Article

2003-03-05 Iraq

America works on âMiddle Sixâ in effort to shift UNSC

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-03-05 09:42 am|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Yet the froggie papers whisper, "no veto."

As was pointed out here before, "You first. No, YOU first!"

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-05 01:00:19|| 2003-03-05 01:00:19|| Front Page Top

#2 I still think it's going to be 11-4 against military intervention. Most of the world is really eager to humiliate the US, or to be more exact, Bush. They hope to ruin him politically, so as to ensure that a Democrat of the surrender variety wins in 2004. Chirac is very much in favor of regime change, in Washington. He wants a submissive American president, who takes orders from the UN, which in Chirac's imagination means : from France.

It's a pity that Democrat hawks have virtually no chance of winning their party's primaries, because nothing would be so devastating for the EUnuch plans as a hawkish Democrat in the White House. They would have to follow like sheep, just as they did when Clinton found a spine somewhere and decided to bomb the hell out of Milosevic.

Posted by Peter 2003-03-05 03:01:45|| 2003-03-05 03:01:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Bad news, boys and girls, Putin announced tonight he WOULD veto

FASTER PLEASE!!!

Posted by anon 2003-03-05 04:50:02|| 2003-03-05 04:50:02|| Front Page Top

#4 So France is waffling, and Russia now says they will veto? Not so sure. Besides which, whoever vetos are going to be the ones that killed the UN, after the US and UK take out Saddam. And once word of what France, (and Germany) have been doing during the sanctions is made public, well, it won't be pleasant.

Posted by Ben 2003-03-05 05:13:11|| 2003-03-05 05:13:11|| Front Page Top

#5 "Tony Blair would be confronting a political crisis more critical than any he has experienced before."
Just a point of note, many folks regard Blair to be the best Tory PM since Maggie. I wonder how laughable he would think it to be to jump ship and swim to the Tory boat. It needs a new leader.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-03-05 05:16:43|| 2003-03-05 05:16:43|| Front Page Top

#6 interesting points Peter. Well domestic issues and personalities still matter, i think that to a great extent the first Democratic primary will be in Iraq. A successful war gives a big boost to the hawks (Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt) and weakens Dean and even Kerry (Graham looks like far less of an 'expert" after the Khalid Muhammed capture) OTOH a war that goes badly kills any chance of Liberman Edwards or Gephardt being nominated.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-03-05 08:35:48|| 2003-03-05 08:35:48|| Front Page Top

#7 It seems to me that a veto may ironically help the cause for war. I believe that UK opinion polls support war in the case of UN approval or an unreasonable veto. Given the case that has been made, any veto may be considered unreasonable, so maybe there are some back channel negotiations or intentional blustering to secure a veto from someone.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert.

Posted by mjh 2003-03-05 09:07:05|| 2003-03-05 09:07:05|| Front Page Top

#8 mjh: lol! :-)

Posted by becky 2003-03-05 09:55:27|| 2003-03-05 09:55:27|| Front Page Top

#9 Hang in there, Becky!

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-03-05 10:36:48|| 2003-03-05 10:36:48|| Front Page Top

#10 thanks!

Posted by becky 2003-03-05 11:07:26|| 2003-03-05 11:07:26|| Front Page Top

#11 It is hard for me to believe that France, Germany or Russia would actually use their veto. They have burned some/most of their political capital already, but why declare all-out diplomatic war on the U.S. when you can't affect the outcome? That would have serious ramifications for these nations. The U.S. is going to war anyway so their votes are practically irrelevant.

What you appear to have here is the U.N. ambassadors talking tough, presenting a united front, but in the end, I bet they will get reeled in and all abstain.

Posted by jonesy 2003-03-05 18:48:09|| 2003-03-05 18:48:09|| Front Page Top

#12 I agree with Jonesy. Nothing the French or Russians say before the vote has any real meaning. Bush is staring them down, and that is going to be almost as important a lesson for the miscreants of the world as what happens to Hussein - the lesson is, don't play poker with this man, unless you can afford to lose.

This is very high stakes poker, and the French, Germans, and Russians have neither cards nor faces. They've been raising and raising to sustain their bluff, but next week, Bush will ask to see their cards, and they will fold.

Posted by Patrick 2003-03-05 21:27:36|| 2003-03-05 21:27:36|| Front Page Top

#13 America works on âMiddle Sixâ in effort to shift UNSC

Why are they even bothering???

The UN has already proven itself totally useless. It's time to get on with the job of vaporizing Saddam and setting Iraq on a new course. Once this is done, then what is left of the UN should be expelled from the U.S., and our sights should then be set on the other members of Terrorists International.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-03-05 23:02:13|| 2003-03-05 23:02:13|| Front Page Top

#14 Hmmm,wonder how many U.N.spies are running around the U.S.

Posted by raptor 2003-03-06 09:12:01|| 2003-03-06 09:12:01|| Front Page Top

01:48 jesse weir
02:33 Rocky
09:12 raptor
09:10 Dar Steckelberg
08:21 raptor
07:34 raptor
06:27 raptor
06:19 raptor
04:33 anon
04:15 anon
03:15 Doug C.
01:18 Anonymous
01:16 Anonymous
01:15 Anonymous
01:02 R. McLeod
00:42 RW
23:45 John Anderson
23:40 John Anderson
23:17 John Anderson
23:10 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 Fred
23:02 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 John Anderson
22:57 Frank G