Just prior to the launching of an illegal and fraudulent war on Iraq, George W Bush gave his ultimatum to the United Nations - either it legitimises his war or else it would become irrelevant like the League of Nations.

When it became apparent that France, and possibly Russia, China would veto the UN resolution authorising the use of military force, the Bush spin called it an "unreasonable" veto, and threatened to ignore it.

Now, the same Bush has exercised his veto power in defending its client state Israel when the overwhelming majority inside the Security Council unanimously voted in favour of the proposed UN resolution, which condemned Israel's belligerency for threatening to 'kill' Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat (please note it was only a condemnation, not even a threat to use force or enforce economic sanctions).

So the question is, which veto is reasonable and which one is unreasonable?