http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/12/sprj.irq.main/index.html "A U.N. diplomat said the British proposal could be circulated among Security Council members as early as Wednesday, and the United States has said it wants a vote by the end of the week." "Even if the measure is vetoed, the Bush administration would consider nine votes a moral victory, sources said." This maybe the best strategy out there if you're a hawk. If this comes for a vote on Friday, we get nine votes and France or Russia veto, we could then argue that we had enough votes. At that point Bush doesn't need to wait for Saddam to abide by the new watered down demands. He can argue that the resolution didn't pass and begin the war in a few days. In other words we have the votes to go to war but we don't have to abide by the resolution because it didn't pass. Brilliant!!!
In other words, they'll lie yet again. Does that mean if they don't get nine votes, they'll table war plans?
No it means this new resolution has already gotten a stamp of approval from nine of the members of the Security Council. As a result, it will probably pass the required nine votes. It will then be vetoed by Russia or France. I don't understand why though. If it truly is about disarmament, this helps get Iraq there. If they believe inspections work, this helps the inspectors disarm Sadaam. So, I want to see why France or Russia will veto. I don't really care how Bush sells it after that. He has tried the UN route repeatedly to no avail. So he must then choose (ala Milosevic) whether Sadaam should be taken out of power without the mandate of the United Nations.
If France, Russia, China etc., vote no, it's the same as a veto. By procedural rules, we will not have received the backing of the Security Council. To say anything different under this scenario is false. Then you obviously don't care how he's sold it to this point. It's involved a lot of lying.
Here's an article on Slate saying that the 45 day deadline supported by Mexico and Chile may come to pass. http://slate.msn.com/id/2079977/
45 days is unacceptable. The heat conditions will be much worse for our troops. I'll be shocked if an attack doesn't proceed within the next 10 days.
New moon is April 1st. Cover of darkness and owning the skies aside, who would believe it if the threads start popping up April Fools Day?
Is anyone else worried about the US creating the precedent that "veto" votes are not really binding when the majority of the council votes in favor of something? As a permanent member, does the US really want to undermine this concept?
The UN is finished. The very design and concept of a world governing body is deeply flawed. You've got five nations: US, Russia, China, France, Britain with the ability to veto any resolution. For years, the US was at odds with the Soviet Union and still remains at odds with China. These nations take opposite sides of any controversial issue, thus making the UN powerless to act. The only times a consensus if formed is when the issue is so vanilla that a world body isn't necessary for enforcement. It's time to end the charade known as the United Nations.
And leave the "Left Behind" series without a plot device? And how many people in the black helicopter industry would you throw out of work?