0
   

The US, The UN and Iraq

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:19 am
Peace T-shirt leads to man's arrest

ALBANY, N.Y., March 4 - A Selkirk man says he was arrested Monday for expressing his objection to possible war with Iraq at Crossgates Mall. He says all he did was wear a T-shirt bearing a message of peace, which he actually purchased in the mall.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp?0cv=NB10
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:41 am
Quote:
A world divided over Saddam
By David Usborne, Marie Woolf and Kim Sengupta
05 March 2003


Divisions over war on Iraq were fully exposed last night when Russia dashed American and British hopes of pushing a second resolution through the United Nations to provide international legitimacy for the conflict.

Igor Ivanov, Russia's Foreign Minister, warned during a visit to London that his government would not flinch from using its right of veto in the UN Security Council to avert a conflict. "Russia would not support any decision that would directly or indirectly lead to a war with Iraq," he told the BBC.

"If the situation so demands, Russia will of course use its right of veto, as an extreme measure," Mr Ivanov added before meeting Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. Mr Ivanov dismissed talk that Russia might abstain rather than risk American wrath. "Russia will not abstain," he said. "It will take a particular position."

With tensions rising ahead of a crucial weapons inspectors' report to the Security Council on Friday, Colin Powell, America's Secretary of State, also raised the stakes by declaring that it was prepared to launch a war with or without a second resolution.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, he said: "Saddam has had his last chance, we have to take action ... Public opinion will come round once we go ... We want to see a second resolution at the UN, but in our view 1441 is enough." Tony Blair faces political calamity if he finds himself going to war without fresh approval from the Security Council. France has already hinted that it is ready to use a veto to defeat the resolution.

For the text to pass it must attract a minimum of nine positive votes and avoid any vetoes.

But mounting pessimism over the chances of gaining those nine votes provoked speculation last night that Britain and America were preparing at the last minute to abandon a vote. That would avoid the embarrassment of defeat. But it would also imply starting hostilities without UN approval.

General Powell said President Bush believed resolution 1441 justified action and he insisted that Saddam Hussein had run out of chances to comply with the UN demand to disarm. "There is sufficient authority in 1441 and earlier resolutions if willing nations and members of the willing coalition feel it is necessary to act to protect the stability of the region to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction," he said.

America would decide early next week whether to seek a vote authorising war, the Secretary of State stressed. Washington would consult other Security Council members after the next report from Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector. "At the beginning of next week we will then make a decision ... on when we want to bring the resolution to a vote," he said.

Earlier, the White House dismissed suggestions that consideration was being given to withdrawing the draft second resolution. "Shortly after the Blix report, members will be given the opportunity to vote," Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for President Bush, said. He failed to state unequivocally, however, that retreating from a vote was not an option.

Against the backdrop of rising tensions in the UN, Mr Straw warned France and Germany they would "reap a whirlwind" if they failed to back a second resolution and forced the US to go it alone in Iraq. "Now what I say to France and Germany and all my other EU colleagues is take care because ... we will reap a whirlwind if we push the Americans into a unilateralist position in which they are the centre of this unipolar world," he said.

Souring the atmosphere further are recriminations over leaked memos showing that the US National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on Security Council members to try to find out which way each one is leaning on Iraq. Chile, which is one of those crucial undecided nations, has formally asked for an investigation into the spying, which allegedly also involved British agencies.

If the endgame is reached at the UN one way or another at the end of next week ­ with or without a vote on the resolution ­ it does not mean that hostilities will start immediately. The Pentagon is wrestling with the consequences of the Turkish parliament refusing to allow troops on to its territory, thus wrecking plans for a northern front against Iraq. That could delay a war well into April. Time would have to be given too for the evacuation of the 200-odd UN inspectors now in Iraq.

Iraq, meanwhile, continued its efforts to sway the doubters with new gestures of co-operation with Mr Blix. It destroyed more of its al-Samoud 2 missiles found to have been able to fly beyond fixed UN range limits. It has also offered fresh documents on the purported elimination of VX and mustard gas.

Senior UN sources said Mr Blix would criticise Iraq in his report on Friday for timing its co-operation with impending Security Council meetings.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, said the destruction by Iraq of the missiles was a "positive step".

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, joined the charm offensive on British television last night, presenting a less hawkish image in an interview with David Dimbleby on the BBC. But he said he believed Iraq was capable of building weapons even with UN inspectors in the country.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=383945
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 07:29 am
I have to keep hoping, Snood.

There is a anti-war march and rally in Washington on 15th March, and I am planning to go.

Gandhi said, "There comes a time when an individual becomes irresistible and his action becomes pervasive in its effects. This comes when he reduces himself to zero."

I interpret this as meaning when the individual walks with thousands of others, not standing out, just being there in silent witness and protest.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 08:04 am
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030305/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Quote:
U.S. Confident on U.N. Resolution, Protests Persist
52 minutes ago


By Evelyn Leopold and Ghaida Ghantous

UNITED NATIONS/DOHA (Reuters) - The United States is confident of securing a U.N. resolution backing war against Iraq (news - web sites) but protests against a military campaign persisted and the pope urged President Bush (news - web sites) to step back from the brink.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told French television: "I am increasingly optimistic that if it comes to a vote, we will be able to make a case that will persuade most of the members of the Security Council."


Well, that pretty much says "The Vote is not critical to US plans."

It is possible The US will not put the matter to vote, and it is evident, that even if there is a vote and the results are less than satisfactory from the US perspective, The Attack will procede regardless.


I would surmise a "Final Ultimatum" from The US to Saddam may be expected sometime shortly following this coming Friday's presentation by Dr. Blix. This "Ultimatum" will be intended more as a warning to non-Iraqis to "Get out of Dodge", and will likely be on the order of 72 to 96 hours warning of a point following which hostilities may "Begin at any time". Look for Tommy Franks to be doing a bit of flying around next week, finally settling in at The Command Center, then a brief period of relative "Quiet", at least as far as "On Scene" news reporting goes.


It seems too that Turkey's military is now lobbying for a quick revisiting of The US Troop matter by the Turkish Parliament, though the effect that lobbying may have is uncertain. Yesterday's announcement that tens of thousands additional US troops have been dispatched to the theater are, IMHO, not related; the additional troops likely are intended as "Follow-on" forces, to be used in occupation duties following the defeat of the Iraqi Military by forces currently at hand. Alternately, the additional troops could indicate a major realignment of attack plans, which would indicate a late-March start, during the next "Dark of The Moon" period, but military prudence is not served by further delay which would allow Iraq to stiffen and improve her defenses. I really look for a War Start sometime next week.

Of course, all this is conjecture. The timing of the attack has probably been set, despite official pronouncements to the contrary. There likely will be some US forces deployed from Turkey, and significant Airpower likely will be Turkey-Based. The Saudi's likely will announce at the last minute they too will accede to US requests for operational use of Saudi Air Bases, and may even permit the transit of US ground Forces over Saudi territory.


timber
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 08:18 am
This is part of a talk given by Bishop Grumbleton of Detroit:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 09:19 am
Kara,

You've posted some good stuff thanks. Its issues like capital punishment in Texas (where a prisoner of dual US/UK nationality was recently executed, despite official British representations) that make your man Bush so completely unfathomable and alien to us on this side of the pond. With Bush its never been more true that Britain and America are two countries divided by a common language - except that I'm not sure if Bushite American qualifies as a version of English. Now before you all jump on me and say I should not be disrespectful towards your President, I make the point for a reason.

Blair sincerely believes what he is doing is right. I would go a different path, but I don't doubt his honestly held belief that difficult though it may be, tough decisions have to be faced, and a leader has to show leadership. But the fact is Blair's case for many Brits and Europeans is constantly undermined by the character of the man currently occupying the oval office. We don't understand him. We don't trust him. We fear him, and many of us think he's an idiot. (I don't think he's quite as stupid as he appears, perhaps I was one who "misunderestimated" him).

I was asked last night if it would make a difference to my attitude to the war if Clinton was still in the white house. That's a fair question and a very tough one to answer honestly. I have to say Yes. I would be more inclined to accept Blair's reasoning. I know this is illogical but its a fact, and as I've already said, logic is not the only determining factor in this issue.

Leaving aside the glib answer that 'Clinton would not have got us here', it is sadly BECAUSE Blair is in agreement with Bush on this issue that pushes so many of us into the anti war camp. And let me just clarify a point here, I'm not anti war per se. It might come to war but it should only be as a last resort, and while inspectors are in Iraq and Blix continues to ask for more time, we are not at that point. (That last sentence of course is academic, the war has in reality begun).

Some wonk from a think tank who no doubt gets paid far more than me, said the problem is that Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. The real problem for many Europeans is that George Bush jnr is from planet Texas.


TW will respond to those questions you asked (a century back!) later.

ps Kara what denomination is the good Bishop Grumbleton - what a brilliant name for a Bishop!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 09:46 am
Interviewee on the Diane Rehm show this morning (NOR) heard late last night from a friend, a journalist who's in Iraq right now, who said that Iraq is a "tinder box": the idea that the proposed invasion won't blossom into a something seriously larger than the administration appears to believe is completely nuts.

The Russians, French, Germans met yesterday to agree on a plan to stop the US in the UN. China has joined them (NPR, hourly news). I don't believe that will in fact stop the Bush administration, but it means we're in a for a growing heap of trouble.

Steve, I'm a northeasterner (and former SW10-er) living in Texas and have to say that the pro-peace, anti-Bush demos here have been pretty significant. As I was listening to the interview cited above, the interviewee, a retired Texas politician (liberal) said that Rice University (Houston) is setting up a website for US veterans to express their opinions on the war. As soon as I can find that website, I'll post the URL.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 09:48 am
Steve, he's a roman catholic bishop in Michigan.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 10:16 am
Kara wrote:
Bill, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning but I agree with your conclusion. As long as "peace" is working, however that is happening, we are being given time to think, plan, and avoid war.

Containment means to me that the world, not just us, is watching Saddam Hussein. Inspections, whatever they are or are not, provide a holding pattern, and the cynosure of the world's eyes is Iraq. It is possible, of course, that he is sneaking bio and chem weapons to someone outside of Iraq. Aside from the question of why he would do this -- when the only reason he would have them, to my mind, is to use them defensively or as a threat -- the real issue is how much can you do when the whole world is watching? How about an armed inspection team, a multinational force -- call it inspectors, call it what you will. Such focused interest by the world will encourage dissidents in Iraq, increasing the pressure on Saddam's regime. Any regime change should come from inside Iraq or from opposition groups who have retreated from Iraq out of fear; the country ought to be run by Iraqis if and when Saddam is deposed.

Did anyone read the Iranian suggestion for containment? I have forgot the details or where I read it, but it is ideas like this, no matter where they come from or how they are motivated, that make me wonder at our administration's lack of imagination.

Kara - You state your point of view in a reasonable way. Kudos for that. I agree that at this moment all eyes are on Saddam and he is unlikely to do much to cause trouble for anyone, but assume the threat of war is removed from the equation; how many eyes would be on him right now? Assume the threat remains gone; how many eyes would be on him in 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? A temporary solution to the Iraq problem is no solution at all, in my mind. Do you disagree?

As to why he would give weapons to others, I would ask you why you think 9/11 happened, and whether you think Saddam would like to see harm come to our country. I think he would lash out by any means possible if he could, and I am not willing to wait until he helps kill thousands here to do something about that.

Thanks for stating your views and for considering mine. I look forward to your response.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 10:31 am
The only thing which has compelled Saddam to such compliance as he has offered has been the credible, and growing, threat, now certainty, of military intervention. Every time the threat has declined, he has retrenched. Every time the threat has increased, he has dribbled bits and pieces of "Cooperation", which cease as soon as the gun to his head is lowered. He is and has been in violation of the original Gulf War Ceasefire. I just don't see any way to deny those facts. The situation is intollerable, to my perspective. The only way to get him to do what he must is at the point of a gun. He has now been assured that should he not surrender to authority, he will be shot. Saddam has brought this about all by himself, and Saddam is about to reap the fruits of the conflict he sowed many years ago and which he has diligently tended.

Whatever effect the campaign against Saddam may have on "The War on Terrorism" or on "Stability in the region", Saddam himself and his Ba'ath Party will not be factors. There are great uncertainties attendant upon war. The matter of Saddam's fate is not among those uncertainties.



timber
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 10:34 am
France, Russia Vow Not to Allow War Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:56 a.m. ET

...``We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force,'' France's Dominique de Villepin said at a press conference alongside his Russian and German counterparts. ``Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point.'' When asked whether France would use its veto in the council as Russia has suggested it might do, de Villepin said, ``We will take all our responsibilities. We are in total agreement with the Russians.''...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 12:11 pm
TW
Regarding Blix you ask

I suspect that "just a few more days" won't garner your support for war though. Am I wrong?

Answer. It could do. It depends what Blix and the UN say. If Blix says "its hopeless, Saddam is still not co operating on substance and that inspectors might as well be withdrawn", then I would expect the UN to formally endorse 1441 and give the go ahead for disarmament by force. If they did that I would go along with it. But equally if Blix reports he needs more time and no 2nd resolution is passed explicity authorising military force, I would expect the US/UK to respect that too. I will concede this; its not really about time, its about attitude, ie Saddams willingness to disarm. BUT if the UN decide that more time and more reports from Blix are needed to determine Saddam's willingness, then so be it. In practice that process will not be exhausted in a few days, so until it is I am anti war.

..."an idea of what specifically you believe continued inspections will do to eliminate the threat Iraq poses".

Response. Inspectors should continue to do their work (maybe with an enhanced regime as per the French/German memorandum) until either they make significant progress on disarmament, or the UN withdraws them as not being effective, or Saddam throws them out because they are too effective. Either of the latter two cases would be causus beli. But all the time they are in Iraq they are at the very minimum hindering Iraqi weapons development AND neutralising any Iraqi threat to its neighbours. If I were a citizen of Tel Aviv, I would feel a lot safer knowing Iraq was flooded with UN personnel than I would with the inspectors withdrawn or thrown out.

Ash

You quote me as saying "Allow more time for the UN Inspection teams to complete their work (disarm Saddam)".

I didn't actually say that. There was a full stop after "work", and no brackets "(disarm Saddam)". It could very well be that the inspection teams work is deemed to be complete without having disarmed Saddam, in which case war would follow.

"...at the end of the process Saddam Hussein was disarmed, and no longer a threat to regional peace and world security. Is that possible, or improbable?"

I think its quite possible that an enhanced inspection regime could disarm Saddam or at the very least force the issue to end in war. But we're not there yet. And we will never know if it was "possible, or improbable" if we have already discounted other options and are set on a policy of war.

As I said above I don't think Saddam is an immediate threat with UN inspectors crawling all over the place. Keep them there until Saddam pops his clogs.

Waste of money and loss of prestige? Bush should have thought of that before he embarked on a unilateral plan for an aggressive war. It was only later that Blair persuaded him to get involved with the UN, and I bet Bush bitterly regrets being so persuaded.

Frankly I don't care a damn about American loss of prestige or Bush's chances of re election if it prevents a war.

have to go more later
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 12:37 pm
I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of getting a second resolution through the UN.

"Mr de Villepin set out a framework for giving inspectors more power, including detailed measures to determine whether or not the inspection process is making progress.

He added that he believes a war in Iraq would increase tensions in the Middle East, create instability and increase the risk of terrorist attacks.

Mr Ivanov said that China, which also possesses a UN security council veto, was in agreement with France, Russia and Germany".

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908043,00.html

So Blair's worst nightmare looks like coming true. I doubt that all the threats and bribes of the US have been enough to even secure the 9 votes Bush needs. And even if he does win he will find France Russia and China queuing up to apply the veto, with extra veto just in case.

S
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 12:54 pm
Tres, you say in part:
Quote:
I agree that at this moment all eyes are on Saddam and he is unlikely to do much to cause trouble for anyone, but assume the threat of war is removed from the equation; how many eyes would be on him right now? ... A temporary solution to the Iraq problem is no solution at all, in my mind. Do you disagree?

As to why he would give weapons to others, I would ask you why you think 9/11 happened, and whether you think Saddam would like to see harm come to our country.


I just wrote a long answer to you, didn't copy it to the clipboard (duh..), and it vanished into cyberspace. I began by saying that the issues you talk about cause me great concern. There would have to be a permanence or longstandingness to any coalition of armed inspectors or "occupation team" that might be formed under UN auspices. The solution would need international backing to have credibility, but I don't see that as a problem. Many countries who are against this war would jump at a non-violent solution. (What if we put even a tiny percentage of the effort we are putting into a push for war into an attempt to find a non-war solution?)

I am hamstrung, I will admit, and hampered in my intellectual flexibility, by a moral certitude that violence, except in self-defense, is not a solution to anything. Thus, war is off the table for me, and I am forced to do mental flip-flops in seeking other solutions.

At the risk of prolixity here, I will post another bit from the good bishop:

Quote:


As to your second question about why Saddam would give bio and chem weapons to others, I do not think he would. I think Saddam lives to keep the power he has, a total control over the Iraqi people, ruthlessly maintained. He is not dumb enough to think that he can have more than that. When confronted by the most powerful nation in the history of the world, he lied, cheated, deceived, blustered, and bragged. Just like any small-town bully. Or perhaps as any other small nation confronted by the US would do. He wouldn't give the weapons to terrorists because he wants them for himself, as weapons of self-defense, the same as the nuclear weapons he hoped to develop. Perhaps he wants to be like us, with a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Timber, I really have no defense against your statement that it is our threat of war that keeps Saddam in line and allows the inspectors to be there. Maybe that is so, and has been so, but that does not preclude other means of pressure. If the world were totally against what he is doing -- and we have seen that even other Arab and Muslim countries might be behind our efforts to contain or unseat him -- the pressure might be more powerful that our threats of war.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:02 pm
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:11 pm
Kara - Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful reply. We will continue to disagree on a lot of the specifics of this issue, but I admire the way you present your opinion here, and especially respect the way you acknowledge your own limitation vis-a-vis not wanting to consider a violent solution under any circumstances. I am less willing to categorically take any option off the table, and am equally unwilling to assume that what has failed in the past will work in the future if we just keep doing it.

I'd like to attempt to provoke you into considering one of you comments from a different angle, if I may. Let's assume that you are right that Saddam's primary motivation is to remain in power at all costs for as long as he may do so. What if Saddam views the existence of the US as the world's lone superpower as a threat to his goal? (I realize we're in very "iffy" :wink: territory here, but I think it is something to consider.)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:25 pm
trespassers will wrote:
I am less willing to categorically take any option off the table, and am equally unwilling to assume that what has failed in the past will work in the future if we just keep doing it.
Quote:


Does this mean you are still counting peaceful disarmament as an option or not?
0 Replies
 
ul
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:29 pm
This is a very long article:

UN Wire from today http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/current.asp.

Topics:
IRAQ: U.N. Has Reportedly Prepared Secret Postwar Plan; More

Annan Calls War "A Human Catastrophe," Urges Council Unity

U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission

U.S. Said To Mull Abandoning Resolution, Attacking Without U.N. Support

Iran Floats Iraq Election Plan

Iraq, Kuwait Face Off At Islamic Conference Meeting

U.S. Lawsuit Seeks To Block Bush From Launching War

European Parliamentarians Promote Inspections With Easing Of Sanctions
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:32 pm
ul, Your link doesn't work. ;( c.i.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2003 01:43 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
trespassers will wrote:
I am less willing to categorically take any option off the table, and am equally unwilling to assume that what has failed in the past will work in the future if we just keep doing it.
Quote:


Does this mean you are still counting peaceful disarmament as an option or not?

Absolutely, though I do not hold out much hope for the threat of continued inspections having any effect on Saddam. Despite the lateness of the hour, I continue to hope that the credible, imminent threat of attack will force Saddam to choose some other road to disarmament and regime change in Iraq. Sadly, the efforts of France, Germany, Russia and others have seriously damaged this option. Had they stood behind the US I think there would have been a good chance that Saddam would have been willing to step aside or at least might have actually adopted a proactive "here, let me show you" attitude to disarming. Now I fear he has merely been emboldened by those who value their business interests over all else, including peace and freedom.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 03:45:26