Thank GOD for the French, and the Germans and the Canadians and the Russian
Federation and the other 5 members of the Security Council that wouldn't go
along with Bush's testosterone driven grand plan to slaughter Iraqi
civilians! At least they have the compassion and humanity to envision a
future where the biggest bully on the block doesn't always get his way in
this world.
You're setting up a straw man, Andy. Totally irrelevant!
Chet G.
Flaming Radical
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Weiss" <anweiss (at) optonline .DO.T net>
To: <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [OT] : French Products and Companies to Boycott
> Exactly what act by what ally was being contemplated? I don't read these
> two resolutions as comparable. Remember, we're looking for a time when
the
> US offered or actually used its veto power to prevent a trading partner
and
> historical ally from taking a contemplated action. That's what the French
> did.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-admin (at) leafe .DO.T com [mailto:profox-admin@leafe.com]On Behalf Of
> Saladin 1175
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:06 PM
> To: profox (at) leafe .DO.T com
> Subject: RE: [OT] : French Products and Companies to Boycott
>
>
> > Maybe you'd like to enlighten us all on when the US used its
> > veto power
>
> MIDDLE EAST
> US EXERCISES VETO POWER IN SECURITY COUNCIL - REJECTS RESOLUTION ON THE
> MIDDLE EAST.
> The proposed resolution demanded the immediate cessation of all acts of
> violence, condemned all acts of terror, in particular those targeted at
> civilians. It further condemned all acts of extrajudiciary executions,
> excessive use of force and wide destruction. The Draft resolution also
> called on both sides to implement the Mitchell report. US Ambassador
> Negroponte said, "a fundamental flaw of the resolution was that it never
> mentioned the recent acts of terrorism against Israelis." The Security
> Council vote was 12 in support, Britain and Norway abstaining and the U.S.
> vetoing.
>
> http://www.unicwash.org/unnews2001/unnews2001-1221.htm
>
> US exercises veto
> Last month, the United States exercised its veto against the renewal of
the
> mandate of the U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) because the
> Council refused to exempt U.S. peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction.
>
> Subsequently, the Untied States agreed to extend the mandate for another
> three days, and later for an additional two weeks, ending Jul 15.
>
> If the United States exercises its veto a second time when the Council
meets
> to renew the UNMIBH mandate next week, the United Nations will be forced
to
> abandon its peace mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
>
> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_0712_04.htm
>
>
> At the United Nations, the US Bush administration cast its first veto in
> the Security Council late on Tuesday night, ending a weeklong marathon
> debate and decisively scuttling Palestinian hopes for a UN observer force
in
> the Israeli-occupied territories in the foreseeable future.
>
> The United States has used its veto only five times in the Council since
the
> waning days of the Cold War in 1990.
>
> Four of the five vetoes have been on resolutions about the Middle East.
>
> On the Council table since last week was a resolution sought by the
> Palestinians to align the Security Council behind criticism of Israel and
> demands for a protection or observer force.
>
> Britain, France, Ireland and Norway worked through the last week to draft
a
> compromise. A ''protection mechanism'' was suggested, but only for future
> study. Meanwhile, the council had to squeeze in or set aside work on
Congo,
> Sierra Leone, Macedonia and East Timor.
> On Tuesday night, when the Palestinians demanded a vote and the United
> States cast a veto, the four European members abstained. Ukraine did not
> vote. The nine other council members - China, Russia, Bangladesh, Jamaica,
> Mali, Tunisia, Colombia, Mauritius and Singapore - backed the
Palestinians.
> The United States never agreed even to consider mention of a force, which
> Israel has repeatedly rejected and which Secretary General Kofi Annan has
> described as unworkable without the consent of both parties.
>
>
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:kkBqhNPoTZQC:www.buenosairesherald.co
>
m.ar/1_world/2_world/0103/0103-29.htm+%22US+exercises+veto%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: profox-admin@leafe.com
> > [mailto:profox-admin (at) leafe .DO.T com]On Behalf Of Ed Leafe
> > Sent:
> > Monday, March 31, 2003 5:19 PM
> > To: profox@leafe.com
> > Subject: Re: [OT] : French Products and Companies to Boycott
> >
> >
> > On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:10 PM, Andrew Weiss wrote:
> >
> > > What I resent is the french setting themselves up as the
> > one and only
> > > obstacle to the resolution passing. France is a relatively small
> > > country with a huge economy that competes ruthlessly around
> > the world
> > > for markets.
> >
> > They are a permanent member of the Security Council.
> > Every such member can do the same; the US certainly does when
> > it feels like it.
> >
> > It seems rather odd to use your position when it suits
> > you, and then complain bitterly when someone else does
> > exactly the same thing.
> >
> > ___/
> > /
> > __/
> > /
> > ____/
> > Ed Leafe
> > http://leafe.com/
> > http://opentech.leafe.com
> >
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Chet Gardiner |
