New resolution withdrawn...

Ronn_Bman · 03-17-2003, 10:08 AM

The US Ambassador to the UN made the statement just now that the UK resolution is being withdrawn because of the French promise to VETO it.

I think they should have gone for the vote. I wanted to see the "whip count".

[ 03-17-2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Felix The Assassin · 03-17-2003, 10:19 AM

Was the word ultimatum used???

Ronn_Bman · 03-17-2003, 10:21 AM

This is the resolution that had 6 steps for cooperation, the first of which was for Saddam to publicly acknowledge his possession of WoMD.

Wutang · 03-17-2003, 02:14 PM

Actually I would have liked to see the UN vote too regardless of the veto issue.

I just wanted to see how all the undecided countries on the council would've voted.

Davros · 03-17-2003, 05:14 PM

I think the decision to withdraw would have been based on a headcount rather than a veto. If they thought they had a firm positive headcount going in then it would have shown up as general support by the council that was being stymied by veto. If the headcount was bad going in then it would not have reflected well, so why put it to the vote.

My point being that I think they got a good headcount, and it wasn't good news.

Ronn_Bman · 03-17-2003, 06:01 PM

You're right Davros, and they are happy to blame the bad vote count on France's promise to VETO no matter what as the reason some nations could not be swayed, but the truth is, it would have been close even without the outspoken promise from the French.

The real reasoning for not calling for the "whip count" is the fact that 1441 makes the threat of serious consequences without full, complete and immediate compliance by Iraq. This of course never happened, so serious consequences are called for even if the world disagrees on what those consequences are. All the previous resolutions make similar demands and/or threats, and even the '91 ceasefire agreement authorizes renewed action if Iraq doesn't comply with it's terms. Of course Iraq has not complied.

All these things are in the Coalition of the Willing's favor now, but a no vote in the SC on a new resolution would have really removed the legitimacy of that argument.

[ 03-17-2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Davros · 03-18-2003, 05:30 AM

Ronn - your President and my Prime Minister claim that 1441 gives them the right, but that is something that has undergone massive analysis in this country today and the conclusion from the weight of international law opinion seems to agree that it doesn't.

Either way - that is a debate for the lawyers and may they have good luck with it.

It doesn't change the fact that in seeking a futher resolution, the US, the UK and Spain sought current day ratification (rather than rely on the shaky 1441 argument) to strengthen their justification for going to war. In not presenting that resolution they knew that it would be defeated.

I am saddened to be going to war without the ratification of the UN even though I believe the cause is just. The military out there in the gulf will have my support both now and when they return. When Saddam is out the world will have changed for the better. Today however, with the coalition ignoring the UN, both the rules and the world changed, and it changed for the worse. I don't expect some of the anti-UN or pro-war factions to agree with that and that's OK because they are entitled to their opinions too. This one is mine.

skywalker · 03-18-2003, 06:00 AM

Is there any parallel between Bush saying we will go to war with Iraq, with or without the support of the UN and Chirac saying we will veto any resolution before the Security Council that approves a strike on Iraq.

Seems both sides "showed their cards(Bushspeak)" a little too soon.

One wanted war a little too much and the other did not.

Mark

[edit] typos

[ 03-18-2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Moiraine · 03-18-2003, 06:12 AM

IMO, the key sentence about the legality of an unilateral US intervention in Iraq is the article 14 in the resolution 1441 : "The Security Council ... decides to remain seized of the matter". It pretty well says that no member of the Security Council can take actions on its own while saying it complies with the resolution.

Ronn_Bman · 03-18-2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker:
One wanted war a little too much and the other did not.

I think "wanted war" is a bit unjust. Bush feels it is necessary. Wants and Needs are completely different things.

03-17-2003, 10:08 AM	#1
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	The US Ambassador to the UN made the statement just now that the UK resolution is being withdrawn because of the French promise to VETO it. I think they should have gone for the vote. I wanted to see the "whip count". [ 03-17-2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-17-2003, 10:19 AM	#2
Felix The Assassin The Dreadnoks Join Date: September 27, 2001 Location: Orlando, FL Age: 61 Posts: 3,608	Was the word ultimatum used??? __________________ The Lizzie Palmer Tribute Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy 35th President of The United States The Last Shot Honor The Fallen Jesus died for our sins, and American Soldiers died for our freedom. If you don't stand behind our Soldiers, please feel free to stand in front of them.

03-17-2003, 10:21 AM	#3
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	This is the resolution that had 6 steps for cooperation, the first of which was for Saddam to publicly acknowledge his possession of WoMD. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-17-2003, 02:14 PM	#4
Wutang Manshoon Join Date: February 3, 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 206	Actually I would have liked to see the UN vote too regardless of the veto issue. I just wanted to see how all the undecided countries on the council would've voted. __________________ Hula dancer lover!

03-17-2003, 05:14 PM	#5
Davros Takhisis Follower Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Mandurah, West Australia Age: 60 Posts: 5,073	I think the decision to withdraw would have been based on a headcount rather than a veto. If they thought they had a firm positive headcount going in then it would have shown up as general support by the council that was being stymied by veto. If the headcount was bad going in then it would not have reflected well, so why put it to the vote. My point being that I think they got a good headcount, and it wasn't good news. __________________ Davros was right - just ask JD

03-17-2003, 06:01 PM	#6
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	You're right Davros, and they are happy to blame the bad vote count on France's promise to VETO no matter what as the reason some nations could not be swayed, but the truth is, it would have been close even without the outspoken promise from the French. The real reasoning for not calling for the "whip count" is the fact that 1441 makes the threat of serious consequences without full, complete and immediate compliance by Iraq. This of course never happened, so serious consequences are called for even if the world disagrees on what those consequences are. All the previous resolutions make similar demands and/or threats, and even the '91 ceasefire agreement authorizes renewed action if Iraq doesn't comply with it's terms. Of course Iraq has not complied. All these things are in the Coalition of the Willing's favor now, but a no vote in the SC on a new resolution would have really removed the legitimacy of that argument. [ 03-17-2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-18-2003, 05:30 AM	#7
Davros Takhisis Follower Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Mandurah, West Australia Age: 60 Posts: 5,073	Ronn - your President and my Prime Minister claim that 1441 gives them the right, but that is something that has undergone massive analysis in this country today and the conclusion from the weight of international law opinion seems to agree that it doesn't. Either way - that is a debate for the lawyers and may they have good luck with it. It doesn't change the fact that in seeking a futher resolution, the US, the UK and Spain sought current day ratification (rather than rely on the shaky 1441 argument) to strengthen their justification for going to war. In not presenting that resolution they knew that it would be defeated. I am saddened to be going to war without the ratification of the UN even though I believe the cause is just. The military out there in the gulf will have my support both now and when they return. When Saddam is out the world will have changed for the better. Today however, with the coalition ignoring the UN, both the rules and the world changed, and it changed for the worse. I don't expect some of the anti-UN or pro-war factions to agree with that and that's OK because they are entitled to their opinions too. This one is mine. __________________ Davros was right - just ask JD

03-18-2003, 06:00 AM	#8
skywalker Banned User Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: VT, USA Age: 63 Posts: 3,097	Is there any parallel between Bush saying we will go to war with Iraq, with or without the support of the UN and Chirac saying we will veto any resolution before the Security Council that approves a strike on Iraq. Seems both sides "showed their cards(Bushspeak)" a little too soon. One wanted war a little too much and the other did not. Mark [edit] typos [ 03-18-2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

03-18-2003, 06:12 AM	#9
Moiraine Anubis Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps Age: 59 Posts: 2,474	IMO, the key sentence about the legality of an unilateral US intervention in Iraq is the article 14 in the resolution 1441 : "The Security Council ... decides to remain seized of the matter". It pretty well says that no member of the Security Council can take actions on its own while saying it complies with the resolution. __________________ [img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What resolution to use?	Timber Loftis	Icewind Dale \| Heart of Winter \| Icewind Dale II Forum	3	11-19-2004 03:56 AM
What resolution do you run your Monitor at?	Ziroc	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	48	10-11-2002 05:00 PM
i need some resolution...	manikus	Dungeon Craft - RPG Game Maker	5	08-16-2002 07:37 PM
800x640 resolution is there any way to get it?	Rikard	Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast	4	09-06-2001 01:59 PM
Resolution ?	Dallas	Icewind Dale \| Heart of Winter \| Icewind Dale II Forum	1	12-07-2000 09:18 PM