If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cash for support: If votes can be bought what are UN resolutions worth?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As Turkey is negotiating a new/improved aid package from the US worth up to $32bn for co-operation and support for a war on Iraq, newspapers have reported other countries that will be making a killing- no pun intended- out of giving their vote and/or support for a US-led war and any forthcoming resolutions authorising force.
And it turns out that a whole bunch of nations, including China and Russia, could be persuaded to support the US... for the right price. Info here
Why is this allowed to happen? Doesn't voting in the UN adhere to the same rules and codes of practice as an election or referendum in any sovereign nation? And can we really go to war over resolutions such as 1441 and the new one being tabled now, when it is clear that a corrupt government has bought the votes of other corrupt governments to alter the outcome? The countries involved are no better than the little dictatorships and banana republic nations we in the West like to look down on.
So there you have it: international carrot and stick. Mucho dinero if you give me your support, economic boycotts if you don't. Moral case for war my arse!
And it turns out that a whole bunch of nations, including China and Russia, could be persuaded to support the US... for the right price. Info here
Why is this allowed to happen? Doesn't voting in the UN adhere to the same rules and codes of practice as an election or referendum in any sovereign nation? And can we really go to war over resolutions such as 1441 and the new one being tabled now, when it is clear that a corrupt government has bought the votes of other corrupt governments to alter the outcome? The countries involved are no better than the little dictatorships and banana republic nations we in the West like to look down on.
So there you have it: international carrot and stick. Mucho dinero if you give me your support, economic boycotts if you don't. Moral case for war my arse!
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
What does France offer? Why would any country put itself in a place where France can tell it to shut up?
And what integrity do you think the country that bribes them all has?
One thing you have to admit, Bush said exactly what he was going to do back in 2001. Right after Sept. 11, he said he was going to bring people to justice or bring justice to people. And he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as being states that were sponsoring terrorism. Once again, someone underestimated America's resolve to defend itself. Most Americans feel we are under attack with no one helping to defend us.
If it were up to me, I'd have the US pull out of NATO and put those troops into transitioning Iraq into a Muslim democracy...an alternative to extremism.
You do parrot the evening news quite well though, ill grant you that much.
As corrupt is the government that offers the bribe as the one that accepts it...
Yeah, but Germany was remilitarising at a rapid rate, Europe isn't. :rolleyes:
A damn sight more than those who can be bought.
But what you point out only goes to underline what I have always said about the UN...
Aladdin,
Might visit a few of those sovereign nations and see how their elections run...
Source?
A real historic source, thank you.
Would you sell your opinion? Cos I'm damned if I would, talk about selling your soul.
But what about trying to influence someone else to support your position, in order to achieve the aims that your opinion showed you as being necessary? Is a march any different really, or the threat not to vote for a politician if he doesn't back your stance, surely this is just bribary by another means?
There is a world of difference between bribing and marching or voting MoK. There might be mitigating circumstances on occasion but let examine this particular case:
Other than the Bush and Blair administrations and a few minions elsewhere, the majority of governments in the world are opposed to using force on principle (not to mention the public everywhere). The US is achieving support for its resolutions by the double approach of showering countries with money and making it clear that they might as well take it, for it is the US intention to go ahead with it and those who stand in the way will be punished. As pnj reminds us regularly, Bush's defining moment was his "you're with us or against us" rant. That doesn't smell of honesty, but of corruption, bullying and fraud.
Furthermore, regardless of the benefits that getting rid of Saddam will bring, I trust you don't believe for a second the US is acting out of responsibility and to alleviate people of their suffering. They're doing it for their own interests and reasons and that makes the bribing even the more reprehensible.
Disarm? NO!
I wonder...will the US get so fed up with France that it just creates a new world trade alliance where all the countries that France told to "shut up" can join instead of the French-poised EU?
So you attack iraq?
You still don't see the flaw in the logic do you?
Northern Iraq is under US, UK and Kurdish control, not Baghdad's.
Actually, parts of Northern Iraq are controlled by the Kurds. Other parts are controlled by dissidents linked to Iran. Other areas either uncontrolled or controlled by elements that don't fall into those two categories.
By the way, anyone bother to read the link a few posts up? Seems Saddam has accelerated the process nicely.
Yes, it would appear Saddam is falling into the pit and sealing his own doom.
Doesn't mean there shouldn't be more time to apply pressure on him though,,,,,,,
12 years wasn't enough?