26-02-2003 23:48									#1
	What if the US loses the UN vote? Suffering from ads?

What if, after the US makes it's presentation, it loses the vote. I don't just mean if France, China, and/or Russia decide to veto. What if we lose the majority vote?

	26-02-2003 23:50									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

They will still attack. I think a more interesting question is if they will attack if more Americans start turning against the war.

	26-02-2003 23:53									#3
	Tired of ads?

I think if they lose the majority, it will delay it.

	26-02-2003 23:54									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The UN would have rendered it'self inert, and a new international system would be needed.

And that isn't a BAD thing in my opinion.

	26-02-2003 23:56									#5
	Support Apolyton

If the friendly pressures on some countries are not enough to reach the 9 votes required, we can expect that the resolution will not be presented, and the US will attack on the ground of the 1441.

	26-02-2003 23:58									#6
	Suffering from ads?

Of coure, if other nations think that the resolution will be vetoed, they might vote for the resolution just to score brownie points with the US. Oye! Politics.

	27-02-2003 00:00									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Bush is facing increasing opposition at home, though. The "bounce" from his State of the Union address has eroded. I saw on MSNBC this morning that the latest Zogby poll showed support for the war down to 54%, opposition was up to 42%, or something near there. Bush's job approval ratings are also at the lowest since before Sept. 11th, according to Pew.

	27-02-2003 00:00									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The thing that pisses me off is that a majority of Americans only support the war with UN backing. We will probably get the majority support on this next resolution, but only because we bribed many of the countries to support it. The majority of the countries still don't really support the war. I wonder if other Americans think about that.

	27-02-2003 00:04									#9
	Tired of ads?

People that say 'we suppost the war, but ONLY with UN backing" are the most odd of all, in my opinion.

Anyone that follows the UN knows it's a self interest "what can you do for me" organization, and therefore, useless on both moral matters and national defense matters.

Why does Chirac or Putin agreeing make it OK?

Either you believe in the war or not, the UN opinion should be irrelivent.

	27-02-2003 00:05									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

When do other countries do something that does not dierctly benefit them, without a bribe?

	27-02-2003 00:06									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Then the official attack is delayed, perhaps by six months, while covert activity continues.

Meanwhile, a US special ops team attacks the Champs Elyssé in late July.

	27-02-2003 00:07									#12
	Put an end to popups!

I think US will go to war no matter what other countries say. If opposition is strong, then it might take little longer, but the US will force this through, it's clear. If not, Bush and the whole administration would face great loss, as they have been pushing this so hard. No questions about it.

Only thing I'm wondering how big opposition does it take inside the US to stop it.. I think it will have to be veeery big. The only one who can stop this is not Saddam, it's Bush. Whether it would be wise or not is different question. My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter what Saddam does, and if Saddam just goes exile or whatever runs to haven.. that would be the biggest defeat ever. Saddam is not holding the keys, and he shouldn't have the power to do that either. He's going down and he personally deserves anything he gets and more.

	27-02-2003 00:09									#13
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture Meanwhile, a US special ops team attacks the Champs Elyssé in late July.

Wrong place again ! Not Avenue des Champs Elysées, Palais de l'Elysée where Président Chirac is living.

	27-02-2003 00:11									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think the people wanting UN backing are thinking more about this in world level. Keeping the order and all that.
I think it's important that this gets through the UN too. I'm pro war, but also pro UN. Maybe because I'm from small country too, we don't like when big countries do what they want when there is opposition in general. It's like the ticket for safety. But that's generally speaking about the UN importance, it's important mostly to others in the world.

	27-02-2003 00:14									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If the resolution were going down to defeat, then the US & UK wouldn't offer it for a vote. If it is likely to be vetoed by the French or Russians, then we might go forward and dare them to veto the resolution.

Apparently, Mexico has come on board. Don't know what we gave up for them, but there are lots of areas where we can help them out.

	27-02-2003 00:17									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, both France and the US are claiming the majority is with them.

	27-02-2003 00:19									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The veto was designed to make possible that the fundamental interests of the five powers were not endangered. Except for Russia, I dont see the fundamental interests of China or France endangered by the Irak war.

	27-02-2003 00:20									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This should answer the question:

quote: U.S. Rejects Deadline for Iraq to Disarm 22 minutes ago By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Wednesday dismissed a compromise proposal by Canada to set an end-of-March deadline for Iraq to comply with U.N. disarmament demands. After Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) conferred by telephone with Foreign Minister Bill Graham, the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the proposal "only procrastinates on a decision we all should be prepared to take." Boucher recalled other governments tried earlier to set a deadline for Iraq. But he said, in the meantime "we have heard from inspectors again, again and again" that Iraq had not agreed to fully disarm. Earlier, President Bush (news - web sites) called Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) "a master of disguise and delay" Wednesday and mocked the Iraqi leader for disclosing some weapons that he'd previously denied were in his arsenal. On a day in which the White House threatened Saddam with trial as a war criminal in the event of war, Bush said, "The danger with Iraq is that he can strike in the neighborhood and the danger with Iraq is that he has got the willingness and capacity to train al-Qaida type organizations and provide them with equipment to hurt Americans." Saddam "will be disarmed one way or the other," the president declared as his administration prepared for another faceoff at the United Nations (news - web sites) on a resolution designed to bring about the disarmament of Iraq. In remarks before the Latino Coalition, however, Bush stopped short of repeating previous claims of an already existing link between Iraq and al-Qaida terrorists. But he did say, "The world has waited a long time for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm." From the speech, Bush stepped into a meeting with President Geidar Aliev of Azerbaijan, a country 250 miles northeast of Iraq, which has backed the U.S. call for Iraq's disarmament. On Tuesday, Bush said that if the Iraqi president and his generals "take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals."

The whitehouse is not accepting any more delaying tactics from any power.

	27-02-2003 00:25									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

What's taking Labour so long to throw Blair out on his ass?

	27-02-2003 00:31									#20
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 People that say 'we suppost the war, but ONLY with UN backing" are the most odd of all, in my opinion. Anyone that follows the UN knows it's a self interest "what can you do for me" organization, and therefore, useless on both moral matters and national defense matters. Why does Chirac or Putin agreeing make it OK? Either you believe in the war or not, the UN opinion should be irrelivent.

That's only true to a point. You're certainly right that if you think there is (or isn't) cause to attack Iraq, then what the UN member states say should be irrelevant. However, there are other implications, namely the aftermath. If the action is backed by the UN, then it is alot easier to get international support during the post-war time, especially in terms of "peacekeeping" forces (for lack of a better term) and monetary assistance in rebuilding destroyed infrastructure. It will also be easier to bring other Arab governments on side, which may help ease some of the anti-American sentiment in the region (though certainly not eradicate it).

Granted, not that many people have given it that much thought, and I'd be willing to agree with you that most people who only support the war with UN backing don't really know why.

	27-02-2003 00:33									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well, both France and the US are claiming the majority is with them.

Well, we'll see.

Powell believes he has the African nations on board. I think these deals have already been worked out. If you add Mexico to our column, then that would put us at 8 (US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea).

This leaves Pakistan and Chile on the fence.

	27-02-2003 00:34									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ramo What's taking Labour so long to throw Blair out on his ass?

If he won't resign, they'd have to call a vote of no confidence, which would bring new elections, whioch would probably sweep the Liberal-Democrats into power, since they are solidly anti-war.

	27-02-2003 00:36									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I was under the impression that Labour MP's were overwhelmingly anti-war.

	27-02-2003 00:39									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If he won't resign, they'd have to call a vote of no confidence, which would bring new elections, whioch would probably sweep the Liberal-Democrats into power, since they are solidly anti-war.

Then wouldn't that be a bad decision for Labour to make - politically speaking?

	27-02-2003 00:40									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

At the peace rally in Glasgow, a rebel Labour MP addressed the crowd, saying that the Labour Party is not split. The Labour Party is against this war. It was probably the second best speech of the day.

	27-02-2003 00:47									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

People that say 'we suppost the war, but ONLY with UN backing" are the most odd of all, in my opinion.


One, because the reason Iraq is to be attacked is that they are building weapons prohibited by UN resolutions. So the UN should be the one to flag violations.

Two, the UN was established to try and curb wars. If there had been a UN around in '14 to solve the Serbian issue a lot of headaches could have been avoided.

If a large group of countries can agree that a country has to be taken out, it's makes everybody feel like it's not just a personal vendetta, or imperial warmongering. That has the effect of easing tensions among other countries who could be next on the aggressors radar.

	27-02-2003 00:49									#27
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, both France and the US are claiming the majority is with them. Well, we'll see. Powell believes he has the African nations on board. I think these deals have already been worked out. If you add Mexico to our column, then that would put us at 8 (US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea). This leaves Pakistan and Chile on the fence.

I don't think the U.S. will have any problem purchasing Chile's vote. Pakistan will sign up once we remind them that we're giving them a pass on supporting terrorists and selling nuclear weapons to our enemies.

	27-02-2003 00:49									#28
	Remove this text

Yeah, but unless Labour takes the risky step of ousting their PM, they're going to be seen as not being against the war. You Brits have days to sack your PM if we're gonna stop this war.

	27-02-2003 00:50									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The 'problem' is there is no-one to challenge Blair.

Not a problem for me, but for those that want Blair out to stop war, which I think is bad reason to depose him

	27-02-2003 00:54									#30
	Tired of ads?

Why do y'all need anyone special to challenge Blair? Isn't his approval rating in the 30%'s?