 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
U.S. may reconsider Iraq war resolution
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Ron Fournier
March 4, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- With other nations' opposition hardening, the Bush administration left open the possibility Tuesday that it would not seek a United Nations vote on its war-making resolution if the measure was clearly headed for defeat.
U.S. troop strength in the Persian Gulf neared 300,000, and President Bush and his advisers were looking beyond the diplomatic showdown in the U.N. to make plans for a public relations buildup to potential war with Iraq.
One option under serious consideration was Bush giving Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum, perhaps with a short-term deadline, in an address next week, two senior White House officials said.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that a variety of options are on the table and all depend on the outcome of a U.N. Security Council debate on the U.S.-backed war resolution. In a new blow, Russia's top diplomat said Moscow may use its veto against the measure.
Even without a veto from Russia, China or France, the United States still doesn't have the nine votes needed to win approval of the resolution, according to both supporters and opponents. Many undecided council members are looking for a compromise.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with RTL television of Germany, said that early next week U.S. leaders would "make a judgment on whether it's time to put the resolution up to a vote." But he also said the United States was inclined to push for a vote "in the absence of compliance on the part of Saddam Hussein."
At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The vote is desirable. It is not necessary."
Once the vote is resolved one way or another, Bush will intensify his case for war, officials said, barring unforeseen events such as Saddam suddenly disarming or going into exile.
In addition to a possible address, they have discussed a presidential news conference and a Cabinet meeting as ways for Bush to communicate his plans to the nation next week. He may stop short of a specific ultimatum, officials said, but would make it clear that war is imminent in other ways, such as warning journalists and humanitarian workers to get out of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Bush telephoned leaders of India and Egypt to discuss his plans. And officials said Powell had had two telephone conversations and a one-on-one meeting in recent days with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez in his search for Mexican support.
The Army's oldest armored division, "Old Ironsides," got its orders to head for the Persian Gulf, and Pentagon officials said U.S. land, sea and air forces were approaching 300,000 in the region.
Tommy R. Franks, the commander who would lead the war, met at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and was to consult with Bush on Wednesday.
Still to be resolved was the military question of whether Turkey would allow its territory to be used for U.S. ground forces to open a northern front against Iraq.
At the White House, Fleischer said Turkey would lose a proposed $15 billion aid package unless it went along.
"The particular package that we've been talking to them about was predicated on assistance and cooperation in any plan for the use of force against Iraq," Fleischer said.
Until Tuesday, the spokesman had suggested part of the package would be available to Turkey regardless of whether 62,000 American troops are allowed in the country. White House officials said they were turning up pressure on Turkey in hopes that the parliament would grant the U.S. request on a second vote.
At the United Nations, meanwhile, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Baghdad's destruction of missiles "a positive development," putting him at odds with Bush's assessment.
Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, renewing Moscow's opposition to quick military action, indicated Russia may use its veto against the U.S.-backed U.N. resolution.
Both developments further complicated Bush's efforts to win passage of the resolution, adding significance to talk of what the administration would do if U.N. opposition hardens.
"The president has made clear, that ... whether the United Nations votes or does not vote, that we will disarm Saddam Hussein with a coalition of the willing," Fleischer said. "We are proceeding with all the plans for the vote."
"Now, if you are asking me if all of a sudden support around the world crumbles and there is absolutely no one for it, I can't predict with metaphysical certitude every eventuality," Fleischer said.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte was asked whether the United States would withdraw the resolution if it didn't have the votes to pass it.
"We believe that support should be there and we're not facing that kind of situation; and I think we'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it, but we don't think we should have to come to that point," he said. |
The US can't get the nine votes it needs. We're not talking about a simple veto anymore. The US does not have UN support, period.
What will this do for nations that support us, like Britain and Spain? Will these governments still be able to give support to the US if Bush refuses to seek UN approval for his war of aggression? Will they fall? And what about countries that are important for the physical aspects of the invasion, like Saudi Arabia, which said that it only allow it's territory to be used if the UN approves of military action.
Is the Bush government really so completely out of touch with reality that they think they can get away with making enemies of the world? They are ignoring a major crisis on the Korean Peninsula in order to be able to attack Iraq. They managed to get lucky and nab a senior al-Qaeda leader, and kudos for that. But they're still ignoring the large base of a-Qaeada operatives in Pakistan, they're ignoring the source of funding for al-Qaeda from Saudi Arabia (which is still sending money!!!!).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Who cares about the UN? It's a sick joke. It's conference on disarmament was co-chaired by Iran and Iraq, and it's human rights commission is headed by Libya.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If they've been lying for fifty years, why do you think they're telling the truth now? |
"The Government" is not a singular evil entity/personality. It's made up of people. Sometimes people lie, sometimes they tell the truth. Bush cannot gain much politically from this move, and considering he is a commited christian, I trust his honesty.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wish we could have him committed. I don't trust Christians any more than I trust anyone else. I especially don't trust people who make a big show of their beliefs. Like Jeshua said, don't be like the hypocrites who shout their faith in public. |
I'm not a Christian, but I respect many Christian ideals. One of them is honesty, and if Bush is truly devoted to his faith, then I find him more trustworthy.
As for "making a show of your faith", I don't think Bush has gone overboard in professing his faith. Perhaps you think he shouldn't mention it at all...?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2003 07:28
I misread your initial question. 
|