Originally posted by LOSTTWARE
and per the ... there were not 100 nations backing us blah blah blah blah blah
WTF
Do you know how many nations are in the UN?
Do you?
It is a VERY large number. I am not going to state facts here I am not sure of like others, but I believe it to be around 150 to 250 nations.
France and Germany were the ONLY two who voted No.
Do the mother Freaking math.
That Means that more than 100 nations were backing us.
Too bad America bribes UN leaders to get its way...
"It was one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the United Nations, and is about to be repeated. For the first time, the full UN Security
Council capitulated to an American-led war party and abandoned its legal responsibility to advance peaceful and diplomatic solutions. On 29 November,
the United States got its war resolution. This was made possible by a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats, of which a repetition is currently
under way, especially in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In 1990, Egypt was the most indebted country in Africa. Baker bribed President
Mubarak with $14bn in "debt forgiveness" and all opposition to the attack on Iraq faded away. Syria's bribe was different; Washington gave
President Hafez al-Assad the green light to wipe out all opposition to Syria's rule in Lebanon. To help him achieve this, a billion dollars' worth
of arms was made available through a variety of back doors, mostly Gulf states.
Iran was bribed with an American promise to drop its opposition to a series of World Bank loans. The bank approved the first loan of $250m on the day
before the ground attack on Iraq. Bribing the Soviet Union was especially urgent, as Moscow was close to pulling off a deal that would allow Saddam to
extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully. However, with its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey for a bribe. President Bush sent the Saudi
foreign minister to Moscow to offer a billion-dollar bribe before the Russian winter set in. He succeeded. Once Gorbachev had agreed to the war
resolution, another $3bn materialised from other Gulf states.
The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial. Zaire was offered undisclosed "debt forgiveness" and military equipment
in return for silencing the Security Council when the attack was under way. Occupying the rotating presidency of the council, Zaire refused requests
from Cuba, Yemen and India to convene an emergency meeting of the council, even though it had no authority to refuse them under the UN Charter.
Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador:
"That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was
stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The ferocity of the
American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Security Council Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and
economy. When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was
warned by the US ambassador in Quito about the "devastating economic consequences" of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for
its debt.
The punishment of impoverished countries that opposed the attack was severe. Sudan, in the grip of a famine, was denied a shipment of food aid. None
of this was reported at the time. By now, news organisations had one objective: to secure a place close to the US command in Saudi Arabia. At the same
time, Amnesty International published a searing account of torture, detention and arbitrary arrest by the Saudi regime. Twenty thousand Yemenis were
being deported every day and as many as 800 had been tortured and ill-treated."
www.stevethepro.ukf.net...
www.islamonline.net...
www.unwire.org...
"This brings us to the United Nations. After all, many opponents of war are looking to the UN to prevent it. Sadly, they are looking in the wrong
place.Like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, the UN reflects the unequal structure of power in the world. Just like those
institutions, the UN is dominated by a handful of powers � the five permanent members of the Security Council � each of which has a veto over any
resolution. More than this, behind the scenes, the dominant players use threats and bribery to get their way.
To insure Pakistan�s support for war in Afghanistan, for instance, the US government bought off its leadership at a price of $1 billion. At the
moment, the Bush administration is doing the same thing with countries like Angola and Guinea which are temporarily on the UN Security Council. And
France, as we have seen, is manoevering for a share of Iraqi oil. In short, the UN operates like a den of thieves with the most powerful governments
dominating the wheeling and dealing. "
www.newsocialist.org...
"Using Corleone-style tactics, Bush pulled out all the stops to gain support of the council. "What's unique is the scale and the audacity of the
bribing," says Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-author of the group's report "Coalition of the Willing or
Coalition of the Coerced?" Almost every country faced "coercion, bullying, bribery, or the implied threat of U.S. action that would directly damage
the interests of the country," the report says. Many nations may remember what the United States did to Yemen prior to the Gulf War in 1991. "When
Yemen, the sole Arab country on the council, voted against the resolution authorizing war, a U.S. diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador, 'That will be
the most expensive no vote you ever cast.' Three days later, the U.S. cut its entire aid budget to Yemen," the report notes."
www.progressive.org...