speedracer
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,604
Bet you never would have expected to read this...
- Thread starter speedracer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Quote:
"But this does not necessarily mean a unanimous Security Council vote on such action. It might be difficult for some to accept a sole veto from Beijing autocrats, for example, on action which might restore democracy to another nation."
And so? Many votes are difficult to accept, and what does he mean by Beijing autocrats?
Not a very diplomatic article.
"But this does not necessarily mean a unanimous Security Council vote on such action. It might be difficult for some to accept a sole veto from Beijing autocrats, for example, on action which might restore democracy to another nation."
And so? Many votes are difficult to accept, and what does he mean by Beijing autocrats?
Not a very diplomatic article.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Hello,
Actually, I largely agree with this article. War should be avoided as much as possible, but when there is no way out, then a multilateral action, under supervision of the UN, is the way to go. With the discovery this week of some unreported shells and some documents in the house of a scientist about enriching uranium (in total 3,000 pages) it seems as if Saddam was breaching the resolution. Just an excuse stating "Sorry, forgot about those" is not enough.
The article also has some weaker points though. I disagree with its view that Bush dutifully pursued a multilateral approach over Iraq. If he had it his way he'd bombed Iraq long ago. But he was more or less forced to work through the UN, which he did in the end (but still with making claims that the US would go on without the UN if they felt like it).
As for the quote Whenhiphopdrovethebigcars singled out, that's another point I disagree with the article. It's true, an unanimous vote by the Security Council is not necessary, but there may be no veto from the five permanent members (of which China is one). So if China vetoes the action (or one of the other permanent members) then that has to be accepted. It may be a lousy decision, but the decision was made according to the rules.
C ya!
Marty
Actually, I largely agree with this article. War should be avoided as much as possible, but when there is no way out, then a multilateral action, under supervision of the UN, is the way to go. With the discovery this week of some unreported shells and some documents in the house of a scientist about enriching uranium (in total 3,000 pages) it seems as if Saddam was breaching the resolution. Just an excuse stating "Sorry, forgot about those" is not enough.
The article also has some weaker points though. I disagree with its view that Bush dutifully pursued a multilateral approach over Iraq. If he had it his way he'd bombed Iraq long ago. But he was more or less forced to work through the UN, which he did in the end (but still with making claims that the US would go on without the UN if they felt like it).
As for the quote Whenhiphopdrovethebigcars singled out, that's another point I disagree with the article. It's true, an unanimous vote by the Security Council is not necessary, but there may be no veto from the five permanent members (of which China is one). So if China vetoes the action (or one of the other permanent members) then that has to be accepted. It may be a lousy decision, but the decision was made according to the rules.
C ya!
Marty
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
