U. N. backs Bush

[TheBear]

From Reuters News Service:


By Evelyn Leopold

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations unanimously approved a tough U.S.-sponsored resolution on Friday giving Iraq one last chance to disarm or face the consequences and ordering President Saddam Hussein to accept its terms within a week.

Even Iraq's neighbor Syria, which had signaled it would not vote in favor, joined the other U.N. Security Council members for the 15-0 vote as President Bush warned Iraq it would face the "severest consequences" if it did not comply."

Full Story

 

[Blindfaith]

After France got their fingers into it

Should we start a pool to bet whether or not Iraq is going to comply, and if so, when?  Hmmm.....I know which square I'd choose.

It's time to pray, pray, pray.

~Peace in Christ,

Terri

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by blindfaith
After France got their fingers into it

I don't understand why that is a problem.  Care to explain?

 

[JLovesUSo]

I have to admit, I had heard that we were the Largest Contributor to the UN's Budget but had never actually checked on it:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large02.htm

But, I also didn't know we also we the largest debtor to the UN as well:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/debt01.htm

That being said, I also know that many adminstrations (both Rep and Demo) in the past have complained about some of the UN's agendas and mismanagement of funds. 

As the US being the largest contributor, I can see where some pressure can be put on the UN to "get with already and go after this guy...".  I'm not talking about militarily action necessarily here (although IMO, I think that's where we will end up...) but, just enforce the resolutions that you passed over the last 8+ years or so

 

[paulewog]

I would complain about that too.

We're going way into debt (a couple trillion)...

We're handing out money to the UN which in the past hasn't done too good of a job at their job

And we never get paid back. We seem to be the bank of the world over here

 

[Morat]

  I'm thinking that headline is a bit deceptive. Bush didn't really get what he wanted. The UN was pushing inspections since the beginning.

   The wording the US pushed for so long would have allowed the US and Britain to commit armed forces, under the resolution, at pretty much any time, without resorting back to the Security Council or the UN.

   France and Russia threatened to veto (and even Mexico said they would vote against it) this, instead pushing a resolution that required, should Saddam not comply, another Security Council resolution.

   This is the two-stage amendment wanted by Russia and France, not the one-stage wanted by Britain and the US. I'm not sure how that's "U.N. backs Bush".

 

 

[Blindfaith]

I like the timing of it all ~ it finally gets pushed through 48 hours after the election over here.  Hmmm....

As far as my comment about France, I guess I've been a bit disgusted with them and Russia.  I'm wondering if after a week, or however long the resolution gives Saddam to clear out the bio, chem and nuc aresenal he has, what France will do if he doesn't comply (again...and again....and again....).  Will they support an attack on Saddam or wave their wrists around at the UN and expect more time?  Saddam has been given ample time to dismantle his destructive weapons.  What was the date that President Bush first went before the UN telling them to do their jobs?  To get a resolution going? 

Since France was able to "amend" (for lack of a better term right now), the resolution, does this mean they're going to help back it financially?  How about the other country's that signed off?  This is a sincere question ~ I don't know how that works.  Or, are we going to fund the majority of it?  Again.

~Peace in Christ,

Terri

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by blindfaith
Since France was able to "amend" (for lack of a better term right now), the resolution, does this mean they're going to help back it financially?  How about the other country's that signed off?  This is a sincere question ~ I don't know how that works.  Or, are we going to fund the majority of it?  Again.

Perhaps it is appropriate that the US foot the majority of the bill for any incursions into Iraq. Bush has been the primary backer of invasion for months now, and it seems that only an election at home prevented him from invading Iraq earlier.
My only concern with the UN resolution is that it seems in some sense to be a compromise with Bush, who has made it clear he will probably invade no matter what anyone says. It seems that this is an attempt to try to control Bush a little bit. If invasion is inevitable, why not try to at least make everyone think twice before they commit thousands or millions to be killed. The troops are already in position, so perhaps this UN resolution came just in time. Now I'm not suggesting Bush coerced assent from France and Russia by putting troops into the middle east, but the "I'm glad those darn Frenchies finally saw the light" view seems a tad naive.
But I'm glad the UN is getting involved. I have hoped from the start that there would be no unilateral American military action, and perhaps this resolution will guarantee that.

EDIT: I just thought I'd ask how many Americans were pushing for invasion of Iraq 5 years ago, when they were still an oppressive and nasty regime, still making chemical weapons, still making nuclear weapons, and had still committed atrocities. Nothing's changed except America.

 

[JLovesUSo]

Originally posted by strathyboy
If invasion is inevitable, why not try to at least make everyone think twice before they commit thousands or millions to be killed. The troops are already in position, so perhaps this UN resolution came just in time.

Most of the analysts and Military experts have seem to have backed up my opinion that if we go into Iraq, that the US Forces will probably incur a very small # of casualties for them (and yes, I agree, just 1 casuality is a loss to America...) and hopefully there will be not many Iraqi casualties either.  We need to remember IMO just how effective a fighting force we have in America and how our foes realize that as well.  I believe that when a US President (Demo or Rep) threatens a nation with our military - they have to know this and most nations take it very seriously.

It saddens me that we have to go this route (although I do agree we need to) but I have not forgotten what happens when terrorists go unchecked.........

Let us never forget 9/11 (or any other act of terrorism all over the world) and ask God that we find & stop those who would do harm like this before they do it next time.....

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by JLovesUSo
It saddens me that we have to go this route (although I do agree we need to) but I have not forgotten what happens when terrorists go unchecked.........

Let us never forget 9/11 (or any other act of terrorism all over the world) and ask God that we find & stop those who would do harm like this before they do it next time.....

Perhaps you should question why your government continues to have very good relations with nations that are far more guilty of aiding terrorism than is Saddam. Any connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been debunked, so to use that as motivation for invasion is wrong. Saudi Arabia actively supported Al-Qaeda, and yet America continues to be on good terms with them.
If terrorism is your primary reason to justify invasion, Iraq should not be the first target.

My major worry if there is an invasion is what exactly Hussein will do. He is sort of the wild card. America is usually pretty good about avoiding civilian casualties, but Hussein might decide to use all the weapons of mass destruction he has sitting around on the American troops. I imagine there just might be a couple of civilian casualties if that happens.

 

[Blindfaith]

First, President Bush has no desire that I have heard of that he expects, or wants civilians to die.  I really don't believe that thousands upon millions of civilians are going to die ~ I don't believe for one second that President Bush is going to level Iraq with a couple of atom bombs.

Second, I didn't mean to infer that the "Frenchies finally saw the light".  More than likely, they saw that there is a government in place here, the majority Republican now, and possibly realized if they didn't get on board it's going to happen anyway.  If the majority of the Senate were Dem's, I wonder if this resolution would have been signed 48 hours after the election?  I highly doubt it.  My only point has been that France, who you have to admit is not exactly a military powerhouse, has stuck it out and expected changes to the resolution ~ fine, whatever, okay.  I guess my attitude is....."and they are...whom"?  I know that seems crass, and I apologize for it ~ sincerely.  *ugh*  I think I'm way too patriotic that I need to take a nap

I heard a clip from a PBS show called 'Frontline' from last night, and the clip made me sick to my stomach.  They got a cameraman into Iraq, and interviewed a woman (with an interpreter) who was forced to watch a mass execution of 15 women, most of who were "professionals".  The government brought in busloads of people to witness the execution.  This witness said she knew one woman was a Dr., 2 others were teachers, etc....They bound and gagged the 15 women so their screams couldn't be heard, then the executioner went to each one with a sword and chopped off their heads.

Their crime?  They "said something questioning the government".  That's it folks.  This guy is a tyrrant, a terrorist to his own people and he's a psycopath.  I personally do not want him walking the earth with his present arsenal.

God Bless the USA and the freedoms I take for granted, and thank you Lord for placing me here in this country instead of there.

~Peace in Christ,

Terri

 

[Morat]

Most of the analysts and Military experts have seem to have backed up my opinion that if we go into Iraq, that the US Forces will probably incur a very small # of casualties for them 

  Do they? Because from what I've read, it's only the civilian experts  (most of whom have had no experience in uniform or combat) who think this. The generals themselves, including luminaries like Snowcraft and Schwartzcof, think that a large number of American casualties is almost inevietable, as Saddam is almost certain to hole up the majority of his forces in Baghdad and make us dig him out, street by street.

   And urban fighting drastically reduces our tech advantage, and seriously raises the number of casualities on both sides, including civilians.

 

 

[JLovesUSo]

Originally posted by Morat
  Do they? Because from what I've read, it's only the civilian experts  (most of whom have had no experience in uniform or combat) who think this. The generals themselves, including luminaries like Snowcraft and Schwartzcof, think that a large number of American casualties is almost inevietable, as Saddam is almost certain to hole up the majority of his forces in Baghdad and make us dig him out, street by street.

   And urban fighting drastically reduces our tech advantage, and seriously raises the number of casualities on both sides, including civilians.

 

Actually, yes I have heard this as well - and forgotten that if this becomes an urban assault thing - it could get real ugly.  Thanks for reminding me of this. Although I'm a lil apprehensive to agree with the inevitable side in your statement, for I personally feel they are probably looking at all these scenarios prior (hopefully..lol) to the decision to go in.

I also have to wonder if the same thing will happen as with Desert Storm - and most of his military will just surrender to US forces and/or turn on him.  I have to believe many of his people (civilian & military) want him gone as much as we do.

 

 

[TheBear]

I love this.

- Bush is condemned by Democrats, for even the thought of an invasion on Iraq, yet the same goals for almost a year now, have been hammered out and passed by the same Democrats in Congress, well before the election. (This was actually a preemptive election tactic, which backfired big-time.) But, after the election, the dems are being demonized by their own, for have giving support in the Congress. This is one of their excuses for losing control of the House.

- For weeks now, France has been in negotiations and modifications of Bush's proposal, and actually signed off on it, BEFORE the election. The UN had been hammering out the final resolution for months....BEFORE the election. The timing of the UN's 15-0 vote has absolutely nothing to do with the American elections. And if anyone thinks so, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

- And finally, outsiders who think they know more about our own country and sentiments than we do. I am tempted to ask Erwin to open up an Americans only forum. Because quite frankly, I am getting sick and tired of people speaking from a borrowed stance.

 

[Blindfaith]

Bear,

Hmm..if France signed off on the resolution, when was that specifically or even generally?  Then why all the hoopla and conversations with Jaques Chirac over the past 2 months?

One other question, you stated that the UN has been hammering out the specific for months......how many months?

btw....no thanks on the waterfront property in Arizona...got some here in the NW.

~Peace in Christ,

Terri

 

[TheBear]

You live in the Seattle area?

 

[TheBear]

BTW, there is no "IF" about it. France signed off on a modified version of Bush's proposal.

I'll post the specifics, once I locate them.

 

[TheBear]

From the UN Security Council - Press Release SC/7564


"JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE (France) said he believed that the resolution was a good one, because it strengthened the role of the Security Council, which was the main objective of his country during the negotiations. If the inspection authorities reported to the Council Iraq had not complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately and decide on a course of action. France welcomed the lack of “automaticity” in the final resolution. Moreover, the resolution gave the IAEA and UNMOVIC better tools to do their job, and ensured impartiality. The inspectors would, however, have to rely on the full cooperation of the Iraqi authorities.



France, he said, had full confidence in Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei. Their teams must proceed quickly to Iraq. The resolution was a success for the United Nations and the Security Council. It must now become a success for peace. All of France’s efforts in the past few weeks had been directed at giving peace a chance; that was, to disarm Iraq peacefully, with the stability of the region in mind. The process set up by the resolution was demanding and required full cooperation of Iraq, which must understand that it was their last opportunity."

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by TheBear
- And finally, outsiders who think they know more about our own country and sentiments than we do. I am tempted to ask Erwin to open up an Americans only forum. Because quite frankly, I am getting sick and tired of people speaking from a borrowed stance.

Can you tell us the name of the person about whom you are speaking, and provide a specific example of what you view to be a "borrowed stance"?

 

[TheBear]

"..tell us..." Oh, that's clever.

There is an old saying, "If you throw a stone at a pack of dogs, the dog that barks first, is the one who got hit."