Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!

The people weremn't the ones threatening to veto, it was the governments of France and Russia.

we'll never know if Bush would have been able to secure it.

Would you argue against the idea that a lot of the coalition was convinced by this very fact? (money)

If I were leading Russia, quite frankly I would have told America that a unilateral invasion would result in nuclear war.

Craven: There were no doubt dozens of reasons considered other than "right and wrong". I'm simply stating that the potential embarrassment of having these things revealed could have been a mitigating factor in the decisions made. Do you really think thats impossible?

Why would you suggest threatening extinction to protect a tyrant?

Square 1mm by 1mm used to fold a crane using a microscope and sewing needle by Assistant Professor Watanabe at Nigata University, Japan. See British Origami, No. 119, page 22.
Lluis Bigas, a Spanish watch maker, has folded a pajarita from paper measuring .36 millimetres by .3 millimetres using a 20 times magnification lens, and two pairs of tweezers! The photograph, shows the tiny pajarita along side a flea. The pajarita is about as large as a full-stop!

A. Naito, Japan, folded a flapping bird from paper a mere 2.9mm (about 1/10in) square in response to a 'smallest flapping bird competition'. The bird was only about 2mm from beak to tail. To display it, Naito mounted it on a needle inside a transparent globe. However it was still very difficult to see so Nigel Keen fitted a contact lens to the outside of the globe through which it could be viewed. See page 160 of Complete Origami by Eric Kenneway (ISBN 0-312-00898-8).

If I were leading Russia, quite frankly I would have told America that a unilateral invasion would result in nuclear war.

Not to protect a tyrant Bill. And I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. When you tell me why you like beating women I'll tell you why I support tyrants.

What purpose would such a threat serve? Would it be only a bluff? How would you justify the act to your people who might very well die in a nuclear exchange. Would you think your country would actually survive such a conflict?

Quote:

Not to protect a tyrant Bill. And I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. When you tell me why you like beating women I'll tell you why I support tyrants.

Don't worry Bill. He got me like that not too long ago. It helps keep us on our intellectual toes.

Actually, 80% is probably not too high. It may be too low. I remember reading a Lewis Lapham article in Harpers a few monthes ago where he stated that there was no nation outside Europe and North America in which more than 10% of the population supported the war. That alone would have to place the global total somewhere around 80% or more. I also remember several stats of European nations where around 90% of the population opposed the war. Spain, France, and Germany, for example - and they are our traditional allies and cultural bretheren.

You'd be surprised whoall has transistors! I am actually absolutley serious.

And what is this about under 18? Many young people are extremely passionate about politics - I, just as one example, was very aware of wars and politics from about 5 up - but teenagers are very aware.

However, be that as it may, do you two agree that a very large percentage of the world's population was against the war?

And NOT to protect a tyrant - to attempt to protect the delicate fabric of civilised international law and custom against a superpower at large with no balancing force left against its power, and using it to do what it wanted, based on obviously tissue paper excuses and outright lies.