Iames,
Since you ask so politely, I am happy to tell you that you misunderstood my
reasoning. I would guess that your misunderstanding of it is the reason you
found it confusing (in fact, that is redundant, isn't it?).
If I use a gun to threaten you, I have, in fact, used the gun, even though I
haven't followed through on my threat. Likewise with veto power. Gerard said
the veto was not used. It was. The French government didn't veto a resolution,
because it was withdrawn. They nevertheless threatened that if it were put to a
vote, they would (not might, not could -- would) exercise their rights and veto
the resolution. According to many reports, many governments who had previously
said in private that they would vote in favor of the resolution, then said that
since it wouldn't pass anyway, they didn't want to waste political capital on a
lost cause (the resolution itself -- not necessarily the military action). And
thus, the threat accomplished its purpose. This is why the French government
made public their intention to veto the resolution in advance of the vote. Is
this reasoning clear?
Also, taking comments out of context is bound to cause confusion. My original
message contained a fair amount of information beyond those sentence (fragment)s
that you quoted.
> The veto was not used because there was not a resolution
> to vote, for the simple motive that the proponents (UK, USA and others) took
> back their motion. Period.
"Period" -- meaning: "case closed" "no further discussion is possible" "I have,
in my infinite wisdom, ruled" ???
> Why did they do that? Here we can dispute as long
> as we want, but the fact remains. Personally I think that a negative vote
> inside UN would have prooved the nonsense of the excuse that USA is
> presently advancing, that is this war is approved by previous UN
> resolutions.
>
I see: "we can dispute as long as we want, but the fact remains" (implying that
speculation is useless, since we weren't involved in the decision), followed by
your opinion. You're correct. No one outside those involved with the decision
to withdraw the proposed resolution can speak with authority on the motives of
its proponents. We can, however, pay attention to what they told us their
reason was: that the threatened French veto had sufficiently intimidated other
governments from voting their consciences.
> But from your (and others' words) I wonder if you simply don't allow
> that every country in UN Permanent Counsil has the right to exercise that
> vote.
What in my words would lead you to that foolish conclusion? As for others'
words, whose words are you speaking of, what words are you speaking of, and
again, what would lead you to that conclusion. By the way, if multiple people
take issue with a position, they don't automatically share identical views on
that or other issues. There are many ways to arrive at any conclusion, and many
reasons for taking a position.
> Are you saying that France (or Russia, or China) are not allowed to
> veto, if this hurts USA interests?
No, I'm not saying that. If I were saying that, I would have said that. Why do
you insist on putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be)?
> And these countries have to have their products boycotted?
No, these countries don't have to have their products boycotted. What's more,
I'm not currently in favor of their products being boycotted (although I reserve
the right to boycott anyone's products, as a citizen of a free country and a
capitalist economy, if and when I so choose).
> Tell me I understood wrongly your reasoning, please!
I'm happy to repeat my initial comment: you have apparently misunderstood my
actual assertions, and my reasoning, and have apparently attributed reasoning
(and assertions) to me for which I am most definitely not responsible.
>
> BTW, I guess you know that USA have VERY liberally exercited that right,
I'm not really sufficiently informed on the USA's invocation of its right to
veto to comment on whether that has been exerci(s)ed liberally or
conservatively. I suspect that those who employed it considered it to be
neither.
>
> mainly to protect Israel.
Of what possible relevance is that, if true?
>
>
> Iames "NOT IN MY NAME" Pizzoli, from Italy
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Joe De Ville |
|
