Actions require unanimity, but resolutions don't. There's wiggle room there, unfortunately.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>jonnycat, i would love to be able to see polls in a month that show that an overwhelming majority think the war was the right thing. that would most likely mean that we suffered very little in this upcoming conflict. that's my greatest hope at this point. i'd love to see the iraqi soldiers surrender before the first bullet flies.<p><hr></blockquote><p>wow, what a blast from the past. now the polls are consistently saying that the Iraq conflict was a HUGE disaster . . . and that's lead to dems controlling congress again and they'll make more gains this november and add a dem president. the economy isn't helping, but the Iraq war is also consistently noted for these Dem wins. what a huge effin failure the Iraq war has been! and, it was about oil. seemed like such a duh thing to me back then. there were evil dictators in other parts of the world (e.g., Sudan at that time) and even ones who were acquiring or attempting to acquire WMDs (e.g., in North Korea -- and he is absolutely crazy, to boot) yet we focused on Iraq. i guess obvious isn't obvious when folks were trying to toe the party line back then. <br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>a lot of americans in your links seemed to fear increased terrorism as a result of this impending war. that's unfortunate that we now have to live in that fear.<p><hr></blockquote><p>and now we know that this turned out to be true . . . but it was crazy thinking back in 2003:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">2006 NY Times article</a><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Actions require unanimity, but resolutions don't. There's wiggle room there, unfortunately.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not really - actions require Security Council resolutions and Security Council resolutions require unanimity. No wiggle room there I'm afraid - the invasion was illegal.<br><br>km<br><br>

If unanimity is always required, then there'd be no point to specifying that the big five have veto power because in effect any member could derail any vote. In fact, I was wrong about the need for unanimity in regards to actions. According to the UN Charter, Chapter 5, Section 27, paragraph 3, "Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters [i. e., non-procedural] shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting."<br><br>http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/repertoire/index.html<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If unanimity is always required, then there'd be no point to specifying that the big five have veto power<p><hr></blockquote><p>Agreed, unanimity of the five permanent members is required but not of the non permanent members.<br><br>km<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The United Nations SecurityCouncil is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations.<br><br>Its membership of 15 nations consists of 10 nonpermanent members and five permanent members – China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Each of these five states has veto rights over adoption of Council resolutions on substantive issues. This means that if a resolution receives the necessary nine yes votes to be adopted, if even one of these five states votes no, the resolution will not pass. The nonpermanent member nations are elected by the U.N. General Assembly<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>in other words, 9 of the 15 votes are needed to pass a resolution and the 5 permanent members can veto things if they deem it necessary on something substantive.<br><br><a href="http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:l5rcsr5rBK4J:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21323.pdf+how+does+the+UN+security+council+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a">link</a><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

That's right - objections to the invasion of Iraq signalled by France, Russia and China meant that the resolution could never be carried and that the invasion would therefore be illegal.<br><br>km<br><br>

perhaps you are confusing a no-vote with a veto. they are very different things.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

No - the veto is exercised when any permanent member casts a negative vote on a substantive draft resolution.<br><br>km<br><br>