WTF???

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

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.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

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....|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

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.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

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.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

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

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

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.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

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..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)