Pakistan to abstain in UN Iraq vote

OK, so we need 9 votes, and there are 6 that we can't possibly get. Last week, Cameroon had supposedly come out against us, but now seem to be back on the fence.

You know, it's one thing if we had at least 9 votes, but fell to a veto. It's gonna be humiliating if we get outvoted.

 

Chirac says France will veto regardless if there is a majority. He said this right after he said, Iraq is not cooperating. He says he wants the UN inspectors to say themselves that they can't do their work. Even if Iraq is not helping, the inspections are working.

Until then, France will be against the war.
Also, as noted, Russia will vote NO.

 

Oops.

I think there is a significant difference between a veto and a vote-down. If we win the vote but get vetoed, I think politically we could probably get away with an invasion (ie, the veto-er is the "bad guy"). Losing the vote, however, is a different beast.

 

Still leaves 5 undecided...

Angola, Chile, Mexico, Cameroon and Guinea

In the past, this is how these nations have voted on UN resolutions (ie: against the USA or if you like, in favor of Iraq).

China, Russia, France and Russia abstained on:
1134
1284

China abstained:
678
686
688

Chirac said the international coalition on international terror will be dissolved if there is war.

What does that mean? Will France become a terror supporting state or just not share intel?

 

I said this somewhere else today, but that Mexico is still in the undecided camp demonstrates how badly the Bush admin has bungled not only the diplomacy around the war but the wider diplomacy needed to maintain support from friendly nations. Remember when Bush and Fox were best buddies and their friendship was a sign of close relations and cooperation? The Bush admin wasted this by ignoring Mexico on immigration reform.

Now, there were good reasons post 9/11 for taking another look at immigration reform, but the admin failed diplomatically in not keeping Mexico abrest of their thinking. Now, the admin is threatening possible reprisals on Mexican nationals living in the US if Mexico doesn't vote our way? Disinterest and threat are unfortunately how this admin has managed diplomatic relations, and it's coming back to bite them.

 

Interesting, as Mexico and Chile both are involved with NAFTA. Of all the nations, they have the most to lose.

 

that's a good point. quite a bold/crazy move by the froggies

 

That is one crazy statement by the French. It's like we can't stop you militarily so we will let a bunch of Muslim extremists rip apart your country. Sheesh, bunch of crap if you ask me.

With regards to the actual vote, if we don't get Mexico that is an embarassment to our country. If we lose the vote, without veto, in my mind, I don't think it matters one bit. Really, who cares?

Its not like Bush is awaiting the vote and will make a move based on the vote. We are going to war regardless.

 

Yeah, because those Muslim extremists are really ripping us up right now. I can hardly leave my house beause of all the mayhem.

If the French know that the Bushies disrespect the UN so much that they don't care what the UN says, then they have nada to lose by opposing the war in the UN, do they?

 

According to this article, Pakistan is still undecided.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030310-042656-8263r

 

I think a magic 8-ball would be a better predictor of how the UN delegates vote than all these ABC and CNN articles.

 

Does anyone know if the issue is foreign aid? Are these countries asking for more money for a yes vote?

 

irishFS1921 wrote:
"that's a good point. quite a bold/crazy move by the froggies"

MLSNHTOWN wrote:
"That is one crazy statement by the French. It's like we can't stop you militarily so we will let a bunch of Muslim extremists rip apart your country. Sheesh, bunch of crap if you ask me."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How some of you A-holes can even write that
kind of BS is beyond me, really.

That's Chirac original statement:
«S'il y a guerre, les premiers vainqueurs seront ceux qui souhaitent l'affrontement, le choc des civilisations, des religions. (…) Une guerre fera éclater la coalition mondiale antiterroriste.»

This part translates into: " If there is a war, the
first winners will be those who hope for
confrontation, for a clash of civilisations/
religions. A war would break up the international
coalition against terrorism."

I read his entire speech. What he means by this
is to warn that some (un-named) countries might
not be so willing to cooperate in the fight against
terrorism.
CERTAINLY NOT FRANCE!

For the record, and I believe this had already been
posted on this forum, here's an article about
France's own struggle with terrorism/Al Quaeda.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html

Here are some extract of what he said, and I won't
bother translating everything for a bunch of...
You get that part, right?


"Voici les principaux extraits de la déclaration télévisée de Jacques Chirac, lundi soir :
Veto. «La France refusera, s'opposera à (une nouvelle résolution ouvrant droit à la guerre). Ce soir (hier soir), cette résolution comporte un ultimatum qu'une majorité des 15 membres du Conseil de sécurité refusent (…). Quelles que soient les circonstances, la France votera non. Parce qu'il n'y a pas lieu de faire la guerre pour désarmer l'Irak.»

Evitable. «La guerre n'est pas inévitable aujourd'hui. (…) La guerre, c'est l'ultime recours, un constat d'échec, la pire des solutions. (…) Même s'il reste une chance sur mille, une sur un million, cela ne diminuerait en rien ma détermination à tout faire pour régler le problème irakien sans faire la guerre.»

Précédent. «Ce serait un précédent dangereux pour les Etats-Unis de passer outre la décision de l'ONU. (…) Les Américains ont atteint leur objectif, ils ont gagné. (…) Atteindre son objectif sans faire la guerre, ce n'est pas perdre la face.»

L'ONU. «J'ai proposé que la prochaine réunion du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU se tienne au niveau des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement (…). Ma décision n'est pas prise quant à ma participation à ce sommet.»

Dangereux. «Un pays qui a le passé et la structure politique de l'Irak est un pays dangereux, s'il a les moyens d'attaquer. (…) Les inspections ont permis d'éradiquer son programme nucléaire et de détruire plus d'armes que durant toute la guerre du Golfe.»

L'après-Saddam. «Un protectorat américain, c'est une hypothèse hasardeuse (…). Le désarmement suppose une transparence, et donc la fin du régime (de Saddam). Les dictatures ne résistent pas longtemps à la transparence. Après une guerre, il faudra reconstruire. Il faudra que tous s'y associent. La France assumera ses responsabilités.»

Terrorisme. «S'il y a guerre, les premiers vainqueurs seront ceux qui souhaitent l'affrontement, le choc des civilisations, des religions. (…) Une guerre fera éclater la coalition mondiale antiterroriste.»

Alliés. «La France n'est pas un pays pacifiste, ni un pays antiaméricain. (…) Il n'y a aucun risque que le peuple américain et le peuple français se disputent ou se fâchent.»

Boycott. «Une mesure de rétorsion économique, ça n'a pas de sens. Je connais trop les Etats-Unis, qui sont un pays libéral, pour qu'ils utilisent ce genre de méthode.»

L'Europe. «Je n'ai jamais pensé que l'Europe était un chemin de roses, mais un chemin escarpé, semé d'embûches. Et, à chaque fois qu'il y a une crise, le processus européen se renforce.»

L'économie. «La machine économique a du mal ; cela est lié, pour une large part, à la situation internationale. Le gouvernement a pris la bonne voie, la seule possible : associer une politique de l'emploi à la libération des énergies.»"

 

F-off.

 

Thanks fish and by means did I intend to put words in Mr. Chirac's mouth. There is no doubt the French have and will continue to work against terrorism.

Richard Reed is one major example where the French have worked, worked backwards and after the fact, but they have done something to help find the links to Reed.

I mean, not much credit can be given when you consider that a female flight attendant actually saved the lives of hundreds. If she hadn't, it would have been months before any government would have even said it was an act of terror. It would not have been known how they blew it up and if the skies were safe.

If you think airlines are having a hard time right now, just consider what it would have been after this attack.

You see, we need to work together as more than American are going to be killed.

 

Well, thank YOU for acknowledging this and
remaining polite about it. I didn't and I apologise
for it. But comments by other posters were just
over the "sanity" edge and I reacted ( badly,
probably) to them.

 

You must've missed the part where GWB said we don't need anyone's permission to disarm Iraq unilaterally. You can keep counting votes until the sheep come home but it don't make a damn difference either way. In the end, the anti-war side will be humiliated.

 

You probably should have told George Bush, then. Turns out he's going to have to delay the vote.

 

Sorry don't read French and can't translate French. I got the impression from Garcia's statements that France in particular was going to pull out of the Coalition against terrorism if we kept beating the drums of war regarding Iraq. After reviewing the statement it is clear that I misinterpreted his statement. I apologize.

 

Very constructive Alex. Don't you have some old ladies to beat up?

 

let's wait on the northern front.

 

Your link says nothing of the sort. The vote is going down on Thursday or Friday.