# Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417 "2013-09-09T16:04:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/681 "2013-09-29T05:32:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He needed a soundbite to toughen up his act after Benghazi and his “red line” line just popped out. You mean when Romney was promising to send US troops into Syria to prevent the spread of Chemical Weapons? Oh Yeah that summer on the campaign trail. But now we know that Obama’s red-line has worked. Without it and the threat he followed up with, this does not happen: > [@](#): > > UN Security Council resolution 2118, approved unanimously on 27 September 2013, endorsed the expeditious destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme, with inspections to begin by 1 October, and agreed that in the event of non-compliance, it would impose “Chapter VII” measures. The resolution includes two annexes: 1. OPCW Executive Council Decision 2. Geneva communique, 30 June 2012 - See more at: [http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/syria/syria\_security\_council\_resolution\_2118.htm#sthash.EOQROM9K.dpuf](http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/syria/syria_security_council_resolution_2118.htm#sthash.EOQROM9K.dpuf) And this doesn’t happen: In the event that Assad’s regime gets caught transferring chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic the UNSC will impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. And this doesn’t happen: Noting that on 14 September 2013, the Syrian Arab Republic \*\*deposited with the Secretary-General its instrument of accession to the Convention \*\*on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Convention) and declared that it shall comply with its stipulations and observe them faithfully and sincerely, applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic, - See more at: [http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/syri....EOQROM9K.dpuf](http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/syri....EOQROM9K.dpuf) I know you think all the historical accomplishments the past couple of weeks are all a trick by that crafty Putin so that Assad can hide a portion of his CW from the OPCW and then hang on to power eternally, but your last shred of Obama dissing talking points are failing you more and more each day that passes. If you think we’d be where we are had Obama just ‘shut up’ or sworn America to Rand Paul isolationism about CW in the midst of Syria’s civil war where some dastardly terrorist groups are heavily involved, then there’s little hope for that idea to live anywhere outside America’s right wing pundit and talk radio class. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/682 "2013-09-29T06:25:37Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > From the text: Again, you’re clutching at straws. Here it is, from the horse’s mouth: [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm](http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm) The text had not been passed under the Charter’s Chapter VII, nor did it allow for coercive measures. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/683 "2013-09-29T06:28:04Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Its in the infamous Magiver cite that says 1441 had no automaticity or hidden triggers to use force … the part after that he cites that 1441 does \*\*not constrain \*\*member states to enforce UNSC resolutions. So there is no such rule. You were caught fibbing. Again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/684 "2013-09-29T06:37:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And the Grinche’s heart grew 3 sizes that day? > > He needed a soundbite to toughen up his act after Benghazi and his “red line” line just popped out. It was clearly an accident since he tried to spin it with the followup “it’s not my red line” line. Your powers of telepathy are incredible, in the truest sense of the word. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/685 "2013-09-29T13:30:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So there is no such rule. You were caught fibbing. Again. Where did I say it was a rule? The Fib is on you. The scenario I played out is based upon the scenario that played out during the run up to the invasion of Iraq except that in Bush’s case he could not get nine or more UNSC members to go along with setting a deadline for Iraq’s full disarmament in ten days (by March 17, 2003 and therefore giving Bush and Blair the UNSC sanction, blessing, authorization, support for an invasion of Iraq. Bush was denied that support so he withdrew the draft resolution and invaded Iraq entirely on his own with the coalition of the bribed and those damned Brits who were in on the scheme the whole time. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/686 "2013-09-29T13:46:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Choosing to make war somehow civilized appears to be the most absurd oxymoron, but there it is. True enough, it doesn’t make that much sense to think of a bullet as more “organic” and acceptable than a chemical gas. A universe that seems to delight in denying us any absolutes is generous with that one, dead is dead, no two ways about it. > > So, not even a victory, but only a baby step. No glory, but the tiniest bit of hope . Who is choosing to make war somehow civilized? A bullet is not more ‘organic’ or acceptable, but a bullet actually involves the one who aims a weapon at a target actually sees whomever he has chosen to kill. If that target is a woman with a child clutched at here bosom then the act of firing that bullet is an atrocity. Having any participants who could and would do that on any side of a conflict is barbaric and uncivilized. Now if that target was one with a weapon firing at you and you fired back until one or the other falls, then no that is not civil behavior by any means but in war or combat it is tragic but it is not barbaric or an atrocity. Firing a rocket that dispenses a chemical agent that kills anything that breathes from 40 kilometers away in a safe area at that same women and child, them not knowing it is coming is an atrocity and is barbaric and apparently has no place in the rules of war in world community. That goes for random bombing of civilian populations too. That violates the rules of war. Civilians can and will be hit during conventional war, however there are certain rules of war that demand the targets be military targets or have an intended military goal. There should be no bombing of civilian houses for the sake of destroying civilian houses. If there is a military asset ten feet away and the conflict is ongoing, Getting out of that house would be a good idea. Its tragic but there is some sense to the international rules of war that have been developed and agreed. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/687 "2013-09-29T14:46:30Z")
Terr 'n Magiver, why does UNSC Resolution 1441 on Iraq have teeth, but UN Security Council resolution 2118 has no teeth. You both appear to be dodging rather than answering this question. They both 1441 and 2118 contain two stage wording with respect to taking action in the event of non-compliance. . Bush and Blair tried to implement a second stage and failed to get it. Here is the draft resolution dated around March 7, 2003 of which I speak: > [@](#): > > Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution. > > The Security Council - Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441(2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items; > > [http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf](http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf) Msg Id: 535768:563319 Bush had to know that France would veto this draft resolution had Bush put together nine or more yes votes to pass it. But Bush wanted this passed to show consensus that was only broken up by a veto by the stupid and wavering French who were part of Old Europe. The point is Terr, that if Syria violates 2118 now, it would likely be more clearly pronounced than Bush’s 'gut feeling on Saddam Hussein hiding something. In that case I do not doubt that nine or more members would take up the issue under Chapter Seven if the OPCW declares a major violation exists. Sure Putin can still veto it and perhaps China would too, however their veto would fly in the face of the international CW agency that they themselves are proponents and committed. If Putin does, member states have a decision to make and I think it would go down with severe sanctions first and if what ever the Assad regime did to violate 2118 actually disturbs international peace and security such as trying to smuggle CW out of the country or worse yet using them to kill again, Obama gets a good sized coalition to take Assad Down with military action. I see none of that happening because Syria needs and has shown a strong commitment to getting rid of every last CW In their arsenal. But you asked Terr, and we must speculate the worst to show you how these UNSC resolutions and votes etc work. And Magiver, if the UNSC ‘sanctioned’ Bush’s invasion of Iraq, why did Bush need to pose this draft resolution on March 7, 2003 in the first place. Can you explain that specifically since you are the one going around writing that the UN sanctioned Bush’s invasion and Kofi Ana is wrong to say it didn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/688 "2013-09-29T15:38:54Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Terr 'n Magiver, why does UNSC Resolution 1441 on Iraq have teeth, but UN Security Council resolution 2118 has no teeth. You both appear to be dodging rather than answering this question. Direct answer to you. 1441 was made under Chapter 7. 2118 was not. Here it is from the UNSC: [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm](http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm) ``` The text had not been passed under the Charter's Chapter VII, nor did it allow for coercive measures. ``` ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/689 "2013-09-29T16:18:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Direct answer to you. 1441 was made under Chapter 7. 2118 was not. Here it is from the UNSC: > > [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm](http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm) > > ``` > The text had not been passed under the Charter's Chapter VII, nor did it allow for coercive measures. > > ``` So you will avoid any discussion that both resolutions contained two stages to get to authorization to use force in the event of non-compliance? And you refuse to accept the reality that I have pointed out that in the case of Iraq Chapter 7 had been invoked many years before 1441 came to pass. Bush had to try to get a second resolution passed to get UNSC support for use of force and you must choose to ignore that fact because it strikes down your argument entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/690 "2013-09-29T16:30:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you refuse to accept the reality that I have pointed out that in the case of Iraq Chapter 7 had been invoked many years before 1441 came to pass. > > Bush had to try to get a second resolution passed to get UNSC support for use of force and you must choose to ignore that fact because it strikes down your argument entirely. He didn’t have to. He was authorized to strike Iraq by 1441, since it was done under Chapter 7. Obama is not authorized to strike Syria, since 2118 is not under Chapter 7. You not understanding the distinction is your problem. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/691 "2013-09-29T17:40:04Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > He didn’t have to. He was authorized to strike Iraq by 1441, since it was done under Chapter 7. Obama is not authorized to strike Syria, since 2118 is not under Chapter 7. You not understanding the distinction is your problem. Must we limit our reading and interprtation of both resolutions to their respective sub-title text only? Must we deny that text exists under the subtitles? Text such as this as found in 1441. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Magiver > There were 16 UN resolutions regarding Iraq prior to resolution 1441. The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq: > > [T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] > > Bush had the support of Congress on top of that resolution. He also had public support. Cite. Must we pretend that 1441 does not qualify the Chapter VII enforcement language to include this: This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. I see no need to pretend those words are not there. You need to deal with it, Terr. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/692 "2013-09-29T18:20:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > He didn’t have to. He was authorized to strike Iraq by 1441, since it was done under Chapter 7. Who are you, as compared to Kofi Annan who does not agree with you at all? > [@](#): > > U.N. Security Council Did Not Back Bush’s Iraq Invasion; Annan Suggested Invasion Was “Illegal.” From a September 2004 BBC report: > > The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. > > He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. > > […] > > “I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community,” [Annan] added. > > He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq’s failure to comply over weapons inspections. > > And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added. > > When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: “Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” [BBC, 9/16/04] > > [http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2011/04/01/wash-times-rewrites-history-to-suggest-bush-had/178209](http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2011/04/01/wash-times-rewrites-history-to-suggest-bush-had/178209) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/693 "2013-09-29T20:00:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Every time I think there are limits to the apologists for the Obama administration, I am proven wrong. > > You’re serious, aren’t you? Please explain how an “unbelievably small” - hell, practically nonexistent - strike will do anything about Assad’s use or non-use of chemical weapons? > [@Obama passing the ball to Congress for now - predictions?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-passing-the-ball-to-congress-for-now-predictions/667710/383): > > Finally, a workable solution. > > Assad gives up his chemical weapons and signs the treaty. Ok, WMD threat gone, no need for the US to freak. > > The civil war isn’t most other parties’ business and can’t be fixed from the outside anyway, so you try not to blow up your neighbors and we’ll try to stay out. > > Obama looks like The Man for scoring a diplomatic victory. Putin and Ban Ki Moon look indispensable. The world does not become less stable. Possibly, Assad can make a friend now that he’s shedding his rogue status. > > Win-win-win. > [@Obama passing the ball to Congress for now - predictions?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-passing-the-ball-to-congress-for-now-predictions/667710/384): > > If it happens, it will happen in years from now. > Since the negotiations about the control over the chemical weapons will drag on way longer than the rest of Obama’s presidency, Obama will look like a weak fool who was outplayed. So Terr, how’s your fogged up crystal ball lookin’ these days? Have you thrown a brick at it? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/694 "2013-09-29T20:25:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I see no need to pretend those words are not there. You need to deal with it, Terr. You are clueless. And no, those words are NOT in the resolution. Apparently you haven’t read it. Figures. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/695 "2013-09-29T20:50:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You are clueless. And no, those words are NOT in the resolution. Apparently you haven’t read it. Figures. Words in paragraph 4, 11 & 12 of 1442 are not there Terr? My my. > [@](#): > > . 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below; > [@](#): > > .11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; > > 1. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/696 "2013-09-29T20:52:49Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Words in paragraph 4, 11 & 12 of 1442 are not there Terr? My my. Buddy you claimed that this exact text: “This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.” is part of the resolution. It isn’t. Admit your mistake. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/697 "2013-09-29T22:48:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Buddy you claimed that this exact text: > > “This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.” > > is part of the resolution. It isn’t. Admit your mistake. I’ve been using Magiver’s synopsis of the language in UNSC Resolution. Is there something wrong with it? If it was good enough for Magiver, why isn’t it good enough for me. Now I have posted all three paragraphs in full that define the two step process. Do you deny they depict a two stage process that contained no automaticity for the use of force or a ‘hidden trigger’ for the use of force? Here’s the language that is there: > [@](#): > > 1. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security Now can you cite where the UNSC regarding UNSC Resolution 1441 decided to reconvene in order to consider the situation? No of course you can’t because the second step in the two stage process to authorize use of force was never needed. Kofi Annan is correct that the US invasion of Iraq “was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter”. You and Magiver are extremely wrong to claim that the UNSC authorized what Bush and Blair did to Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/698 "2013-09-29T23:58:12Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It is not toothless because when or if a nine member or more majority on the UNSC are in agreement that Assad’s regime has committed a violation of the Resolution demanding x y and z then a member state or coalition of member states could enforce that resolution outside the UN Security Council. Obama has never taken the option to use force off the table and he would have a much better case if Assad uses them again to kill civilians or obstructs in some flagrant way the dismantling of his CW arsenal. > Putin’s veto in the face of some ‘flagrant’ act or blatant obstruction of the CWC work would prevent specific UNSC authorization to use force, but it would also show that Putin will ignore his criminal partner’s transgressions and cannot be the sole interference any longer at saving lives from CW use in the Syrian civil war. Obama and more member states are likely to act outside the UNSC. > > Bush did. Clinton did. It is nothing new. > [@Terr](#): > > Seriously? Can you point out where that rule is written down? Here’s a report about it: > [@](#): > > . France, Russia and Germany harden stance > > Thursday 6 March 2003 03.39 EST > > Jon Henley in Paris, Gary Younge in New York and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow > > France, Russia and Germany yesterday raised the stakes in their defiance of Washington’s war plans against Iraq, vowing jointly “not to allow” a resolution authorising war to be passed by the United Nations security council. > At a hastily convened meeting in Paris, the three foreign ministers of the anti-war axis hardened their stance against military action and in favour of inspections two days before the UN chief weapons inspector is due to report to the security council. > > “We will not allow the passage of a planned resolution that would authorise the use of force,” the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said after the meeting with his Russian and German counterparts, Igor Ivanov and Joschka Fischer. > > He refused to say whether France was prepared to use its veto to block a new resolution already tabled by Britain, the US and Spain that would give the green light to the use of force against Baghdad. > > But, he said, “Russia and France, as permanent security council members, will fully assume all their responsibilities on this point. We are totally on the same line on this as the Russians.” > > The US government dismissed the statement as little more than the public expres sion of the diplomatic bargaining taking place behind the scenes. “You will continue to hear various statements by various people around the world,” said the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer. > > The US and Britain are seeking nine votes in favour of the draft resolution they presented last week, which would then force the French or Russians to use their veto. > > Both camps have four votes secured and are intensively lobbying for six votes of non-permanent nations who are wavering in the middle. The US regards yesterday’s remarks as part of an effort to persuade the swing nations that the resolution will not be passed. > > “What you are observing is a fluid situation as different nations make different statements that all lead up to the one day which is the most important day, which is the day of the vote,” Mr Fleischer said. > > The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, conceded that the anti-war position may not prevail. “We may lose this argument,” he said. > > “Anyone who fights for something that is good and right can lose. But anyone who doesn’t fight has already lost.” > > But analysts and diplomats believed that the statement did represent a hardening of the three nations’ position from which it would be difficult to climb down. > > “They are all working as hard as they damn well can to ensure the resolution does not have a majority on the council, so that they do not actually have to take that veto decision,” said one diplomat, who asked not to be named. > > “But clearly, I don’t see how you can interpret ‘will not allow’ in any other way than to mean that if it really comes down to it, yes, they are prepared to use their vetoes.” > > The president of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Moscow, Alexander Konovalov, said the statement marked a warning to the Americans and British to pull back. > > “This is a very strong signal to the United States not to put the second resolution up for a vote at all. After such strong statements, however, Russia has lost the opportunity to not use its veto, if it does come to a vote.” > > Mr Ivanov said that China, which also has a veto, “shared the approach” of Paris, Moscow and Berlin in seeking a peaceful resolution. > > Mr Fischer said: “I do not see personally how we can stop the process of resolution 1441 and resort to war.” Mr de Villepin said the results of inspections were “more and more encouraging”. > > [France, Russia and Germany harden stance | World news | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/06/russia.iraq) Hopefully you read the part about ‘nine members’ Terr. In context of the whole this: The US and Britain are seeking nine votes in favour of the draft resolution they presented last week, which would then force the French or Russians to use their veto. …explains everything ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/699 "2013-09-30T00:00:37Z")
Face it, kids. **NotfooledbyW** has nailed it. It was a beautiful triumph of diplomacy by Obama and Kerry, several years in the making. Even if the “misstatements” really were fumbles, and I’m not convinced of it, they retained control of the ball. There was a bit of “good cop/bad cop,” and Putin gets to play humanitarian and dealbroker, but we seem to be stuck with him, so we might as well help him grow up. Applause all around. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/700 "2013-09-30T00:40:20Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Here’s a report about it: > > Hopefully you read the part about ‘nine members’ Terr. You’re pathetic. Let’s see: let’s say “nine members” of the UNSC vote for a resolution. And one permanent member votes against. Is that resolution now a valid UNSC resolution and can it be enforced? Yes or no? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=36)