| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| UN Update: U.S. Nixes 45-Day Extension |
| 2003-03-11 |
| From Fox News, with contripbutions from the AP; posted as a followup to this article from earlier today. The United States flatly rejected Tuesday a proposal by six undecided Security Council nations that the March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with U.N. disarmament demands be extended for 45 days. So they can be extended another 45 days, and another, and another . . . . Cameroon Ambassador Martin Belinga-Eboutou announced early Tuesday that he and five other ambassadors from key council nations — Mexico, Chile, Angola, Guinea and Pakistan — would suggest the 45-day deadline extension — along with the addition of benchmarks that Saddam Hussein would have to meet to avoid war. But a U.S. official discounted the proposal. "It's not going anywhere; there's only one resolution on the table," the official said. I've gotta put the phone down, and do what we gotta do. But, in the face of almost certain defeat in the Security Council, and with France and Russia threatening to veto a new resolution, the U.S. and Britain signaled they would agree to a short extension of the March 17 deadline. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the U.S.-backed resolution would be put to a vote this week and indicated a readiness to compromise. But he said the proposal to push back the March 17 deadline by a month or more was "a non-starter." We've got to get inside there, before they kill some more. "There is room for diplomacy here," Fleischer said. "Not much room and not much time." Time is runnin' out Let's roll. Both the United States and Britain, which is under intense pressure at home to get U.N. backing for any military action, said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution. "We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said late Monday. "We are examining whether a list of tests of Iraqi compliance would be a useful thing for the council. It doesn't mean there are any conclusions." In the New York Times, this is called a "unilateral rush to war." Greenstock said Tuesday the March 17 deadline could be extended, but not by that much. Britain is "prepared to look at time lines and tests together, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. Don't look beyond March," he said... Reacting to the possible British compromise, French diplomats said the resolution would still mean authorizing war, which France is unwilling to do. "It would mess up our TotalFinaElf contracts." However, the French Foreign Ministry in Paris indicated it was open to We want our oil contracts. And ice cream. And a pony for our birthday. And we've said we want what the inspectors say taken into account." Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov agreed. "We see no reason whatsoever to interrupt the inspections, and any resolution which contains ultimatums and which contains automaticity for the use of force While Washington and London worked on a possible compromise, council members agreed to hold another open meeting on the Iraq crisis at the request of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents about 115 mainly developing countries. Most are President Bush, meanwhile, was conducting an urgent phone campaign, seeking support from world leaders. Chinese President Jiang Zemin told Bush that inspections in Iraq should continue and the standoff should be settled without military action, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. Jiang told Bush there was "no need for any new resolution," said spokesman Kong Quan. "Hear that, guys? The Chinese said we don't need another reolution. If 1441's good enough for them, it's good enough for me! Let's roll." In the Thanks! In one call, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told Mexican President Vicente Fox that international divisions were putting the United Nations' authority at stake, the ministry said. "Mexico is taking an independent position and is not leaning to either side," Fox said. The current draft resolution — which authorizes war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed — requires nine "yes" votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes — either by abstaining or voting in favor. The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico believed leaning toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea. Like Neil Young said, Time is runnin' out Let's roll. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #8 Kinda makes you wonder what these anonymous posters are afraid of. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-12 07:23:49 |
| #7 Hey Anon (dipshit), So OUR soldiers are supposed to die? How do you think wars are fought, by Marquis of Queensberry rules? As Patton said, the goal is to MAKE THE OTHER POOR BASTARD DIE FOR HIS COUNTRY. We WANT our guys to survive, is that hard to understand or are you a blithering idiot? Of course we have a "mortal fear" of losing American lives. These are OUR sons and daughters, jerkoff. Leftists are truly and totally insane, not to mention suicidal. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-03-12 00:55:22 |
| #6 "a sad end to the brave resistance that France, Russia and the developing countries have exhibited against the US" "USA blackmailing its way out a sticky arrangement" Do I detect a bit of bias here? Are you sure you don't work for Reuters, Anon? There is no way Bush is going to wait 21 more days. Our priority now are the men and women who are putting their lives on the line so people like Anonymous can have the freedom to spout his hatred of the US. |
| Posted by: cdw 2003-03-11 23:12:49 |
| #5 Anon (which Anon are you? You Anon's should pick numbers or colors or something), As to how many Iraqis will die because of our "mortal fear" of losing American lives, that's the way it's supposed to be. The American army has always been willing to send a shell instead of a man. Our own Civil War taught us about wasting human lives in frontal assaults, and observing Verdun and Paschendale in WW I drove the message home. We WILL commit to assaults that have to be made (e.g., Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Hue), but we will also work to avoid those situations. I don't know how many Iraqis (or Americans) will die, but the battle strategy of conserving American lives is thoroughly ingrained into the American military, AND in the American public. As to the political scenario you posit, I must say that my read on it is that France vetoes regardless. They've invested almost all of their political capital in this; their reasoning is that America is the bigger threat, and their goal is to contain us. Losing this vote won't bother them, it will simply set the stage for further confrontations (e.g., the next stop in the 'War on Terror' tour) where they'll hope to do better. France is 'non' all the way, so I don't think your scenario will come to pass. We'll see in the next couple of days. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-11 21:11:07 |
| #4 A rumor off a UK chat room, some of you guys would have fun there, talking to those euros. Last week I was fortunate to speak to 2 MPs about France and their veto...what they told me wasn't pleasant. The UK, with clandestine help from the US, have for some weeks been arranging 'compromise' agreement that will offer the inspectors 21 (or so) more days. France and co., fearing that they will look unreasonable (and more importantly, fearing that they will be locked out of the Middle East for the foreseeable future), will become forced into a corner: they will have no alternative but to approve, or abstain from, the resolution, taking all the waverers with them. If this happens it will be a sad end to the brave resistance that France, Russia, and the developing countries have exhibited against the US. If you disagree with war, then disagree with the compromise........It is a smokescreen for war. And another example of the USA blackmailing its way out of a sticky arrangement. More depressingly when war begins, I was told, it will be like nothing previously seen. The war will be fought totally at night, and essentially be over in 6 days. After being told this I wondered how many thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered due to the mortal fear of losing one American GI life. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-11 20:54:24 |
| #3 Screw 'em. Go. Hope the League of Nations likes it's new home in... Zimbabwe? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-11 19:45:18 |
| #2 I'd heard that Cameroon is firmly in the Frnech camp as is Guinea in all likelihood. With France and Russia threatening to veto no matter what, the Germans and Chinese clearly aligning in the no-war crowd, and Syria and Angola firmly opposed as well (Syria for sure, Angola most likely IMO), that leaves Mexico and Chile seeing as Pakistan has stated they will abstain. So the alignment becomes 4 votes for and 6 against - real darned close to somebody's prediction of 4-11 for-against a few days ago. Hopefully the President and the Joint Chiefs won't get cold feet. Let's go after the bastards already and stop pussyfooting around the UN. The UN's time is over. France is sealing its fate along with that of NATO. Time for a new alignment of power and nations. I say we withdraw from the UN, boot the whole kit-n-kaboodle outta' the country, and be done with the entire organization. We'd certainly save money paying for the budget (to which we give a disproportionate 25%). Ian Douglas, a scifi writer, predicted in one of his trilogies that the US would one day end up shooting at the blue helmets. Henry Lamb, a noted columnist thinks so as well. His prediction might not be so far-fetched what with Kofi Annan saying that US action without UN approval would violate the UN charter and international law. In 1765 Patrick Henry in an address before the Virginia House of Commons stated after decrying the British stamp act "If this be treason, make the most of it!" I've heard many people talking about American hegmony and imperialism and I say "If this be empire, make the most of it!" Just some humble comments from a wannabe politician (Lord alone knows why). Thanks, Greg Greg Ellis For Congress 2004 (10th District US House, California) |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2003-03-11 19:20:21 |
| #1 Put up or shut up. Take your pick. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-03-11 17:50:58 |