Just watched the news, Bush said they'll attack regardless of the UN. The US didn't even bother to try to make a second resolution. They said the reason they didn't even ask the UN for the opinion was because France said they'll put a veto on the resolution. The US ambassador also said that France was the only! country which made the passage of the resolution impossible.

___________________
1+1=10

France



my friend is going to France this spring break for some Christian gathering. i keep telling that boy not to go. the tensions between the US and France great, and there's no need for him to travel there on a small "vacation"

waste of his hard earned $$$

as for the war...we'll see what happens.

>JM<

how about the Russian and Chinese veto?

the only reason why Bush and his administration puts the blame on France is because they can't even get a "moral" majority from 9 of the 15 members of the security council. So they just divert attention from that and puts everything on France...

Against:
China, France, Russian Federation, Mexico, Syria, Germany, Chile

For:
Britain, United States, Bulgaria, Spain

unsure (votes to be bought):
Angola, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

the only reason why Bush and his administration puts the blame on France is because they can't even get a "moral" majority from 9 of the 15 members of the security council. So they just divert attention from that and puts everything on France...

Exactly. If Powell thought he could have got the nine votes, he would have asked for a vote in the council and virtually "dared" France to use its veto (which makes it look like the French were subverting the will of the security council somehow) and used that as an impetus to go to war.

Fact is, the war was never going to get the votes it needed (at this point in time anyway) so to save face the US and the UK just didn't put the issue to a vote and then blamed it all on the French (even though they were one of at least 7 or 8 likely to vote against the resolution, and just one of 3 willing to veto it). Pretty pathetic really.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Exactly. If Powell thought he could have got the nine votes, he would have asked for a vote in the council and virtually "dared" France to use its veto (which makes it look like the French were subverting the will of the security council somehow) and used that as an impetus to go to war. Fact is, the war was never going to get the votes it needed (at this point in time anyway) so to save face the US and the UK just didn't put the issue to a vote and then blamed it all on the French (even though they were one of at least 7 or 8 likely to vote against the resolution, and just one of 3 willing to veto it). Pretty pathetic really.

Well one has to wonder the worth to go all that trouble when France EXPLICITLY stated they would veto any resolution put forth. It would have been a moot point anyway and the US would have had absolutely nothing to gain from it. Cmon you know it ... even if we had gotten the majority votes that would have changed nobody's opinion here or in the world for that matter.

no man, Powell would've taken anything that could give some kind of "legitimacy" to this war... they pulled the resolution because they knew they couldn't get 9 out of 15. They knew a while ago that France and some others will vetoe it but they hoped to convince(i.e. buy) the missing votes.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek no man, Powell would've taken anything that could give some kind of "legitimacy" to this war... they pulled the resolution because they knew they couldn't get 9 out of 15. They knew a while ago that France and some others will vetoe it but they hoped to convince(i.e. buy) the missing votes.

Well it was hoped that the stance on veto would not have been so strong as the deadline approached. That in itself was made notice relatively recentely. Either which way, you and I are both in the realm of speculation.

Good point about France, vesa. Involving a country that was on very good terms with the US in such a way shows a lack of forward-thinking. Bush is a very bad diplomat, and he is forgetting that in diplomacy, it is often less important what is being said then the way in which it is said. He is acting very arrogantly and it is causing many countries to back away from the US policy.

___________________
1+1=10

THE WAR HAS STARTED

Breaking news: British and American troops were involved in fierce fighting near Iraq's main port today as the war to topple Saddam began. The firefight broke out near Basra as men of the Special Boat Service targeted the strategically vital city and oilfields in southern Iraq. ...

Full Story:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...95393?version=1

19 March 2003

Don't know the validity of this ...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=NB10

It's starting in bits and pieces as Vesa more or less said.

quote:

Originally posted by JM France my friend is going to France this spring break for some Christian gathering. i keep telling that boy not to go. the tensions between the US and France great, and there's no need for him to travel there on a small "vacation" waste of his hard earned $$$ as for the war...we'll see what happens. >JM<

Dude

Im buying a Peugeot this summer and will bring it to the US, as well are three of my friends.... makes you mad?

___________________
Upcoming:

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

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Dude Im buying a Peugeot this summer and will bring it to the US, as well are three of my friends.... makes you mad?

That's going to be pretty expensive ... not only do you have to ship it back but you have to pay for modifications to the car to adapt it to US standards. Just buy a bmw