You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International
Iraq Sanctions Set to End, France Seeks Unity
2003-05-22
Latest on the de-weaseling
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations looked set to end 13 years of crippling sanctions on Iraq on Thursday after Europe's anti-war camp, keen to patch up a rift with Washington, said they would support the U.S.-backed measure.
"Of course, we have said all along...."
France, Germany and Russia opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, forcing Washington to go to war without U.N. backing. On Wednesday they stressed the importance of unity
now that they stand to lose big
and said they would support the draft U.S. resolution on ending sanctions that is key to reconstructing Iraq's devastated economy. Washington said Secretary of State Colin Powell would attend a meeting of G8 foreign ministers in Paris on Thursday that may demonstrate to what extent it can now work with anti-war opponents like France.
Oh geat, Foggy Bottom will "heal the rift" - wonder what they'll give up to get "unity"
"We'll see how much they want to cooperate and move forward," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. France has appeared keen to repair damaged ties. "The war has taken place. Now it's time to restore the unity of the international community," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told France Inter radio on Thursday.
STFU asshat
"Even if this text does not go as far as would like, we have decided to vote for this resolution," he told a joint news conference with his German and Russian counterparts on Wednesday night.
Even if this text does not go as far as would like?? who would like? we? them? nice grammar diplospeak
The three countries would have preferred a greater role for the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq and had wanted a timetable for setting up a legitimate domestic administration. They viewed Washington's latest draft — its third — as an improvement because it allowed for a possible return of U.N. arms inspectors and included U.N. representatives on an international board monitoring Iraqi oil revenues.
That's what our State Dept gave up....F&*k
I hope that's all they gave up. The UN arms inspectors are a non-issue, merely more bodies in place. If our guys find something and they don't, it's their ineptitude. If they can find something before our guys do, guess we shoulda worked harder — but our guys will be trying not to let that happen. And the representatives on the monitoring board will be auditing the oil revenues. They idea's to keep the people involved honest, which'll be a start contrast to the Oil for Palaces program...
With the so-called "non-nein-nyet" trio throwing its weight behind the U.S. draft, the measure was expected to win swift approval in a Security Council vote after 10 a.m. EDT. The resolution, which would end U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, also gives the United States and Britain broad powers to run Iraq and sell its oil to fund reconstruction until a new government is set up.

FOLLOWUP: From Islam OnLine...
The Security Council voted 14-0 Thursday, May 22, to immediately lift the 13-year-old U.N. sanctions clamped on Iraq in the wake of its invasion of Kuwait and put its economy under the broad control of the U.S.-led occupying forces. Syria, the only Arab member on the council, boycotted the vote, taken in the presence of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The council adopted Resolution 1483, asking the U.S. and British forces to help form an Iraqi-led interim administration "until an internationally recognized, representative government is established by the Iraqi people." The resolution set up a new Development Fund for Iraq under the central bank, supervised by the Anglo-American forces. Iraq's oil revenues will be deposited in the fund and disbursed at the direction of the occupying powers in consultation with the interim administration. It also asked Annan to appoint a special representative for Iraq, to contribute to setting up the interim authority and to take part in an advisory board auditing the Development Fund.
Posted by:Frank G

#12  Yank, we can get silly all we want. The theater of operation in this war is global. This is a world war on terror. Those battles in Iraq can be called firefights as far as I'm concerned. The North African campagin of WWII wasn't a war. The Afgan campaign wasn't a war. But I get your point about the actuall theater of operation. But that was 'a' battle in the War on Terror.
Posted by: Lucky   2003-05-23 11:36:09  

#11  Alaska Paul,

"Serious consequences"
Posted by: Ernest Brown   2003-05-22 20:43:16  

#10  The council adopted Resolution 1483, asking the U.S. and British forces to help form an Iraqi-led interim administration "until an internationally recognized, representative government is established by the Iraqi people."

I think that I am too much on edge, or maybe I am extentially paraniod, but that "internationally recognized, representative government" phrase may be used as a wedgie later by France and anyone seeking recovery of their ill gotten contracts. I just do not trust the bastards. Negotiation requires good will and trust that both sides will honor an agreement. I just do not feel good about a bunch of these nations.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-05-22 19:13:26  

#9  Calling it a battle (as Bush did) is silly. There were many battles in Iraq. The conflict should properly be called the Iraqi theater of operations in the War on Terror.
Posted by: Yank   2003-05-22 13:07:36  

#8  "Ple-e-e-e-e-ease don't crush our pitifully shaky welfare-ridden economy!"
Posted by: mojo   2003-05-22 11:25:55  

#7  It wasn't a war. It was a battle. Things are not back to normal. This war is still in its early stages.
Posted by: Lucky   2003-05-22 10:51:16  

#6  Fox sez the vote passed 14-0. Syria did not vote.

I forgot that, although on the Security Council, Syria is not a permanent member and does not have veto power, so it didn't matter much what their input would have been.
Posted by: Dar   2003-05-22 09:23:54  

#5  Two sites for continuing information (attempted links keep coming up with the Rantburg URL in them):

Central Command http://www.centcom.mil/
Department of Defense News http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
Posted by: Chuck   2003-05-22 09:09:19  

#4  hmmm, I'd feel better if he'd said the "Iraq war". The meaning of the word "is" is very important to weasles.
Posted by: Becky   2003-05-22 08:29:38  

#3  Isn't it highly significant that he called it a war, instead of an illegal occupation or some other such nonsense?
Posted by: Becky   2003-05-22 08:27:08  

#2  Sounds like everything's a go except for Syria's vote, which just goes to show how f)*@$d the UN concept is to begin with.
Posted by: Dar   2003-05-22 08:10:58  

#1  "The war has taken place. Now it's time to restore the unity of the international community," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told France Inter radio on Thursday.

Villepinhead states the obvious in the first sentence and is arrogantly presumptious in the second. This guy makes de Gaulle look downright humble.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative   2003-05-22 07:51:34  

00:00