) but as it seems to me now, those countries along with China and Russia USE this very crisis to change the uniliteral world order that's been established since the 1989 collapse of the Sovjets. This is NOT about morale or economy, it's a cynical DANGEROUS game that is played behind the mask of the current Iraqi debate. To be honest I'm pretty worried about that. Give me the USA as the world police any day.

USA police any day with BUSH on top? then we are even worst then what you are proclaiming.

No, BUSH is NOT on top, my friend. It's his administration which also consists of intelligent, open minded and responsible politicians and advisers. I don't really like this trendy Bush-hysteria...it's not that simple at all. There's definitely no black and white (intelligent, caring Europe vs. idiot greedy Bush) situation as suggested by many America-critics. And I repeat: Yes I prefer a clear world order with the world as a globalized multicultural village (totally cooperating in fields of politics and economy education and science) with the USA as world sheriff. Simply because the UN has proved itself impotent and hypocritical, mainly navigated by self interests. An insecure world (terrorism anyone?) requires a stable hard rule and the USA as the leading democracy is not always perfect but definitely the lesser evil.
But okay, people who're happy about the current changes will soon enough regret this dangerous move. I see Bin Laden laughing his ass off at the collapse of the trans-atlantic alliance and the upcoming chaos. Basically what us Westerns have started is a process of self destruction.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant No, BUSH is NOT on top, my friend. It's his administration which also consists of intelligent, open minded and responsible politicians and advisers. I don't really like this trendy Bush-hysteria...it's not that simple at all. There's definitely no black and white (intelligent, caring Europe vs. idiot greedy Bush) situation as suggested by many America-critics. And I repeat: Yes I prefer a clear world order with the world as a globalized multicultural village (totally cooperating in fields of politics and economy education and science) with the USA as world sheriff. Simply because the UN has proved itself impotent and hypocritical, mainly navigated by self interests. An insecure world (terrorism anyone?) requires a stable hard rule and the USA as the leading democracy is not always perfect but definitely the lesser evil. But okay, people who're happy about the current changes will soon enough regret this dangerous move. I see Bin Laden laughing his ass off at the collapse of the trans-atlantic alliance and the upcoming chaos. Basically what us Westerns have started is a process of self destruction.

- Its Bush the one that wants to go to WAR without a UN resolution if not given. Its Bush the one that is willing to go without the international support, see, I hate when people, say that its the UN's fault to what its coming to, but if you didnt know, the UN is an institution, where order should be put on place, and evade any conflict, war and do thinks pacifically. Then, if thinks dont work under the OUTLINES placed, then they should go to war, but with INTERNATIONAL support. I mean, I understand what France wants to do and so on. TranceGiant, I want you to show me DATA and PROOF, yes, CONCRETE proof and evidence, some of which Powell said that Iraq is building missils while they also destroy. Why Powell does not send that information to Blix and then shove it off his face?? Come on, Blix clearly said that DATA and Evidence should be given to them so they could act accordingly. Come on!!!!!!! its obviously Bush the one acting in a way that he shouldnt. He is a big hole now and he cant just get out of it. And trancegiant, you are like blaming France and Germany almost as supporters for terrorism. France, Germany and Russia will send special equipment to dissarm IRaq. USA has the most advance technology and intelligence, and they CANT detect CHEMICAL WEAPONS?!?! COme on!! they claim some of the most ambitious satellite pictures, yet they are not given to guide the inspectors.. why?? because they have none and cant find none, they just assume. So Im on France position and every other country when it comes to WHY and SHOW ME THE PROOF TO INDEED ATTACK IRAQ. There is none, all Bush says is that " since 9/11, everything changed, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE know better" .. but why Iraq??? ITs true that the US has to protect itself, but not going to war with whomever it wants. I would support more getting that Chavez guy out of Venezuela, which by the way is CUBA#2( And Bush claims he is so against Fidel Castro.. uhum.. right he shows it with ignoring Venezuela right) .. Bush had the support to attack Afghanistan because there was proof to do it, but Iraq is different, just think of the factos before saying something.... you are so proud of heaving the US been police, yet you dont really see the other face of things.

- Bush also says that there's been 12 years, but during those 12 years there wasent any pressure basically from any country for Iraq to disarm, you cant expect to say that Iraq has been udner the same pressure that its now constantly under.. I think that with the US pressure on Iraq now, and the strong inspections, things will flow to air, but WAR?? ppshhh..

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Its Bush the one that wants to go to WAR without a UN resolution if not given. Its Bush the one that is willing to go without the international support, see, I hate when people, say that its the UN's fault to what its coming to, but if you didnt know, the UN is an institution, where order should be put on place, and evade any conflict, war and do thinks pacifically. Then, if thinks dont work under the OUTLINES placed, then they should go to war, but with INTERNATIONAL support. I mean, I understand what France wants to do and so on. TranceGiant, I want you to show me DATA and PROOF, yes, CONCRETE proof and evidence, some of which Powell said that Iraq is building missils while they also destroy. Why Powell does not send that information to Blix and then shove it off his face?? Come on, Blix clearly said that DATA and Evidence should be given to them so they could act accordingly. Come on!!!!!!! its obviously Bush the one acting in a way that he shouldnt. He is a big hole now and he cant just get out of it. And trancegiant, you are like blaming France and Germany almost as supporters for terrorism. France, Germany and Russia will send special equipment to dissarm IRaq. USA has the most advance technology and intelligence, and they CANT detect CHEMICAL WEAPONS?!?! COme on!! they claim some of the most ambitious satellite pictures, yet they are not given to guide the inspectors.. why?? because they have none and cant find none, they just assume. So Im on France position and every other country when it comes to WHY and SHOW ME THE PROOF TO INDEED ATTACK IRAQ. There is none, all Bush says is that " since 9/11, everything changed, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE know better" .. but why Iraq??? ITs true that the US has to protect itself, but not going to war with whomever it wants. I would support more getting that Chavez guy out of Venezuela, which by the way is CUBA#2( And Bush claims he is so against Fidel Castro.. uhum.. right he shows it with ignoring Venezuela right) .. Bush had the support to attack Afghanistan because there was proof to do it, but Iraq is different, just think of the factos before saying something.... you are so proud of heaving the US been police, yet you dont really see the other face of things. - Bush also says that there's been 12 years, but during those 12 years there wasent any pressure basically from any country for Iraq to disarm, you cant expect to say that Iraq has been udner the same pressure that its now constantly under.. I think that with the US pressure on Iraq now, and the strong inspections, things will flow to air, but WAR?? ppshhh..

You raise some good points, though your tone is a little ... "excited."

All I'm going to say here, is to point to LiquidX's last paragraph. All of you will agree that it's strange that all of a sudden, this Iraq issue gets propelled as the #1 crisis in the world today.

Why is it a crisis? Because certain influential powers (not just the US) are causing it to be so. France, Russia et al. are as much at fault for this as is the US. If Iraq was really a threat, the US (or anyone else) should have been calling foul on day #1 that the inspectors were kicked out, when Iraq began to blatantly defy the UN. But instead, we're seeing the red card come up only many years later.

Why is this so? I'm not going to address the oil issue here, or global dominance, or some of the conspiracy theories floating around. I'm just trying to make everyone think about it, and whether or not this conflict is really a push to "liberate the Iraqi people" (should've done that 10 years ago), or to "disarm Iraq" (should have done that on day 1).

Because, in this environment of hotly debated issues popping up everywhere, few people are keeping cool and looking at things in perspective. We have to examine the situation at hand with an open and keen eye to see what is really happening, what both sides really want, and what will likely be the result of all this madness.

When an important piece of information emerges (or the lack thereof!), or when an event occurs, people get naturally concerned, but due to the lack of attention span in the collective species, unfortunately, these issues are 99% unaddressed and pass away into oblivion, to be examined by historians and laughed at by future generations. We need to change this and open our eyes! We need to stop living in a dream world. Break the cycle!

- Yeah sorry about that EXCITED mode hehehe.. thing is, people are just too closed minded.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Okay Iron, I assume u read it? France just proclaimed it'll veto any resolution proposed by the US and Britain. I think Chriac definitely went too far with that. Apparently he's not aware of the disastrous consequences such a behaviour will cause. Boys and girls, what we are currently witnessing is a hitorical change of today's world order! I really thought this opposition to the US position was a temporary ego-boost(France, the new European "boss") or avertion from domestic problems(Germany..) but as it seems to me now, those countries along with China and Russia USE this very crisis to change the uniliteral world order that's been established since the 1989 collapse of the Sovjets. This is NOT about morale or economy, it's a cynical DANGEROUS game that is played behind the mask of the current Iraqi debate. To be honest I'm pretty worried about that. Give me the USA as the world police any day.

Yeah, let me give some insight into what I was thinking.

The way I saw it at the time was that only France was going to veto (they were the only one who had declared explicitly their non-support of the ultimatim) so basically they wouldn't have the balls to do it and would just abstain.

However, with Russia now set to veto (and China probably getting the cojones to as well) it looks like there will be a veto after all.

I do, however, believe that the U.S will bludgeon up 9 votes and go into war with that "moral authority".

And of course Russia, France, China, Pakistan, Syria, Germany, others aren't doing this for any altrusitic purpose, of course their going for their own national interests.

Personally, while I remain firmly behind the idea of regime change, I am diametrically opposed to this sort of power politic manipulation (immenent threat my fucking ass, if there was one I would expect Bush to shout from the high mountain tops as we rightly reigned down upon Saddam, so you can all stop that bullshit) which all the new hawks (Richard "yes Sy Hersh is the real Osama" Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Rummy, etc.) are all going to disgustingly get away with.

- This is getting more interesting. Now IRAN is said to have a Nuklear program.. mmmmMMMMmmmMMMMmmmMMMmmm..

And the US decided to DELAY the deadline because of lack of support.

Just news.

quote:

Originally posted by IronDragon I bet that's making you loads of friends in Sweden.

why would you assume such a thing? sweden has maintained as much neutrality from all conflict sanctioning bodies as long as possible. beyond that ive seen discussion in their news papers on the same subject...

and finally- htf would my position on that one topic have anything todo with my ability to make 'friends'. if anything at least im leaving the US (unlike a terrifyingly large amount of people) and meeting others. then they can see that Americans arent just Bush zombies bent on world destruction.

in the realm of politics, Swedens neutrality has made it a fence sitter on this issue. they would support if the UN would, but their vote isnt a necessary one for the war resolution|

At this moment a new resolution with a deadline would not pass. And thats a good thing.

On the other hand, as bad this bush guy is doing as bad is Chiraq doing. they act similary bad, only on different sides. I give Bush and the US credit that they have forced the inspections, thats a good sign. but under those inspections and the worldwide eye on Iraq, this country cant most likely develop new WMD, so why not wait until Saddam lose his calm and throw blix and co out of his country. Then you will have plenty of support to go into a war. Why rush the war when there is no immediate danger as soon as the inspectors are in Iraq? Why not wait until SH makes a mistake or new heavy proof come out?

I think u missed the most important change in world politics: 9/11. We should learn from history, prevent future mistakes. Now what did this teach us? That by waiting NOTHING can be accomplished. Waiting for Terrorists is digging your own grave, Re-acting is deadly.
That's how I see it.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I think u missed the most important change in world politics: 9/11. We should learn from history, prevent future mistakes. Now what did this teach us? That by waiting NOTHING can be accomplished. Waiting for Terrorists is digging your own grave, Re-acting is deadly. That's how I see it.

Maybe appeasement will work this time right?

yeah anywayz so wtf r we all saying here if the U.S is too good to wait for anyones permission ppl.....if i understand correctly no one should have destruction weapons except the U.S and allies becoz they r trustworthy ppl(trustworthy ppl who will dig every hole they can in the whole earth to find weapons ...in my opinion too paranoid) and also so that when they rage a war against ppl with much lower teknology they would have a massive advantage. IF THE U.S IS OUR POLICE THEN FUCK WORLD ORDER AND KILL DA POOOOOOOOOLICE and ya one question so what if the power is slipping from underneath the states or the whole world is opposing the states...doesnt this ring a bell that maybe The U.S Intelligence isnt quite intelligent..i def. hope France takes over

quote:

Originally posted by bouzo yeah anywayz so wtf r we all saying here if the U.S is too good to wait for anyones permission ppl.....if i understand correctly no one should have destruction weapons except the U.S and allies becoz they r trustworthy ppl(trustworthy ppl who will dig every hole they can in the whole earth to find weapons ...in my opinion too paranoid) and also so that when they rage a war against ppl with much lower teknology they would have a massive advantage. IF THE U.S IS OUR POLICE THEN FUCK WORLD ORDER AND KILL DA POOOOOOOOOLICE and ya one question so what if the power is slipping from underneath the states or the whole world is opposing the states...doesnt this ring a bell that maybe The U.S Intelligence isnt quite intelligent..i def. hope France takes over

so...who is going to step up and do something? im from the states, and i dont want to see a war on US soil, but all i see around the world are protests where nothing gets accomplished, and Russia and France waving vetos.

veto doesnt mean no war, it means no UN war - so the responsibility is squarely on the US/UK. the thing is, not ONE country will help defend Iraq - they will only protest. that has some obvious reasons...ie Saddam kills his own people and is planning to destroy his own country and get himself killed if the US invades.

sounds like a solid plan. Bush said that there would be no war if Hussein left and went into exile - why is that so much to ask? its not like the world *loves* Saddam|

quote:

Originally posted by cweb At this moment a new resolution with a deadline would not pass. And thats a good thing. On the other hand, as bad this bush guy is doing as bad is Chiraq doing. they act similary bad, only on different sides. I give Bush and the US credit that they have forced the inspections, thats a good sign. but under those inspections and the worldwide eye on Iraq, this country cant most likely develop new WMD, so why not wait until Saddam lose his calm and throw blix and co out of his country. Then you will have plenty of support to go into a war. Why rush the war when there is no immediate danger as soon as the inspectors are in Iraq? Why not wait until SH makes a mistake or new heavy proof come out?

one reason they are rushing to war is that the US doesn't want to engage in what could be a prolonged conflict in the intense Arabian summer heat

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I think u missed the most important change in world politics: 9/11. We should learn from history, prevent future mistakes. Now what did this teach us? That by waiting NOTHING can be accomplished. Waiting for Terrorists is digging your own grave, Re-acting is deadly. That's how I see it.

I agree with you that the West, in particular the States, should learn from history to prevent future mistakes. I just don't think that they are doing precisely that, and if they indeed are, then I don't agree that the path they are taking is the one that will best serve American interests, and definately not the world's own.

I would argue that the US is taking reactionary measures in its course of action post-9/11. I say this because in my view all the US is basically following the same path of foreign policy it has followed all along; the big change that 9/11 effected was that it gave the US some justification to be more aggressive in this course of dealings in world affairs. This American foreign policy doctrine, now explicitly propounded by Bush but in practice spans back several Presidential generations, in its current manifestation draws as its base a manifesto drawn up in 1997 called "Project for the New American Century," whose main backer in the administration is the uber-hawk and rampant neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz. Here's a link to the official website:

www.newamericancentury.org (read the "Statement of Principles")

I just don't think that courses of action following this doctrine will successfully counter-attack and put down terrorism; if it does, I still think the cost will GREATLY outweigh the means.

All of the West, I would say, has to take a long hard look at itself before it can really begin to deliberate what courses of action to follow. I mean, to really look at and try to answer the question "Why do they hate us so much?" I just don't see this kind of questioning happening.

My view is that the bubble which encapsulated the common American for the last 10-15 years has burst (sorry for the cliche ); well at least it has for me. But I think that the American viewpoint is delusional in this respect; we incessantly cling to our "way of life," when it is precisely this way of life that will lead to our downfall. In the history of the world, any lifestyle at the top of the pyramid is dependent on the exploitation of other people. We need to look at the things we value in the West, and see the cost it burdens the rest of the world for us to keep on living this "American Dream."

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I think u missed the most important change in world politics: 9/11. We should learn from history, prevent future mistakes. Now what did this teach us? That by waiting NOTHING can be accomplished. Waiting for Terrorists is digging your own grave, Re-acting is deadly. That's how I see it.

Riiight, then go and look for Al Quaeda cell and all the terrorists instead. YOu are saying that Saddam is bad, yes he is.. but the question man, the question! Why him not other leader like him???

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.