dubya and failed diplomancy

Posted by: sean

dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 01:33 PM

we are cowboys going without the support of the world and it's costing us...some would argue that the price is worth it (that's not the point of this post).<br> <br> i say that diplomacy was such an easy thing to achieve yet the claim that this is about oil is directly at the heart of the diplomacy failing. i think having world support to oust this evil man would have been one of the easier things dubya's done, yet he refused to "lose the oil" for his friends. france and russia are largely against any action in iraq because they have deals for developing the oil fields and reserves in iraq. if dubya had really wanted to get the appearance of having the world behind this mission, he would have come right out and said that this isn't about oil and that france and russia will have their current contracts recognized when the dust settles. american companies could have still made a buck off of cleaning up and rebuilding, but france and russia won't have their contracts nullified. that would have been easy and would have shut many up with regard to this being about oil. diplomacy was never a target...oil was and is. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 01:43 PM

and how is the US supposed to guarantee contracts for Iraqi oil for France and Russian?<br><br>It's totally up to the Iraqi people what happens to the contracts - it their oil and their contracts.<br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 01:45 PM

Diplomacy was tried...that's why he went to the UN instead of just going after Iraq at the start. But seems France was going to reject anything we brought forth that had action in it. What kind of deal is that? And the French really irked England too...so it's not just us.<br><br>All about oil eh? I disagree. France and Russia have deals going on with Iraq that they didn't want us to know about..ever think of that? And these contracts for oil that France has...wasn't that against the UN resolution back in 91? Hmmmm...I think so. <br><br>What gets me is why is it that everyone thinks the U.S. has something to hide, yet never questioned France and Russia's motives? Hmmmmmm....<br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 01:46 PM

I still don't know where this argument stems from- is it only from the idea that Bush happens to be a product of big business, and more specifically oil-related businesses?<br><br>Seems to me a stronger case could be made for France and Russia NOT wanting to go to war/rocking the boat because of THEIR oil interest. <br><br>Failed diplomacy? Diplomacy is like the tango, though, ain't it? Takes two to do it, and Iraq wasn't exactly bending over backwards trying to make peace...<br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 03:14 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Failed diplomacy? Diplomacy is like the tango, though, ain't it?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Unless my history's fuzzy, the last diplomat that the US had was Ben Franklin...who got the FRENCH to aid us in a war against the British. Diplomacy is usually bunk but heck, it creates good governmental jobs.<br><br>drjohn<br><br>[i]My photographs[i]
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 03:55 PM

I still don't know where this argument stems from- is it only from the idea that Bush happens to be a product of big business, and more specifically oil-related businesses?<br><br>Well..I think that's the best they can come up with, you know?<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 06:22 PM

well, iraq has contracts with france and russia -- we should push for the iraqi people to honor those contracts unless those contracts are not beneficial to the people of iraq. plus, the us gov't is already contracting work out related to the oil fields. somehow, i doubt that any companies other than us companies were considered...haliburton figures to make bundles as one subsidiary is already a winner of a contract related to iraq and the war.<br><br>from the san francisco chronicle:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In San Francisco, anti-war activists have accused the Bechtel Corp., the engineering firm that rebuilt Kuwait's oil fields after Hussein destroyed them in the 1991 Gulf War, of waiting to profit from a new conflict. Bechtel officials discount that assertion as nonsense. <br><br>Spokesman Jonathan Marshall said that while the company is proud of the work it did rebuilding Kuwait's fields, "Bechtel has never lobbied to create a political crisis there. We're not even at war yet, so it's premature to speculate." <br><br>But Marshall added that "I'm sure the United States government will consider Bechtel if there is work to be done." <br><br>A report by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank created by the former secretary of state to the first President George Bush, warns the current administration not to show favoritism for American firms in rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. <br><br>"There should be a level playing field for all international players to participate in future repair, development and exploration efforts," the report said. "A heavy-handed American approach will only convince them (the Iraqis) . . . and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."<p><hr></blockquote><p>we have yet to see how this part plays out other than already knowing that at least one contract for the oil fields has already been awarded.<br>more from the chronicle: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/17/ED76439.DTL">LINK (CLICK)</a><br>snipit:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>France, Russia and China also worry that in a post-war Iraq, an American- friendly government would reward U.S. friends -- Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas or Royal Dutch/Shell of London -- with lucrative oil contracts. In addition, an interim government will award some $3 billion to $5 billion to the oil-service industry. Among those who have bid for such contracts are Fluor Corp., the Bechtel Group Ind. and Halliburton Co., which Dick Cheney ran before he became vice president. The Pentagon has already awarded the Houston- based company, Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., a multimillion-dollar contract to develop a plan for fire-fighting operations in Iraqi oil fields<p><hr></blockquote><p>multiple millions being spent on american companies all before the iraqi people have any say...not surprising that we're only dealing with american companies and friends of cheney...no wonder france and russia were reluctant to sign on.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: Mcteak

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 06:34 PM

Sean..dang it..does anything please you? Why don't you put some of the hard work you are doing to point out everything wrong with our nation's leadership and point out what is positive with our nation! Come on man is the cup half full or half empty.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 06:58 PM

I believe these companies listed in your articles will be paid by the good ole USA to put out any oil fires and rebuild any well destroyed during the war. Iraq is in debt and has no cash reserves.<br><br>Long term contracts should be left entirely up to the Iraqi people and I was responding to this part of your post<br><br>"..he would have come right out and said that this isn't about oil and that france and russia will have their current contracts recognized when the dust settles. american companies could have still made a buck off of cleaning up and rebuilding, but france and russia won't have their contracts nullified..."<br><br>and I was wondering how George Bush was in control of contracts that Saddam has made in the past to the point of guarantee to France and Russia.<br><br>If there is back lash against France and Russia for blocking any UN resolution liberating Iraq and the Iraqi people want to burn up the contracts they made with Saddam - that is their right! It's their oil and I don't think the US should interfere.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:15 PM

i say that diplomacy was such an easy thing to achieve yet the claim that this is about oil is directly at the heart of the diplomacy failing.<br><br>It was Never about oil in the US eyes. Bush came out and said that from day one - You might have missed that.<br><br>Everyone else kept saying Its oil its oil its oil - Even in my non PHD mind, I knew it was Not about oil.<br><br>Diplomacy.<br>Well the UN had 12 years.<br>Wheres France, Germany, China, Russia diplomacy???? with Iraq?? After all they are the ones that are in direct trading with Iraq. Contracts et-all.<br><br>Bottom line.<br>Saddam appears to want to lost his Power, his Country, his status, his Palaces.<br>Just to keep his weapons of mass distruction.<br><br>Kinda reminds me of that Taliban guy - Lost everything for one man - Osama.<br>Mindless and stupid pride. It takes 2 countrys to have diplomacy, when one don't listen ya might aswell be talking to a wall.<br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:18 PM

I think the Iraqi's, should they see the US government as their liberators, would give us first crack at any contracts to be had for oil anyway...<br><br>Wouldn't you think we would have earned that right, for the work and the eventual money to rebuild Iraq, that we're about to put in?<br><br>I HIGHLY doubt the U.S. is simply going to seize the assets of a nation that is vulnerable and decimated by military action. <br><br>If THAT happens, then I'll have to consider yours and all others' viewpoint that there was an underlying, alterior motive here. But, until then, the oil theory doesn't hold any water with me...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: sean

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:20 PM

i was quite pleased with some of the programs that clinton pushed through and often voiced my pleasure when others were singing a different tune. there were times when i was not so pleased under clinton -- e.g., welfare reform, the monica ordeal, etc. i have found little to be pleased with over the past few years and i don't see much to cheer about for the next year and a half...the elections can't come soon enough (imho).<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:22 PM

Besides, did it say anywhere in those snippets about 'taking over' the oil fields?<br><br>I specifically saw items about contracts to 'rebuild' the oil fields, and the other example was a contract to deal with the fires & damage caused by the first Gulf War...<br><br>You're quoting from sources that drew their own CONCLUSIONS about facts that were quoted, not actual evidence...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: sean

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:36 PM

we've "earned that right" if that's how you want to perceive this issue. me, i perceive that "right" to mean that oil is more important that you're willing to admit. i thought our goal was to ensure that terrorism is squelched. if we reach that objective, shouldn't we be able to say, "whew! the world is a safer place" and leave it at that? now, suddenly our efforts need to be rewarded by the iraqi people? strings attached when it used to be about our safety???<br><br>i think that the only solution is to follow the advice of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank created by the former secretary of state to the first President George Bush when they warned the current administration not to show favoritism for American firms in rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. <br><br>"There should be a level playing field for all international players to participate in future repair, development and exploration efforts," the report said. "A heavy-handed American approach will only convince them (the Iraqis) . . . and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."<br><br>these aren't my words...this is the think tank organization created by a senior advisor to daddy bush saying that we still have to convince the world that we were in it only for the disarmament of saddam (you seem to suggest that we should get the spoils as well and that's what i am saying could be very wrong with our approach). we are being watched very closely by the world and i hope we tread carefully. of course the iraqi people will have a say, but i tend to think they will be mere puppets for many years...just as they are in afghanistan right now -- hardly recognized by much of the country but installed largely by the united states. we'll see.<br><br><br>and people (many of you)...when i say dubya failed at dimplomacy...i am not talking about his diplomacy with saddam (although that didn't work, but i can blame saddam more than dubya on that one), i am talking about dubya's inability to get support from the world like he did in afghanistan or like his father had in the gulf war. we've decided to overstep our bounds here and go it alone (or, with limited support from some allies). most polls indicated that people here wanted to wait for support of the UN, but we didn't wait...i have no doubt that waiting another year with increased inspections would have yielded more support -- particularly if the rumors of the WMD were true and were discovered -- that smoking gun would have done it and would have brought much of the world aboard. this wasn't handled well.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: carp

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:46 PM

to mean that oil is more important that you're willing to admit.<br><br>Oil is important.<br><br>But the US only gets 7% from Iraq.<br>Which the US can easily order 1% more from 7 of the other 26 oil producing countries.<br><br>Plus<br>OPEC controls the flow of oil from the middle east - so realy the oil angle that everyone likes to harp on was realy a Moot point from the very begining.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 07:55 PM

"most polls indicated that people here wanted to wait for support of the UN"<br><br>I really hate to nitpick but that's not what I'm reading in the polls-<br><br>In an ABC/Washington Post poll<br><br>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Living/iraq_war_poll030318.html<br><br>Seventy-two percent say the United States has done enough to try to win international backing ? a number that has grown steadily over the months, even as diplomacy flailed.<br><br>66 percent support Bush's decision to abandon a Security Council vote<br><br>In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll<br><br>http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/18/sprj.irq.bush.poll/<br><br>And 68 percent said they thought the United States did all it could to resolve the crisis through diplomacy -- despite the failure to win another U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq.<br><br>In a MSNBC/Wall Street Journal Poll<br><br>http://www.msnbc.com/news/886732.asp<br><br>Asked if the United States should take more time to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, 61 percent favored military action now. Thirty-three percent favored more diplomacy.<br><br>CBS News<br><br>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030317-092031-9772r<br><br>75 percent said that giving Iraq more time to disarm would probably just delay the inevitable military conflict rather than secure a peaceful outcome.<br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 08:18 PM

(you seem to suggest that we should get the spoils as well and that's what i am saying could be very wrong with our approach)<br><br>Hey, I'm not running this war- all I'm saying is that if the Iraqi people- whom we will be giving control of their own resources to- wish to grant the United States a lucrative oil contract, then who is the U.S. to turn it down? <br><br>However, I don't think we'll be standing there after the war with our hands out like some hotel baggage handler, if that's what you mean...I apologize if I implied that's what I thought part of our motivation for this war was..<br><br>We live in a capitalist society, and it's a fact of life that the government grants contracts to privately-held businesses to manfacture goods or provide services for said administration. This goes for plane & tank parts, computers in federal buildings, you name it...<br><br>I think opposition to the war effort are taking these details and exploiting them as if they've never occured before...<br><br>The U.S. is not going into this operation with blinders on and no plan to rebuild Iraq when it is finished...quite the contrary. I think what the U.S. is doing is simply covering all angles. Take a look at Japan and tell me if they would be where they are today if we hadn't rebuilt them after WW2 (granted after we dropped an A-bomb on them)...<br><br>How bad would we have looked if we just plowed through Iraq, leaving massive destruction in our wake, and then just left the people of that country high and dry, with no rebuilding plan or funds to do so?<br><br>I think that's what often separates our 'invasions' from other so-called 'aggressors'. I really doubt Hitler, if we hadn't stopped him, was going to give back France in the end, rebuild the whole country, and say "Whoops, my bad."...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: Non_PC

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 08:27 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there were times when i was not so pleased under clinton -- e.g., welfare reform, the monica ordeal, etc.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I've never met a teacher or government employee yet that wasn't on the last feather of the tip of the left wing so no surprise there. Sorry Sean I do like ya and a few of my friends are state employees in our VERY liberal state of Massachusetts and I would and do say the same thing to them.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 08:39 PM

hey, i don't try and hide it...clinton was a bit too conservative for my tastes. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: sean

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 08:44 PM

those look like polls from today and yesterday...people change once the inevitable is upon us. those same polls sang a different tune not too long ago. in fact, there was this from one of your links:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The poll, however, also pointed to some doubt among the American public about the merits of going to war. Of the 66 percent who said they approve of Bush's decision, 21 percent said they were not sure it was the right thing to do, but they supported the president regardless.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that 21% (or more or less) could have easily been on the other side of the fence and are merely jumping to be supportive now that it's going to happen. i guess the bottom line is how we are perceived internationally when this is all said and done with. 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.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: carp

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 08:45 PM

Well <br>Bill did cause a stain that no prez have done before.<br>Just that his choice of women could have been better.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 08:54 PM

glad I could bring you up to date with the latest polls . No doubt they will be different next week, next month, next year ....<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 09:06 PM

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.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 10:24 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Just that his choice of women could have been better<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Truer words were never spoken! <br><br><br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
Posted by: iRock

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 03/18/03 10:27 PM

I don't think anyone can argue with that.<br><br>"You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims."<br>--Harriet Wood
Posted by: polymerase

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 06:32 AM

McCain admits today that the War in Iraq was about oil. Imagine that. <br><br><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g04Ry0SQCko&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g04Ry0SQCko&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object<br><br>But who cares since McCain will get rid of the 18 cent federal tax on gas and give us all an extra four dollars a month to spend on summer movie popcorn. Screw those rotting bridges. Manana.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 06:45 AM

By the way, is diplomancy like necromancy?<br><br>[color:purple]A lopsided man runs best along the little side-hills of success<br>- Frank Moore Colby</font color=purple>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 06:51 AM

Sort of but instead of seeking guidance from spirits one tries to get divine intervention from overdue library books by striking thongless cymbals. It's occult thing. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 10:15 AM

Ah: The Joy of Sects.<br><br>[color:purple]A lopsided man runs best along the little side-hills of success<br>- Frank Moore Colby</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 10:40 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Diplomacy was tried...that's why he went to the UN instead of just going after Iraq at the start. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Your getting confused between diplomacy and legality. The way the UN Security Council works is that there has to be unanimity. If that is lacking the proposed action is unlawful. Nations can't make lawful what is unlawful by not turning up at the UN because they are bound by the terms of the UN Charter, in this instance to recognise the territorial integrity of Iraq.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And the French really irked England too...so it's not just us.<p><hr></blockquote><p>They didn't irk England but Blair, which are two completely different things. The British people were overwhelmingly behind the French position because they knew, like the French leadership did, that the wmd case they were being fed was baloney. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 11:56 AM

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>
Posted by: FSM

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 12:08 PM

<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>
Posted by: FSM

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 12:12 PM

<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>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 12:36 PM

<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>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 03:42 PM

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>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/25/08 11:11 PM

<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>
Posted by: FSM

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/26/08 06:19 AM

<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>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/26/08 06:42 AM

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>
Posted by: FSM

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/26/08 06:46 AM

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>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/26/08 06:53 AM

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

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/26/08 07:37 AM

well, the bottom line is that the US withdrew their war resolution before a vote could take place . . . so it didn't technically receive any No votes. but i agree that they should have gone through this process to make the war legal. the Bush/Blair admins effed this up.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: dubya and failed diplomancy - 06/26/08 07:56 AM

Agreed - the UN Charter is the backdrop so to overcome Art 2(4) which prohibits the use of force against any state a resolution must be obtained. Blair knew that very well but lacked the analytical power to understand that there was no lawful way around it.<br><br>km<br><br>