U.N Security Counsil OK's Iraq Resolution
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: U.N Security Counsil OK's Iraq Resolution

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,055

    Exclamation U.N Security Counsil OK's Iraq Resolution

    This afternoon, in case many didn't see it, President Bush made a speech of what is planned next now that today the U.N have decided to use the Resolution proposed by the U.S. Even Syria, a country next to Iraq, voted for the resolution and the vote came as 15-0 in the ruling.

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The Security Council unanimously approved a tough new Iraq resolution Friday, aimed at forcing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to disarm or face "serious consequences" that would almost certainly mean war.

    The vote came after eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations and was seen as a victory for the United States, which drafted the resolution together with Britain.


    President Bush immediately went to the White House Rose Garden to warn Saddam Hussein the comply at once.

    The unanimous vote came as a surprise with support coming even from Syria, Iraq's neighbor.

    In remarks after the vote, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said, "This resolution is designed to test Iraq's intentions."

    The broad support sends a strong message to Baghdad that the Security Council — divided for years over Iraq — expects full compliance with all U.N. resolutions.

    "His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional or he will face severest consequences," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden.

    Secretary General Kofi Annan said Baghdad should comply for the sake of the Iraqi people.

    "Iraq has a new opportunity to comply with all these relevant resolutions of the Security Council. I urge the Iraqi leadership for sake of its own people...to seize this opportunity and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people."

    Iraqi television did not broadcast the Security Council meeting live and there was no immediate reaction from Baghdad.

    A breakthrough in negotiations came Thursday when France and the United States reached a critical agreement to address French concerns that the resolution could automatically trigger an attack on Iraq.

    "This resolution is a success for the Security Council and the United Nations," said France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte. "This success must now become a success for peace."

    But Iraq "must understand that this opportunity is the final one," he said.

    Negroponte said the resolution gives international inspectors broad authority to look for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — to check "anyone, anywhere, anytime."

    There are "no hidden triggers" for the automatic use of force against Iraq if it does not comply with the resolution, Negroponte said, emphasizing that should the inspectors report Iraqi violations, the matter would return to the Security Council. The resolution, he said, is "a new powerful mandate" for the weapons inspectors.

    "This resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself from the threat posed by Iraq.... to the government of Iraq our message is simple: non-compliance is no longer an option," he said.

    Chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was preparing to send an advance team to Iraq within two weeks, after a nearly four-year absence.

    While the United States made some major concessions to critics, the final draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N. weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying.

    At the same time, it gives Saddam "a final opportunity" to cooperate with weapons inspectors, holds out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and reaffirms the country's sovereignty.

    Washington and London spent eight weeks trying to get all 15 Security Council members to approve the resolution to send a united message to Saddam.

    The United States had tweaked its draft several times to account for French and Russian concerns over hidden triggers that could automatically launch an attack on Iraq.

    In a key provision that would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N. obligations, the United States changed wording that would have let Washington determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction.

    The new wording requires U.N. weapons inspectors to make an assessment of any Iraqi violations.

    Iraqi state media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged the Security Council Thursday not to bow to American demands.

    "America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation," the ruling Baath Party newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday.

    According to a strict timeline in the resolution, Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution's terms and 30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of its large petrochemical industry in that time, but the United States decided against giving Baghdad more time.

    Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10 days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to actually begin work, and must report to the council 60 days later on Iraq's performance.

    Inspectors will have "unconditional and unrestricted access" to all sites, including eight presidential compounds where surprise inspections have been barred.

    Heh, interesting enough, Iraq now has a date to say if/if not the inspectors can come in. I'm pretty sure Bush is counting on Iraq to say no so that we can go in for military action. What does everyone else think?
    Space For Rent.. =]

  2. #2
    Senior Member roswell1329's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    670
    I'm pretty sure Iraq will at least give the appearence of compliance. I don't forsee any UN inspectors being kicked out this time -- at least initially. Saddam may be insane, but he's not stupid. He wants to hold onto power as long as he can, and I think he is realizing that the quickest way to lose it is to screw up this time.
    /* You are not expected to understand this. */

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    22
    Saddam has a demon what else needs to be said, hell be out of power before next january

  4. #4
    out of power or if we're lucky... dead? haha
    Analog = Classical
    Digital = Techno

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    117
    I have some friends in transit that fly fighter planes for the Marines... They are looking forward to it.
    Luck--TSM
    Atlanta, GA


  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    27
    Things are going to get very interesting now.

    Bush just got a Republican majority in Congress with the last election, so he could, theoretically, pass the laws, measures, and resolutions necessary to commit the US to an armed conflict with Iraq. (I hesitate to call it a "war" because that implies a formal declaration of war by the United States, which I don't think Bush will ever get). But now the UN has passed a resolution to send weapons inspectors into Iraq, Bush cannot use his original position of attacking because Iraq would not allow inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction.

    Iraq now has an interesting ability. By admitting inspectors, Iraq puts the United States into a position where they cannot attack without looking like unreasonable aggressors. In a way, Iraq has the upper hand at this moment.

    If Bush insists on pushing an attack against Iraq, he will, most likely, lose a lot of support both his domestic constituents, and the international community. At this moment, it looks as if Bush has been backed into a corner, because all the demands formally put on Iraq (the admittance of weapons inspectors) have come about, and he is now left unable to carry out his plans.

    It will definitely be interesting to see what develops in the next few days, weeks, and months.
    My $0.02

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,055
    Originally posted here by bshver
    Things are going to get very interesting now.

    Bush just got a Republican majority in Congress with the last election, so he could, theoretically, pass the laws, measures, and resolutions necessary to commit the US to an armed conflict with Iraq. (I hesitate to call it a "war" because that implies a formal declaration of war by the United States, which I don't think Bush will ever get). But now the UN has passed a resolution to send weapons inspectors into Iraq, Bush cannot use his original position of attacking because Iraq would not allow inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction.

    Iraq now has an interesting ability. By admitting inspectors, Iraq puts the United States into a position where they cannot attack without looking like unreasonable aggressors. In a way, Iraq has the upper hand at this moment.

    If Bush insists on pushing an attack against Iraq, he will, most likely, lose a lot of support both his domestic constituents, and the international community. At this moment, it looks as if Bush has been backed into a corner, because all the demands formally put on Iraq (the admittance of weapons inspectors) have come about, and he is now left unable to carry out his plans.

    It will definitely be interesting to see what develops in the next few days, weeks, and months.
    You make an interesting point of Bush being backed into a corner, but couldn't the same be said for Saddam? I mean, if he say's yes (which he doesn't want to do), his weapons will be inspected and possibly taken, making Bush happy (I hope). If he says no, we may now go in and basically "do it ourselves" as Bush basically said it and also if he say's no, He's saying no in the face of World Opinion. Now, the world will have another view or possibly a new one on him if he say's no. I do agree though, this should be most interesting.
    Space For Rent.. =]

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    i just don't understand all this time their giving him. 30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. like nobody knows what they are and this whole thing is coming as a great big surprise. inspectors landing in 10 days to start working in within 45. What kind of **** is that? what are we going to do ween him from his weapons? either he gives it up or he dosn't. why give him any more time to hide his toys.

    thanks for posting this spyder32. working all day i didn't hear much about it.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    18
    There is a point staring us all in the face.....4 years since weapons inspectors were on the ground.

    Ok, biological laboratories are not the largest things in the world. Iraq has many remote areas. They have had 4 years to hide things.

    Delivery systems. The only way we found the Scud launchers last time was to put guys on the ground to actually find them. Satellite surveillance won't get everything and can be predicted.

    Warheads are not that large either.

    So given this it could well be a calculated risk on Saddams part to let inspections go ahead in the hope he can keep stuff hidden. He gains the moral high ground if he gets a clean bill of health or even hands a few items over. He could well get the sanctions lifted. If all goes well he gets to keep an arsenal as well. The UN has pussyfooted around too long and made the world a much more dangerous place. For the sake of petty politics countries like France and Germany have put countless lives at risk and also risked the stability of the whole region. Let alone the rest of us.
    do unto others before they do unto you

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    138
    this is funny i got flamed alot for saying the same thing! i just think its ironic that wht i said is getting accepted at last! im sur that quote "His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional or he will face severest consequences," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden. end quote means that here at least has to be a possibility of a nuclear attack!
    Did curiousity really kill the cat, or is that just what they want you to think?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •