Coalition grows. Old Europe still pouting. - Page 2

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Actually there is rising support except for commies like Che.

From where? The countries that are supporting the war are the ones who have already thrown their towels in with the US. None of the Arab countries are supporting it, and neither are the countries opposing it before.

Why do you think that the US ran away from tabling a UNSC resolution?

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 22:36

Is there any country outside the US whose polls indicate a majority for the war ? Even a relative majority ?

chequita guevara · March 20, 2003, 22:38

Israel and Kuwait.

Lincoln · March 20, 2003, 22:38

The question I was answering UR was rising US support. And many Arabs support the overthrow of Saddam.

chequita guevara · March 20, 2003, 22:39

Honestly though, I wouldn't brag about all the sycophants and bootlickers that are members of this supposed "coalition of the willing."

Shi Huangdi · March 20, 2003, 22:39

Latest polls have indicated 50% of Britons support a war while 42% oppose IIRC

vee4473 · March 20, 2003, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Thats the only way it'll save itself.

Such powerhouses

And how much of it actually supports war?

Oops, dont you think?

Not only does Saddam have to worry about the US, but he has to worry about CYPRUS!!!!

you quote tiny countries that are powerless in a military sense in order to diminish their support for the US?

Yet, i'm sure you would have no problem in reciting or including all of the same types of militarily insignificant countries that make up those that oppose the US...

ranskaldan · March 20, 2003, 22:40

Governments are falling in with the coalition to maintain working relations with the US -- and out of fear, as well.

Popular sentiment, in the meantime, is strongly anti-US around the world. Countries are hesitating about sending troops in and restricting themselves to "hospital ships" or "humanitarian efforts" because they fear their own people - whether in elections or in coups.

As for whether Arabs support or oppose toppling Saddam, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much they like the US. And the answer is - they don't.

vee4473 · March 20, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Why do you think that the US ran away from tabling a UNSC resolution?

Because France said they would veto it no matter what it said. Why bother?

And, The US already got 18 resolutions that back force over the past 12 years...

starting with the first in 1991. Iraq had to give up all indicated weapons or face a continuation of the war.

But the world backed down.

Short memories.....oh well.

Short memories are the downfall of the world.

Nubclear · March 20, 2003, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
Yet, i'm sure you would have no problem in reciting or including all of the same types of militarily insignificant countries that make up those that oppose the US...

Yeah...China isn't really a major threat at all, is she? Neither is Russia.....or GERMANY

Or even France, huh?

Another oops commited by the far right.

Quote:

Right. Only the powerful should be allowed a voice...

So then every single poll in America is invalid because it doesnt survey every single person, right?

Including Bush approval ratings AND support for war

Uh oh!

Propaganda · March 20, 2003, 22:47

No one listen to Tassadar5000, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Nubclear · March 20, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473

Because France said they would veto it no matter what it said. Why bother?

And, The US already got 18 resolutions that back force over the past 12 years...

starting with the first in 1991. Iraq had to give up all indicated weapons or face a continuation of the war.

But the world backed down.

Short memories.....oh well.

Short memories are the downfall of the world.

Yes. I'm disappointed the world backed down from the 33 Israeli violations,a s well.

Also, the US said early on that if it could get 9 votes, it would bring it up

But they COULDNT get nine votes from even small economically poor countries

THAT must say something.

vee4473 · March 20, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Yeah...China isn't really a major threat at all, is she? Neither is Russia.....or GERMANY

Or even France, huh?

Another oops commited by the far right.

So then every single poll in America is invalid because it doesnt survey every single person, right?

Including Bush approval ratings AND support for war

Uh oh!

China has not been the major voice opposing the war.

The french have because of their economic arrangement with iraq.

And no, russia and germany are not major military powers. I had to point that out??

Nubclear · March 20, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Propaganda
No one listen to Tassadar5000, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Says the one who supports Stalin.

Lincoln · March 20, 2003, 22:48

No, I was talking about powerful nations as well. It seems like you would only give a voice to powerful people and nations.

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 22:48

Maybe I am wrong, but didn't the US and Britain prepared themselves to pass the vote, let France and Russia veto despite a majority in favour of war, and then saying "See ? France and Russia go against the will of the UNSC !".
I wonder why they didn't show for good the UNSC was backing them, despite France's yapping.

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
And many Arabs support the overthrow of Saddam.

Sure, so are we. What we are opposing to isn't the end but the means.

Propaganda · March 20, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Says the one who supports Stalin.

Nubclear · March 20, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473

China has not been the major voice opposing the war.

Therefore their opposition to war doesnt count?

Thats some pretty twisted logic.

Quote:

The french have because of their economic arrangement with iraq.

Oh gee, god forbid they look out for their own interests.

The US would never do such a thing

Quote:

And no, russia and germany are not major military powers. I had to point that out??

Not MAJOR if your comparing them to the US. But they could hold their own off. Therefore I consider them military powers.
Because in fact, if you compare ANYBODY to the US.......

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe I am wrong, but didn't the US and Britain prepared themselves to pass the vote, let France and Russia veto despite a majority in favour of war, and then saying "See ? France and Russia go against the will of the UNSC !".
I wonder why they didn't show for good the UNSC was backing them, despite France's yapping.

That's because they couldn't get the nine votes needed, regardless whether the resolution will be vetoed or not.

ranskaldan · March 20, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473

China has not been the major voice opposing the war.

We oppose it, nonetheless.

Actually, I've seen some Chinese citizens who support the war. They usually finish their comments with, "LET'S ECHO THEM IN THIS JUST STRUGGLE AND NUKE TAIWAN NOW."

etc etc.

Quote:

The french have because of their economic arrangement with iraq.

So?
It isn't like America didn't back out of various treaties due to economic arrangements.

Quote:

And no, russia and germany are not major military powers. I had to point that out??

I think you need to redefine "major military power".

Lincoln · March 20, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Sure, so are we. What we are opposing to isn't the end but the means.

I don't support the means either. But there is nothing I can do about it. After the war is over though I suspect that many will be relieved that Saddam is gone.

vee4473 · March 20, 2003, 22:52

and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...

so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't support the means either. But there is nothing I can do about it. After the war is over though I suspect that many will be relieved that Saddam is gone.

The only thing is, the region is very likely to be in a worse state without Hussein.

ranskaldan · March 20, 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...

so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

ahem

That's actually TWO vetoes (France, Russia) and one more possible veto (China). Plus a few more non-permanent members.

Urban Ranger · March 20, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...

so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

That's only your spin. Let the world decide whatever that means - usually not quite the same way as yours.

Nubclear · March 20, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
and as long as france threatened veto no matter what was presented, every member of the UN could have voted for the resolution, but when france vetoed....the UN is officially against it...

so , with one veto, the image is presented that the world is against the coalition.

wow...

The US specifically said that France could veto it but if it got 9 votes, it could say "The majority of the UNSC is for us! France DARES to defy them!? Infidels!!!" and run off with war.

But you see, they couldnt get the votes so they BACKED OFF. Wisely, too.

Lincoln · March 20, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The only thing is, the region is very likely to be in a worse state without Hussein.

That is one reason why I really do not support violent intervention in that region. I think that we are opening up a can of worms. But on the other hand, it may work out as planned. I am just waiting to see what happens next.

BeBro · March 20, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan

I think you need to redefine "major military power".

Well, to be fair, calling Germany a major military power today is not really correct. Generally, our military was not only constantly reduced during the last decade, it is also under-equipped and lacks financial support...

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 22:57

vee : the plan was precisely to show how France was isolated, and how much its little voice made the massively pro-war UN a joke.
It is obvious US/UK didn't get the 9 votes. Otherwise, they'd have gone for it, if only to have a diplomatic victory against France, and further legitimate the war to public opinions. The meadia wouldn't have stopped at the actual resolution. The media would have stopped at France stopping the international will.

But please continue to argue how you had the majority at the UNSC and didn't want to show it