Author Topic: United Kingdom might back out.  (Read 2160 times)

Offline Duedel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2003, 08:03:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think 70% of Americans in a latest poll showed support for action with UN backing


Just to make things clear thats excactly my opinion.

Offline crabofix

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2003, 08:12:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
And you manage to show your eloquence in your first post. I mean why say something on the actual subject instead of diving in head first with personal attacks.

Trying to fit in huh?



I do not post very often, but, ok, I can give you a little hint of what I think.

I think that US is acting like they are a supreme nation that stands above all international laws and agreements.

You mention France thinking about Oil and money.
The US will make sure that the "trade food for oil" agrement is continued after "they win the war". Talk about being interested about Oil.

I know a couple of US citizens that Resigned their citizenships the day Bush was anounced as winner in the elections. Same people now praise him for handeling the country well during 11/9.
Without a extreme situation in the world, to distract the People of US, he would never get relected.
Talk about: Public opinion benefits for the sitting government


I respect what the US have done to make this world a somewhat more Peacefull world during the years.

But I say, should this war start without the support from UN, then the soldiers that died in Normandie and all over to free the world during both worldwars, died for nothing.
All that was gained is spolied and its back to the "the strongest rules" all over.



Crabofix

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2003, 09:15:56 AM »
Im having trouble understanding why UN backing is necessary for action, or important in the minds of some.

The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort.  Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?

Such has been the case in almost every major UN sponsored action since its inception.  

What others outside this country percieve as egotistical, "take over the world" attitutde, we see our resources and money being used by the UN for aims that we may not always agree with and the first time we see a threat to our own security, the public outcry against action is strong.

All we're asking for is a little respect.  The "World Policeman" description is fine on the surface, but if you look at it a little closer, the behavior from other nations fits this bill perfectly.

When youre assaulted, robbed, or raped, the police are your best friend.  But when you get caught speeding, stealing, or parking illegally, the Police are pigs, abusing authority, who do they think they are?

I guess what Im wondering is - why all the anti-US sentiment?  It seems to me that people both inside, and outside the US are quick to forget what we've done in the past to better this world, and incapable of determining what the world would be like without the United States keeping people like Hitler, Malosevic (sp?), and Saddam in check.

The United States and the United Kingdom have brought stability to the world in the last 50 years - why are we now hated for it?  Is it simply a case of other countries not wanting to have their own policies dictated by the US/UK?

Without the political and military action of the US/UK during the latter half of the 20th century, the Middle East would be a constant Jewish/Muslim war, Pakistan and India would both be glass, South Korea wouldnt exist, Africa would be a warzone, Eastern Europe would be a mercenaries paradise, and Western Europe would still be rebuilding after WWII.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2003, 09:19:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by 10Bears
[url]Ya know I backed out of a bet with Toad that the United States would go completely insane and attack anyway.. I might’ve won that bet that no, calmer heads would prevail.


Although I don't favor any US action without UN SC sanction, I'm still of the opinion that moving 6 CV battle groups, 200,000 ground troops and lots of airplanes into the area means the die is case.

If you would like to accept that first wager, I'm still willing to offer it.

You in?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18204
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2003, 09:24:04 AM »
too bad they didnt fire on one of the U2's

it'd made things so much simplier...........
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline 10Bears

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2003, 09:25:46 AM »
The U.S. and U.K. only need a de facto UN backing for the invasion of Iraq. Even if France vetos the resolution, as long as the U.S. and U.K. have a majority of the Security Council members vote yes, then that gives them de facto approval for the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. can then claim that they did indeed have the backing of the U.N., despite a veto from France.


You sure about that Akak?  Want to provide a cite?

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2003, 09:26:12 AM »
the league of nations will never vote for war with iraq

peace in our time

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2003, 09:33:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by 10Bears
The U.S. and U.K. only need a de facto UN backing for the invasion of Iraq. Even if France vetos the resolution, as long as the U.S. and U.K. have a majority of the Security Council members vote yes, then that gives them de facto approval for the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. can then claim that they did indeed have the backing of the U.N., despite a veto from France.


You sure about that Akak?  Want to provide a cite?


I don't want to answer for him, but I will.

I don't believe he was saying it would be justified in the UN's eyes if this happened, I think he meant we'd be able to say:

"Hey, the majority wanted action, screw France, they're idiots anyway."

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2003, 09:35:01 AM »
Quote
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance, a senior U.S. State Department official said, and officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing.




Better hurry and get your bet down, 10Bears.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline 10Bears

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2003, 10:12:06 AM »
Quote
CNN-Rules of the 15-member Security Council require nine votes to adopt a resolution. If one of the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia or China -- votes "no" on a resolution -- even one supported by the other 14 nations -- that single vote kills the proposal.
So far, four members -- the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria -- have said they would support the new resolution. Five others -- France, Russia, China, Germany and Syria -- have indicated they oppose it. On Monday, France and Russia said they would veto the resolution.
The remaining six members -- Chile, Mexico, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan -- have been the subject of intense lobbying by the five major powers. But those efforts appeared to have had limited results.
Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said he has been urged by members of his political party and the Cabinet that his nation should abstain when the Security Council votes.


Er... are we reading from the same news source Toad? That doesn't look like only one vote shy to me..

As far as the other bet, would you be willing to put a time frame limit on the assult?.. If they don't attack by June... I win..

Martlet, that's not what Akak was saying at all..
Answer is in above quote by CNN.

I am 10Bears... Whooper of Toad

Offline crabofix

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2003, 11:21:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Im having trouble understanding why UN backing is necessary for action, or important in the minds of some.

The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort.  Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?



When youre assaulted, robbed, or raped, the police are your best friend.  But when you get caught speeding, stealing, or parking illegally, the Police are pigs, abusing authority, who do they think they are?



If you dont know what the UN is and why it is, I will not explain it to you: sorry.

You want 90% of decision making? (Why, because you are US and dont pay your fees to UN?) Why would something that the US wanted to do and pay for, be handled diffrent then if Swden wanted to attack Norway and pay for it? Would it be more legitimated because you provide the troops and money?

Yes, you guys have made a good job in many cases, being the "World-Police".

But also Failed in many others.

Crabofix

Offline kbman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2003, 11:22:57 AM »
Wow! Is toad whooping legal? Is it harmful to kittens? If so, I could hardly condone it with a clear conscience>

kbman

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2003, 11:39:08 AM »
The UK won't back out, it's just that they want to give Iraq until the 17th (correct date?) whereas the US want to go in straight away.  If the US go in without the UK it's going drop the UK well and truely in the toejam at home.  Blair will be out on a limb and would probably be fighting for his political career - whoever replaces him would probably back down against US therefore reducing the strong alliance between our countries... imo of course! ;)
NEXX

Offline AKS\/\/ulfe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4287
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2003, 11:46:21 AM »
The haste and constant looming threat of war is for Saddam, and Saddam only. It's called pressure, and if it works- he'll step down or have very little to no generals, tank commanders, pilots, soldiers, etc. to protect him.

The most successful operations are the ones where the show of force and constant threat that the end is near is all that is needed to end the conflict.

If Bush Jr. were so intent to invade Iraq, and fuk the rest of the world, we'd be in there 2 months ago. Keep that in mind.
-SW

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
United Kingdom might back out.
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2003, 11:47:09 AM »
Dowding NAILED it in my opinion. Bush began to blow this one almost right out of the starting gate and at almost every point between then and now.