No that's not what I'm saying. I'll try it again with different words.
By saying that no matter what you put in that resolution we're going to veto
it, France took upon itself to say to America, "We are against whatever you
say". That left a bad taste in my mouth toward France, so I spit it out.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and in my opinion the UN
should be in Europe, maybe even in France, and we (US) should not
participate in it. I don't believe in a one world government and if I did,
it wouldn't be the UN. The UN lacks the 'gonads' to back up what they put in
their 'so called' resolutions. Even the name of these 'rules' is a misnomer,
because they aren't resolute about any of it. If someone doesn't do what
they (UN) say in their 'rules' there are no consequences, so what's the
point. You may say that sanctions can be applied, but then you have the
French who say 'damn the sanctions, we'll do business with them anyway'. So
why IS there a UN anyway, except to make some unimportant people feel
important?
I don't and can't speak for all Americans. This is my personal opinion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iames Pizzoli" <iames (AT) esperiasw DOT it>
To: <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: R: [OT] : French Products and Companies to Boycott
> John,
>
> >
> > Can you say 'Virtual Veto'?
> >
> > Had France not announced ahead of tiime that no matter what
> > the resolution said, they would veto it, your reasoning would
> > make work.
>
> so you're saying that at that time there was a chance that UK and
> USA would have proposed even a totally different resolution, one that
would
> not imply bombing here, there and everywhere, right? And that ultimately
> removing Saddam would have been achieved through the involvement of the
> entire UN, still correct? Oh yeah, France behavior was inappropriate
> indeed!!!
>
> > However, I believe that the announcement was made
> > knowing that some who were leaning toward voting for the new
> > resolution, even though they might anger some of their
> > constuients, would vote different if it was for sure not
> > going to pass anyway.
>
> willings non enough willing, eh?
>
> Iames "NOT IN MY NAME" Pizzoli
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 John Sumrall |
