Russia Says Njet

Well it seems like the russians are going to veto the new resolution and sparing the french of the burden.
and it also looks like as if the trio infernale (Blair, Bush , Aznar) are going to change the new resolution to ake it suitable for the others.

I am curios to see if blair is really goig to support bush even without a new resolution. And i am hoping tha no resoltion will be passed allowing war against iraq.

[Proteus]

I am confused as to the assumptions made by the media on this. What he actually said was:

Question: Is it necessary to take one more resolution on Iraq?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We consider that there is no necessity to adopt a new resolution at present. There is UNSCR 1441, which provides the necessary legal basis for the work of inspectors. Since its adoption last November UNSCR 1441 has demonstrated that it can assist a political settlement. The international inspectors of UNMOVIC and IAEA have all the necessary legal possibilities for the performance of their mission. Therefore we consider that right now there is no necessity to adopt a new resolution, the less so a resolution which would signify the termination of the inspectors' work and opening of possibilities for the use of force. This would go against the natural logic of developments in Iraq, of which we are today witnesses.

This says that they are opposed to a new resolution, not that they would veto one. Surely they could vote against it in the Security Council without using their veto?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Well it seems like the russians are going to veto the new resolution and sparing the french of the burden.

Hm, is this Foreign Minister Ivanov's statement? The news here is that he specifically didn't use the word 'veto' (leaving open the possibility that Russia would vote against it but not veto it).

[G_frog]

Current thinking seems to be that the US et al will claim a majority offers UN legitimacy even if vetoes are exercised.

They will probably get one by bribing a bunch of people.

[mpr0733]

Angola would be more than happy with any spare change America can miss.

I'm not saying that it has happened or will happen(bribing). Just that Angola could put the money to good use.

[Reck]

Originally posted by mpr0733
Angola would be more than happy with any spare change America can miss.

I'm not saying that it has happened or will happen(bribing). Just that Angola could put the money to good use.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...30309_172.html

Originally posted by Tactitus
Hm, is this Foreign Minister Ivanov's statement? The news here is that he specifically didn't use the word 'veto' (leaving open the possibility that Russia would vote against it but not veto it).

By voting against the resolution Russia is using its veto.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Bl0ke
By voting against the resolution Russia is using its veto.

Well no. Permanent members of the Security Council can vote 'yes,' 'no,' 'veto,' or 'abstain.' Any of the later three would qualify as a 'no' vote.

NO COUNTRY WILL VETO

[Luckeh!!!!]

America has made it clear that it will go ahead with or with UN backing.

[Bunga]

Originally posted by Dreadnought!
NO COUNTRY WILL VETO

FRANCE HAS ALREADY SAID "WE WILL VETO"

[Amoruso]

Russia are making money from Iraqi oil atm, its no surpirse that they take such a stance.

[Amoruso]

Originally posted by Bunga
FRANCE HAS ALREADY SAID "WE WILL VETO" "MUGABE IS WELCOME FOR TEA AND CREPES ANYTIME !"

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Amoruso
Russia are making money from Iraqi oil atm, its no surpirse that they take such a stance.

still better than bombing the country and then making money with their oil, isnt it?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by wu_trax
still better than bombing the country and then making money with their oil, isnt it?

No.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Well no. Permanent members of the Security Council can vote 'yes,' 'no,' 'veto,' or 'abstain.' Any of the later three would qualify as a 'no' vote.

When I first read this, I thought one of us has had too much to drink. Since I'm on my fourth beer, I guessed it was probably me. Just to clarify though:

Yes means yes. No and abstain mean no. No and abstain do not mean veto. Veto means veto. I hope that clarifies everything. Clarity is very important for people posting on this forum. Considering the misinformation I see on this forum, I do not understand why clarity is so important, though.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
still better than bombing the country and then making money with their oil, isnt it?

I can assure you that the Russian government does not care even the slightest, tiny fragment of a bit about the Iraqi people. If all 28 million Iraqi men, women and children died, Russia would be happy if it could still get its oil. France and Germany are the same. It is all about money and oil. The countries with their hands deepest in the pot want Saddam Hussein to continue in power so that they can continue to rape the Iraqi people. The countries that want to get rid of Saddam Hussein are the only ones who actually care about the Iraqi people.

Those are about 30 countries. I am not going to list them again, but I believe Bulgaria and Latvia joined up since my last post on the subject in a different thread.

The media always complain about U.S. unilateral action. One is unilateral. Two is bilateral. Three is multilateral and 30 is 10 times multilateral.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Hm, is this Foreign Minister Ivanov's statement? The news here is that he specifically didn't use the word 'veto' (leaving open the possibility that Russia would vote against it but not veto it).

I thought a vote by a permanent member against a resolution automatically constituted a veto. I didn't know they could vote against but not veto it.

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Chrism
I thought a vote by a permanent member against a resolution automatically constituted a veto. I didn't know they could vote against but not veto it.

Don't worry - most news agencies seem to think that as well.

[pablissimo]

According to the UN website:

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.



This implies that should a permanent member cast a vote against a resolution it is counted as a veto.

From:
From here

Though I may have misinterpreted.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by pablissimo
According to the UN website:

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.



This implies that should a permanent member cast a vote against a resolution it is counted as a veto.

From:
From here

Though I may have misinterpreted.

That's what I'd say it means as well.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
I can assure you that the Russian government does not care even the slightest, tiny fragment of a bit about the Iraqi people. If all 28 million Iraqi men, women and children died, Russia would be happy if it could still get its oil. France and Germany are the same. It is all about money and oil. The countries with their hands deepest in the pot want Saddam Hussein to continue in power so that they can continue to rape the Iraqi people. The countries that want to get rid of Saddam Hussein are the only ones who actually care about the Iraqi people.

so they care about them by killing lots of them? pld plan. you are so damn brainwashed with whoever feeds you with propaganda its hardly beliveable. we dont care about ****in oil, we dont even have ****in oil-companies.

Those are about 30 countries. I am not going to list them again, but I believe Bulgaria and Latvia joined up since my last post on the subject in a different thread.

yes, they are certainly conviced by your idea. threatening other with sanctions or cuts of aid have nothing at all to do with this. they are scared of the economical consequences standing up against your insane goverment might cause, thats it.

The media always complain about U.S. unilateral action. One is unilateral. Two is bilateral. Three is multilateral and 30 is 10 times multilateral.

if you force them to support you its hardly bilateral.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by pablissimo
According to the UN website:

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.



This implies that should a permanent member cast a vote against a resolution it is counted as a veto.

From:
From here

Though I may have misinterpreted.

thats the only way which makes sence, you can say 'no, but not really no', only germany can do that

[Proteus]

Originally posted by pablissimo
According to the UN website:

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.



This implies that should a permanent member cast a vote against a resolution it is counted as a veto.

From:
From here

Though I may have misinterpreted.

In that case, the UN is stupid. "veto" means "I forbid". It is the power that was held by the Plebeian Tribunes in Ancient Rome, which allowed them to cancel any decision made by the senate. It is definitely not something that means someone with a vote has voted against something.

It can only be held in addition to or instead of a normal vote, and cannot be the same as a normal vote. It has to be interposed, not assumed through voting against something.

What the Security Council members have in this case is the right to refuse assent to a resolution, which is different to a veto.

For instance, the Queen in the UK has to give her assent to a new law. If she refuses to give it, she is not vetoing the law, merely refusing to give her assent.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]so they care about them by killing lots of them? pld plan. you are so damn brainwashed with whoever feeds you with propaganda its hardly beliveable. we dont care about ****in oil, we dont even have ****in oil-companies.
[b]
yes, they are certainly conviced by your idea. threatening other with sanctions or cuts of aid have nothing at all to do with this. they are scared of the economical consequences standing up against your insane goverment might cause, thats it.

if you force them to support you its hardly bilateral.

And you care about the civilians by letting Hussein kill lots of them. It's not who cares about the people. It is the method. Germany, France and Russia's method allows Hussein to continue killing civilians until Hussein and his children and their children decide to change their ways. The United States thinks killing Hussein and his soldiers is the best method. I don't know who is right, but if I had a choice to kill either 10 soldiers or 10 children, I would choose the soldiers. Your method sacrifices the children, not the soldiers. You, sir, are the one who is brainwashed. You say that war is never justified no matter what the cost. I understand that you, looking back on the horrors of war, see that it is truly horrible; however, at some point, war is justified. I am not sure what that point is. Is it after 6 million Jews have died, 2,000 Kosovars, or a half a million Iraqi children? You decide. Then cast your vote. Don't try to convince me that I am wrong.

Germany has and continues to buy and sell goods from Iraq. Do not try to pretend that it is not so. Legally and illegally.

As far as i know, sanctions have not been threatened. It is my money and if I do not want to give it to Angola because they won't support my stance in the United Nations, that is my perogative. Or do you expect me to pay my taxes and then have the United States government give that money to a government that would support Saddam Hussein, also known as the Butcher of Baghdad. Not my money. Do you understand when I say MY money, what I actually mean is money that I send to the Internal Revenue Service. I am not willing that the United States gives that money to a country that supports Saddam Hussein. MY money. Dollars from my pocket. I work for that money.

Your government is the insane one. Schroeder said he would not take military action even if the United Nations and NATO decided it was necessary. Basically, Germany declared that it would become a rogue nation as long as it did not have to suffer the dangers of war. I don't blame the civilians for that. Civilians are authorized to be afraid. Politicians are not. They are obliged to make the tough decisions.

Many countries support the United States because they think it is the right thing to do, not because of the econmic consequesnces. That still makes the action multilateral.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
And you care about the civilians by letting Hussein kill lots of them. It's not who cares about the people. It is the method. Germany, France and Russia's method allows Hussein to continue killing civilians until Hussein and his children and their children decide to change their ways. The United States thinks killing Hussein and his soldiers is the best method. I don't know who is right, but if I had a choice to kill either 10 soldiers or 10 children, I would choose the soldiers. Your method sacrifices the children, not the soldiers. You, sir, are the one who is brainwashed. You say that war is never justified no matter what the cost. I understand that you, looking back on the horrors of war, see that it is truly horrible; however, at some point, war is justified. I am not sure what that point is. Is it after 6 million Jews have died, 2,000 Kosovars, or a half a million Iraqi children? You decide. Then cast your vote. Don't try to convince me that I am wrong.

i wasnt aware there is some random mass murder going on in iraq, except for that caused by the sanctions, you probably have something to back that up? and btw, how many iraqie children will die in case of a break down of the electricity and water supply? they are 'strategical targets, they were blown up last time aswell. this war will become a total catastrophe, humanitary, political and aconomical, but obviously bush knows better than a large part of the rest of the world.

Germany has and continues to buy and sell goods from Iraq. Do not try to pretend that it is not so. Legally and illegally.

and we will continue to do so once the war is over, in fact we will be able to deliver far more goods once the sanctions are lifted. economical reason rather speak FOR a war in our case.

As far as i know, sanctions have not been threatened. It is my money and if I do not want to give it to Angola because they won't support my stance in the United Nations, that is my perogative. Or do you expect me to pay my taxes and then have the United States government give that money to a government that would support Saddam Hussein, also known as the Butcher of Baghdad. Not my money. Do you understand when I say MY money, what I actually mean is money that I send to the Internal Revenue Service. I am not willing that the United States gives that money to a country that supports Saddam Hussein. MY money. Dollars from my pocket. I work for that money.

what i actually see is that you BUY votes from countries that are dependend on you. but sorry, i forgot, thats how democracy works in the us. :/

Your government is the insane one. Schroeder said he would not take military action even if the United Nations and NATO decided it was necessary. Basically, Germany declared that it would become a rogue nation as long as it did not have to suffer the dangers of war. I don't blame the civilians for that. Civilians are authorized to be afraid. Politicians are not. They are obliged to make the tough decisions.

what kind of crap is that statement? there is no ****in thread from iraq, everyone knows that, thats why nowadays 'liberating the oilfields, sorry, the people of iraq' is on focus. and how exactly do we become a 'rogue' nation? we are not a member state of the usa, we still can decide whatever we want. but obviously by Mr. Bush's with-or-against-us-policy everyone who does not agree with his policy becomes a terrorists, its nice to have such a imple world.

Many countries support the United States because they think it is the right thing to do, not because of the econmic consequesnces. That still makes the action multilateral.

yes, turkey certainly supports you because they think saddam is evil, the $30bn have nothing to do with it. and bulgaria, one of the poorest countries in europe certainly doesnt get anything in return, they only want to 'free the people of iraq', in which world do you live ??

[Reck]

Originally posted by Texan
Many countries support the United States because they think it is the right thing to do, not because of the econmic consequesnces. That still makes the action multilateral.

Originally posted by Reck
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...30309_172.html

Jilting Washington could undermine Security Council member Russia's bid for trade benefits and cool U.S.-Mexican relations, whereas U.S. allies on the council like Bulgaria are already cashing in commercially.

[Judge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
and we will continue to do so once the war is over, in fact we will be able to deliver far more goods once the sanctions are lifted. economical reason rather speak FOR a war in our case.

ATM, Germany, and the others who are against a further resolution (That may or may not trigger a war?) are owed millions (if not billions) in unpaid for goods.

Should the Iraqi regime be destroyed, it is doubtful the new regime would honour the debts of the old.

That is the simple reason as to why there is such an "Anti" lobby in the UN.

A lot of other reasons exist, but the crux of the matter is hard cash.

Originally posted by wu_trax
what i actually see is that you BUY votes from countries that are dependend on you. but sorry, i forgot, thats how democracy works in the us.

Is it also not the case that The French, German, and Russian foriegn ministers are doing the rounds to the countries sitting on the fence, offering financial inducements to buy votes?

It is also true to say that a lot of these poorer countries are playing one side off against the other to get the best deal.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Texan
I can assure you that the Russian government does not care even the slightest, tiny fragment of a bit about the Iraqi people. If all 28 million Iraqi men, women and children died, Russia would be happy if it could still get its oil. France and Germany are the same. It is all about money and oil.

While you are undoubtedly correct about some of the motives to not go to war - I think your a bit incorrect here. Some of the anti-war sentiment is simply "oppose the US" which is a fairly popular in it's own right.

Secondly, and more importantly - I think the Russians, French and Germans (or their governments rather) would care about Iraq. Don't get me wrong - they're self-interested scum, but I don't actually believe they go round thinking they are. People in power generally genuinely do believe their own bullsh|t. It's easier that way.

And that's both ways - so when people say "Oh, George Bush is doing it because he has oil stocks" (or similar) they're missing the point and are making a really vulgar analysis. George Bush, I'm willing to stake large amounts of money, does not think about his own oil shares when thinking about Iraq. He probably doesn't even think of his supporters oil interests. He is undoubtedly thinking that he is defending America, helping to make the world a better place, saving the people of Iraq - etc. Obviously though, some of his background, and some of the people he listens to, and the general US historical policy that's informed him, may all be influenced by such factors.

And so with Russia and France, their leaders probably are sitting "worrying" about the fate of the Iraqi people, while they read an academic report on effects of war. A report from an intitute funded by Dodgy Russian Oil Interests Corp.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Judge
ATM, Germany, and the others who are against a further resolution (That may or may not trigger a war?) are owed millions (if not billions) in unpaid for goods.

Should the Iraqi regime be destroyed, it is doubtful the new regime would honour the debts of the old.

That is the simple reason as to why there is such an "Anti" lobby in the UN.

A lot of other reasons exist, but the crux of the matter is hard cash.

oh, please, thats just bull****. if any such contracts exist with german companies their volumne would be laughable compared to the money we could have made if we would just have shut up.
i have no ilusions about schröders reasons, its not ideals or whatever, its populism, pure and simple. he wanted to win the last election and is now more or less fullfilling what he promised. (you can see that on the fact that he isnt doing everything possible to delay that war, the us army is still allowed to use its bases in germany, allowing that breaks our constitution, but thats another story)

Is it also not the case that The French, German, and Russian foriegn ministers are doing the rounds to the countries sitting on the fence, offering financial inducements to buy votes?
It is also true to say that a lot of these poorer countries are playing one side off against the other to get the best deal.

do we? to who? to mexico, which is fully economical depended on the us? or to chile, which just tryies to sign a free trade agreement with the us? i wonder what we could offer them
its just like the situation in eastern europe: these countries know they will get EU-money anyways, its just as much in our interest than in theirs that they get some economical growth, so they support the us to get even more money. i realy dont know whats wrong with spain and italy though. thinking italy would support that war for any ideals of democracy and freedom is just laughable, because of the fact that belusconi is a quasi-dictator

[BetrayerOfHope]

i'm sure mr bush jr will help the iraq after bombing the **** out of the civilists as great as he helped afganistan (there were crimes vs the human rights? nah never )

to the **** what is posted about germanys stand in this situation its the first popular thing they have made since they have the power (and no financial interessts aren't realy interessting for germany since they have no big investigagions in the iraq) and the most people back it up. just unlike spain were the goverment licks mr hitler jr's ass while the most people (90%!?) are against the war ...

,
,

Originally posted by Texan
And you care about the civilians by letting Hussein kill lots of them. It's not who cares about the people. It is the method.

oh yeah saddam is killing lotsa peole as we speak. so does mugabe, khamenei, kim jang ill and so on and so on

Originally posted by Texan

Germany, France and Russia's method allows Hussein to continue killing civilians until Hussein and his children and their children decide to change their ways.

thats laughable naiv and stupid.
they think a war would be much worse than saddams rule over Iraq.
And since when did this become a humanitaian mission??
whats wrong??
the terrorist motive isnt working?
the wmd trick isnt pulling either??
Do you want this war so desperately that you have to take refuge to the weakest of all war arguments?? the humantarian one??
why dont you plead for freeing somalia, ruanda and so on?
if its humanitarion, those places are in a much worse a shape than iraq.

Originally posted by Texan

You say that war is never justified no matter what the cost.

he never said that.
why do you start putting words in his mouth.
we supported somalia and kosovo intervention.
We are saying that this war is not justified.

Originally posted by Texan

I understand that you, looking back on the horrors of war, see that it is truly horrible; however, at some point, war is justified.

yes but not on this point

Originally posted by Texan

I am not sure what that point is. Is it after 6 million Jews have died, 2,000 Kosovars, or a half a million Iraqi children? You decide. Then cast your vote. Don't try to convince me that I am wrong.

dont worry, i wont try to.
there is way to much nationalism and patrotism in the way that would make it pointless.
you already have said that you wouldnt attack iraq if you were president. your just supporting all this because the
alcoholic dumbwitt sitting in the oval office wants this.

Originally posted by Texan

Germany has and continues to buy and sell goods from Iraq. Do not try to pretend that it is not so. Legally and illegally.

so??
the us has been buying and is still buyng oil from Iraq
whats your point??

Originally posted by Texan

As far as i know, sanctions have not been threatened. It is my money and if I do not want to give it to Angola because they won't support my stance in the United Nations, that is my perogative. Or do you expect me to pay my taxes and then have the United States government give that money to a government that would support Saddam Hussein, also known as the Butcher of Baghdad. Not my money. Do you understand when I say MY money, what I actually mean is money that I send to the Internal Revenue Service. I am not willing that the United States gives that money to a country that supports Saddam Hussein. MY money. Dollars from my pocket. I work for that money.

so you wouldnt protest if The us would give YOUR money which YOU pay to angola and guinea if they support the attack on iraq??

lol thats funny, since the rulers of guinea and angola are just as bloody or maybe even bloodier than saddam hussein. pay one dictator to remove another and FREE the iraqee people.
Your love and care for the iraqee people is so touching!!

Originally posted by Texan


As far as i know, Your government is the insane one. Schroeder said he would not take military action even if the United Nations and NATO decided it was necessary.

yes of course he did and he was right to do so.
when Dick cheney held a speech in august saying the objectiv in iraq is to change the government and not disarm, thats where you have to show your colours.
And Schröder did. He drew a line and said: untill here and no further, you alcoholic maniac.
You can bribe and threaten yourself a UN legitimation , but we will not follow an alcoholic idiot in a war that could destroy the middle-east.

Originally posted by Texan

Basically, Germany declared that it would become a rogue nation as long as it did not have to suffer the dangers of war. I don't blame the civilians for that. Civilians are authorized to be afraid. Politicians are not. They are obliged to make the tough decisions.

no basically , germany and the german people declared, that they will not follow a moron in a war that is not legitimated in any way by the UN-charta.
You can threaten germany, try to bribe, take away your soldiers and so on and so on.
Schroeder never liked Bush. The relations between him and Bush were very bad untill september 2001.
But Bush managed to dissapoint Europe and the big hopes it had in him by this ridicilous and fully unnecessary Iraq crisis that he has brought upon us.

Originally posted by Texan

Many countries support the United States because they think it is the right thing to do, not because of the econmic consequesnces. That still makes the action multilateral.

No, no country supports the US.
if the vote in the security council would be today, it would be 11 to 4 against the war.
If the politicans would vote according to the will of their
people the vote would even be 14 to 1 against the war.

In spain 90% of the people are against the war without UN legitimation. and 60% are still against it even with Un Legitimation.
In England its 91% and 51%

Not 1 country (except Israel) would voluntarily support the US on a war against Iraq.

Originally posted by Judge
ATM, Germany, and the others who are against a further resolution (That may or may not trigger a war?) are owed millions (if not billions) in unpaid for goods.

Should the Iraqi regime be destroyed, it is doubtful the new regime would honour the debts of the old.

The oil prices are horribly high. everyday that goes by without this crisis being solved is costing the german and french economy millions of euros.
If it were about money, they would give their consent to the war, let Bush do his invasion, get it over with and let their economy finally recover.
It is not about money. its about doing what is right.

Originally posted by Judge

That is the simple reason as to why there is such an "Anti" lobby in the UN.

A lot of other reasons exist, but the crux of the matter is hard cash.

the simple reason is this:
chirac and schroeder refuse to follow the madman behaving like a roman emporor in the oval office. its as simple as that.
They are setting a precedent.
even if bush attacks Iraq , he will know next time, when he is planning his next preemtive strike, how difficult it will be to gather international support.

Originally posted by Judge

Is it also not the case that The French, German, and Russian foriegn ministers are doing the rounds to the countries sitting on the fence, offering financial inducements to buy votes?

It is also true to say that a lot of these poorer countries are playing one side off against the other to get the best deal.

what possible things could the french and germans ever offer mexico and chile???? Nafta ?? MONEY??
the funny thing is, despite the enormous pressure from the US , those countries are still unwilling to support.
This shows everyone how weak BUSH`S case against Iraq actually is.

[Judge]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
The oil prices are horribly high. everyday that goes by without this crisis being solved is costing the german and french economy millions of euros.
If it were about money, they would give their consent to the war, let Bush do his invasion, get it over with and let their economy finally recover.
It is not about money. its about doing what is right.

Doing what is right is about removing a threat,

Germany and France as always look after their own interests, and have very short memories when it comes to which countries helped them in the face of adversity.
There is evidence to suggest that France has been trading Dual Use technology to Saddam, an invasion by the US and allies would confirm this, and no doubt cause further problems.
It is also a fact that a German Company has built a huge "Fuhrer Bunker" for Saddam, directly against the current trade embargo, these things are conveniently forgotten by the French and Germans,

Originally posted by m.ar.d

the simple reason is this:
chirac and schroeder refuse to follow the madman behaving like a roman emporor in the oval office. its as simple as that.
They are setting a precedent.
even if bush attacks Iraq , he will know next time, when he is planning his next preemtive strike, how difficult it will be to gather international support.

A further resolution by the UN is not required by the US to take action against Iraq, it would not doubt be "nice" for the US to be backed by the UN, but to be quite frank, who is going to stop them?

Originally posted by m.ar.d


what possible things could the french and germans ever offer mexico and chile???? Nafta ?? MONEY??
the funny thing is, despite the enormous pressure from the US , those countries are still unwilling to support.
This shows everyone how weak BUSH`S case against Iraq actually is.

No what is shows is how they have been influenced by bribes from Germany and France.

Originally posted by Judge
Doing what is right is about removing a threat,

Germany and France as always look after their own interests, and have very short memories when it comes to which countries helped them in the face of adversity.

every country always seeks its own interest first.
the difference is that france and germany have leaders that are wise enough to recognize that this war will be a desaster for the world.

Originally posted by Judge

There is evidence to suggest that France has been trading Dual Use technology to Saddam, an invasion by the US and allies would confirm this, and no doubt cause further problems.
It is also a fact that a German Company has built a huge "Fuhrer Bunker" for Saddam, directly against the current trade embargo, these things are conveniently forgotten by the French and Germans,

thats a load of crap.
France and germany would spare themselves alot of trouble if they would just let bush attack.
your accusation is baseless.
even if that french accusation would be remotely true , im sure the USA would make the evidence dissappear to reward the french for their help.

Originally posted by Judge

A further resolution by the UN is not required by the US to take action against Iraq, it would not doubt be "nice" for the US to be backed by the UN, but to be quite frank, who is going to stop them?

Nobody, but it would be alot more than just NICE.
if itwerent that important they wouldnt be waiting for so long would they??
blair would commit political suicid if he attacks withou uUN approval.

Originally posted by Judge

No what is shows is how they have been influenced by bribes from Germany and France.

what bribes???
any offer by the germans or french and the USA can pay them 10 times more.
the idea of accusing France and Germany of bribing Mexico for a no vote is laughable.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Judge
Doing what is right is about removing a threat,

what threat?? we have spend a large part of our lives under a far larger threat.

Germany and France as always look after their own interests, and have very short memories when it comes to which countries helped them in the face of adversity.

what 'own intrest does germany have in iraq? as i said before we could have made lots of money if we would just have stayed quite. thats a fact.

There is evidence to suggest that France has been trading Dual Use technology to Saddam, an invasion by the US and allies would confirm this, and no doubt cause further problems.

so the french GOVERMENT did that? as far as i know companies broke the sanctions, not countries.

It is also a fact that a German Company has built a huge "Fuhrer Bunker" for Saddam, directly against the current trade embargo, these things are conveniently forgotten by the French and Germans,

that 'führerbunker' as you call it was build on yugoslavien plans (in fact its an exact copy of a bunker Tito build for himself years ago) i dont know about the involvment of any german companies in this, furthermore i didnt know that construction materials are part of the sanctions.

A further resolution by the UN is not required by the US to take action against Iraq, it would not doubt be "nice" for the US to be backed by the UN, but to be quite frank, who is going to stop them?

noone is able to stop them, but if they start the war without uno-backing that might help a few people to see what the current us-goverment really is: a threat to world peace.

No what is shows is how they have been influenced by bribes from Germany and France.

certainly, in fact we pay large amounts to all countries around the world so that they agree with our opinion. no, wait, that must be the us-goverment.

[Judge]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Pile of rhinoscerous dung

TBH I am quite sick of this stupid argument.

The US and Britain will got to war in Iraq, despite what the French (Spineless twats) do or say, and despite what the German (Gutless wonders) do.

I personally have no time for the French, they continued not only to supply the Argentine with weapons whilst we were at war in the falklands, they also supplied technical help in keeping their airforce in the air.

France are not the Allies of the UK or the US, they are the enemy.

As for Germany, everyone knows they are gutless, and follow the French on anything and everything.

Dont bother to reply, your arguments are a waste of print.

[BetrayerOfHope]

Originally posted by Judge
As for Germany, everyone knows they are gutless, and follow the French on anything and everything.

just like the brainless brits who kiss mr bush's ass?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Judge
As for Germany, everyone knows they are gutless, and follow the French on anything and everything.

Not in 1914 zlol

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Judge
As for Germany, everyone knows they are gutless, and follow the French on anything and everything.

the french followed us, but anyway, are you just trolling?

[deerbarn]

I just really hope blair ends up telling bush to f off.

[Amoruso]

Originally posted by BetrayerOfHope
just like the brainless brits who kiss mr bush's ass?

or the brainless french who kiss Mugabe's ?

Originally posted by Judge


m?



No what is shows is how they have been influenced by bribes from Germany and France.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Turk...gifs/keefe.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Turk.../markstein.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Turk...s/danziger.gif

[Amoruso]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Turk...gifs/keefe.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Turk.../markstein.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Turk...s/danziger.gif

nothing like cold hard satire.

[JonnyBGood]

Sensible rational discussion without a hint of bias or prejudice. Congratulations guys you actually might have gotten worse since I left.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Sensible rational discussion without a hint of bias or prejudice. Congratulations guys you actually might have gotten worse since I left.

Hardly surprising, given that this board is an ongoing quest towards an ultimate lack of reason and knowledge.

Originally posted by Judge
TBH I am quite sick of this stupid argument.

The US and Britain will got to war in Iraq, despite what the French (Spineless twats) do or say, and despite what the German (Gutless wonders) do.

I personally have no time for the French, they continued not only to supply the Argentine with weapons whilst we were at war in the falklands, they also supplied technical help in keeping their airforce in the air.

France are not the Allies of the UK or the US, they are the enemy.

A
.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Fran...3/thompson.jpg

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
Hardly surprising, given that this board is an ongoing quest towards an ultimate lack of reason and knowledge.

They'll never know what hits them.



Jonny falls off his chair laughing.