Huh....took longer than I thought. About three seconds. The first link had a "disclaimer". http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
...ah, unless I am mistaken, it was not the other countries that went along with the US - it was the US that went along with the others. The resolution passed bore very little resemblance to the resolution that Bush wanted...
I believe you are mistaken - though "resemblance" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, and I'm not really sure what you're presuming "Bush wanted." As I recall it went like this: The main point of contention (pushed chiefly by, suprise!, the French) was over what kind of language the resolution would provide regarding use of force. At one point, the US maximum position was for something akin to the Gulf War resolutions - military enforcement, with no need for further resolutions. The French maximum position was for language requiring members to return to the Security Council for approval before use of force. The unanimously approved compromise set the stage for a resumption of inspections, but included neither maximum position, allowing the US to rest on the argument that prior resolutions already spelled out a right to use force, while the French and others considered the issue still open. Democrats have liked to take credit for forcing Bush to go to the UN. Bush supporters have claimed that there was always an intention to take the case to the UN.
First, the smear of veterans. Speaking of the 11 million Americans who, during the Vietnam years, answered their country's draft call and the 2 million who served in Vietnam, Rumsfeld alleged that these draftees "added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone." I'll say "then, they were gone!" Of the 58,152 Americans who gave their lives in Vietnam 20,352 of them were draftees. How dare the secretary of defense say these good and brave Americans "added no value, no advantage, to the United States armed services?" http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/column.shields.opinion.rumsfeld/index.html Great respect and appreciation for our vets... Josh
I think this has been taken completely out of context. What Rumsfeld is talking about is costs. He saying is that, on an accounting basis, the service given by the draftees was offset by a.) the enormous training expense and b.) by the shorter term of service.