| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| UN vote delayed in bid to swing sceptics | |
| 2003-03-11 | |
| Britain and the United States will launch a desperate drive to win wider support for a war on Iraq today by agreeing to important concessions on a second UN resolution. The two countries have decided to delay until later this week a vote in the Security Council and have accepted the idea of a short, clear "checklist" of disarmament demands for Saddam Hussein, defining the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction yet to be accounted for. British diplomats in New York will even discuss suggestions from the so-called "swing six" Security Council members that the 17 March deadline for compliance by Iraq be put back. But Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, showed little sign of flexibility on extending the deadline beyond 17 March. Good for them. General Powell and Tony Blair aim to secure a consensus among Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon, the members whose votes could secure the UK-US-Spanish resolution. And allow the French to veto. The political dangers of not obtaining a fresh UN mandate were underlined yesterday when Mr Blair suffered the first resignation over the issue. Andy Reed, the parliamentary private Twelve years wasn't enough, Andy?
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 The UN's agenda is to water down resolutions, like 1441, debate, delay, debate delay. The US needs to hold the UN to the 17 March date, and quit trying to kiss ass for votes. Powell made his case. Those who are with us now will be with us. The others who are against us will always be against us or will run after us later when we are leading. Give the UN inspectors a warning to have their bags packed and be ready to go and let us move on. We are just playing into the appeasers hands by going along with the UN charade now. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-11 11:10:40 |
| #5 Raptor, parliament system, House of Commons is much like the House of Representatives, and the House of Lords is equivalent to the Senate, except that it's function is mostly ceremonial and members are appointed by Prime Minister. Prime Minister is Leader of the party with the most seats in Commons. You would call him House Majority Leader. Britain has a hereditary monarchy instead of a President, prime minister becomes defacto leader of the county, but not officially head of state. Prime Minister usually appoints Cabinet Ministers from among members of his majority party from the House of Commons. As additional reward/pay perq, assistant cabinet ministers or Under-Secretaries, are also appointed. There is no confirmation process. When an under-secretary resigns, he loses his perq but still sits as a house member. The British House of Commons http://www.parliament.uk/ State of the parties at 4 October 2002 Labour 410 Conservative 163 Liberal Democrat 53 Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru 9 (SNP 5/PC 4) Ulster Unionist 6 Democratic Unionist 5 Sinn Fein 4 (Have not taken their seats) Social Democratic & Labour 3 Independent 1 Independent Conservative 1 Speaker & 3 Deputies 4 (Do not normally vote) Total 659 Government majority 165 In other words, Tony Blair would have to have 165 Labour members or vote aginst him to lose his majority, but there are 163 Consrvatives who would vote for him over the war. So his whole party would have to abandon him before he was in trouble. Consevatives would see this as an advantage except since Maggie they have been led by guys who prefer panty-hose to trousers. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-11 09:20:26 |
| #4 I agree with Peter. Everytime it appears the US will act a deadline is extended, the dance with the UN continues, more changes are made, etc. It is obvious that France, Germany, etc. will never go along so why keep trying. Bush talks tough but then backs down a few days later. I'm not as impatient as those who expected action last fall but as expected action has gone from January to February to March to maybe April to ? it is becoming very discouraging. |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-03-11 08:26:32 |
| #3 In retrospect, Powell should have introduced a deadline resolution when he briefed the council in Feb. Better yet, he should have given a 'resolution by this date or we bomb' deadline. Better yet, we should have had a deadline when Bush spoke to the UN in Sept. Better yet, we should have started the war several months ago. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-11 07:34:40 |
| #2 I do not know much about the British Parlimintary System.Could someone explain to me why a"private secretary resigning is important? And what is the purpose and importance MPs. Isn't the House of Lords like the U.S.Senate and House of Commons like our House of Represetatives? |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-11 07:10:36 |
| #1 This is complete, utter insanity. What are they screwing around for ? It will be 11-4 against, like I'm saying for weeks now. 11-4, after which Blair will be sacked and sent to the ICC. Attack or retreat (and let France have their Arab-European empire). |
| Posted by: Peter 2003-03-11 06:58:16 |