19 Mar 03
Originally posted by legionnairewell why didn't they work with france etc to create a resolution that they wouldn't veto?
My understanding was that there was serious disagreement with the wording of the proposed second resolution, and France, Russia and Germany all decided that they would veto it before the resolution was even submitted, so the US never bothered.😕
-mike
19 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusI wish to dissociate myself from and apologize for the actions of the country in which I live. In 3 hours and 3.5 minutes, the US government will likely mandate something which the entire world will live to regret.
why did the US have to resort to war? can they not make a second resolution rather than defy the UN? and then, if the resolution did not work, go to war???
19 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusI don't know. If I were in control of the situation, then I would venture to say that we would not be at this particular juncture in history. But I'm not. Nor is the democratically elected leader of this country, Al Gore, but a man who was appointed president by a supreme court whose deciding vote was cast by a member who was appointed by the president's father. And yet this man claims to have the support of his country, and the world behind him, as he drags us all into a new, ugly page of history.
well why didn't they work with france etc to create a resolution that they wouldn't veto?
These are not good times.
-mike
20 Mar 03
Originally posted by legionnaireOK, so the last "democratically elected" president dealt with terrorism by lobbing over a cruise missle here and there to deflect attention from him getting oral from a 21 year old intern. That was a course of action and we know how successful it was. I'm willing to give the cowboy his chance. Kirk
I don't know. If I were in control of the situation, then I would venture to say that we would not be at this particular juncture in history. But I'm not. Nor is the democratically elected leader of this country, Al Gore, but a man who was appointed president by a supreme court whose deciding vote was cast by a member who was appointed by the presid ...[text shortened]... him, as he drags us all into a new, ugly page of history.
These are not good times.
-mike
20 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusWell, why didn't France work with other countries to back up the resolution that they voted for . Excuse me, I forgot. It is always the fault of the US. Forgive me, I stand corrected. Kirk
well why didn't they work with france etc to create a resolution that they wouldn't veto?
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
20 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957They did. France worked with Russia, Germany and China and came up with a plan to step up the weapons inspections. Blix asked for more time to carry out his inspections, and most of the countries on the UN Security Council were willing to agree to his request.
Well, why didn't France work with other countries to back up the resolution that they voted for . Excuse me, I forgot. It is always the fault of the US. Forgive me, I stand corrected. Kirk
It's no use the USA and Britain blaming France for the failure of their diplomacy. Successful diplomacy requires being able to compromise - something the USA and Britain were unwilling to do.
Dave
20 Mar 03
Originally posted by David TebbYou are correct that they were not willing to compromise. For some that is a defect. For some it is admirable. Therein lies the difference in opinion. Kirk
They did. France worked with Russia, Germany and China and came up with a plan to step up the weapons inspections. Blix asked for more time to carry out his inspections, and most of the countries on the UN Security Council were willing to agree to his request.
It's no use the USA and Britain blaming France for the failure of their diplomacy. Successfu ...[text shortened]... requires being able to compromise - something the USA and Britain were unwilling to do.
Dave