sassa Posted October 22 Report Share Posted October 22 U.S. says time is running out for U.N. France, Russia still opposed to Washington’s Iraq resolution NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 22 — The United States is running out of patience with the United Nations, where Washington has been unable to gain support for a new toughly worded resolution on Iraq. “It’s coming down to the end,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday. “The United Nations does not have forever.”WASHINGTON HAS SOUGHT a U.N. resolution that that would carry an automatic military response if Iraq is found not to be cooperating with weapons inspectors. However, it needs the backing of the five veto-holding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — and only Britain has vouched its support. Two other permanent members, France and Russia, have balked at submitting to Washington’s request, even after U.S. diplomats circulated a toned-down draft resolution on Monday. In its first official response, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the proposal was still unacceptable. “The American draft resolution, which was presented yesterday, does not answer the criteria [for resolution of the Iraq crisis] which the Russian side laid out earlier and which it confirms today,” Ivanov said, according to the Interfax news agency. Ivanov made the statement several hours after meeting with Hans Blix, the head of the chief U.N. weapons inspector. MORE DISCUSSIONS Russia opposes a provision that would automatically allow military action against Iraq if it doesn’t comply with demands and has repeatedly called for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq as soon as possible under the terms of existing U.N. resolutions. Ivanov said that he discussed the new draft Tuesday in telephone calls with Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, Interfax said. France has led the opposition to Washington’s hard-nosed approach. On Tuesday, De Villepin said the French government was studying the U.S. draft but stressed that there was still much work to be done to reach a consensus. On Monday, French U.N. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said he did not think an agreement was close, even before he viewed the new U.S. draft. IN A BIND The stalemate has put the Bush administration in a bind since the president began pushing for U.N. support five weeks ago. The frustration was reflected in Fleischer’s remarks to reporters on Tuesday. “The United Nations does not have forever,” he said, “and we’ll continue to work it and see when we get an agreement, if we get an agreement, how to proceed.” For his part, Bush again warned that Washington does not necessarily need the support of the United Nations. “For the sake of having an international body which is effective, the United Nations must be resolved to deal with this person,” said Bush, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “If the United Nations can’t make its mind up, if Saddam Hussein won’t disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him for the sake of peace,” Bush added, speaking at a Pennsylvania Republican campaign rally. On Monday, the president suggested the new U.S. resolution offered a way out for Iraq and that Saddam could avoid a U.S.-led military attack if he complied with all the U.N. demands for disarmament. “We’ve tried diplomacy,” Bush said. “We’re trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully, but if not, we have the will and the desire as do other nations to disarm Saddam.” Bush said the U.S. policy seeking a regime change in Iraq remained intact. “We don’t believe he’s going to change,” Bush said after a meeting with NATO Secretary-General George Robertson. “However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I’ve described very clearly ... that in itself would signal the regime has changed,” he said. U.N. weapons chief Blix echoed Bush’s comments, saying that Iraq could avoid war if it cooperated with the monitors. “I think that if the Iraqis help and cooperate to create confidence that there remain no weapons of mass destruction, then I think there will be no war,” Blix told reporters Tuesday in Moscow. U.N. VETO-HOLDERS MEET OVER DRAFT U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte submitted the complete U.S. draft resolution to envoys from the other four permanent council nations — France, Russia, China and Britain — at a meeting Monday. The U.S. proposal includes phrases that could be interpreted as triggering military action, council diplomats said. One refers to Iraq being in “material breach” for violating U.N. resolutions, a phrase that some legal experts say could open the door for a response. Another recalls that Iraq has been repeatedly warned that it could face “serious consequences,” the council diplomats said. As in the original U.S. draft resolution, the new one stands by a demand that Iraq make a complete declaration about its programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles within 30 days, the diplomats said. It has also kept its demand that Iraq accept the new resolution within seven days of its adoption, they said. In order for a resolution to pass, it needs a minimum of nine “yes” votes from the 15 council members, and no veto by a permanent member. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS Iraq said on Tuesday it would fiercely resist any U.S. military action to oust Saddam and that the country’s 22 million people were ready to defend every inch of Iraq. Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said conflicting messages from Washington on Iraq harmed Turkey and that the Bush administration should make up its mind on whether to strike Baghdad. Ecevit’s remarks, published a day after U.S. Central Command chief Tommy Franks met with Turkish military brass to discuss Iraq, reflect the NATO ally’s unease over a war next door that could spark economic and social turmoil at home. British and American planes bombed a military air defense site in the northern no-fly zone over Iraq after taking fire from Iraqi forces, defense officials said. The bombing brought to 51 the number of days this year that such strikes were reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted October 22 Report Share Posted October 22 “We’ve tried diplomacy,” Bush said. “We’re trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully, but if not, we have the will and the desire as do other nations to disarm Saddam.”See Bush is reasonable.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted October 22 Author Report Share Posted October 22 Originally posted by dnice35 “We’ve tried diplomacy,” Bush said. “We’re trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully, but if not, we have the will and the desire as do other nations to disarm Saddam.”See Bush is reasonable.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 If Iraq should disarm then we should disarm too. In fact, all countries should disarm.What makes the US think they can have weapons of mass destruction but it's not alright for Iraq to have them?I find that to be quite hypocritical.Bush? Reasonable? Not a chance. He's a fascist racist warmongering pig and a dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by normalnoises If Iraq should disarm then we should disarm too. In fact, all countries should disarm.Ok and what happy little world do you live in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by dnice35 Originally posted by normalnoises If Iraq should disarm then we should disarm too. In fact, all countries should disarm.Ok and what happy little world do you live in? Definately NOT the kind of world you wanna see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by normalnoises Definately NOT the kind of world you wanna see. "This is a man's world...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted October 23 Author Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by dnice35 "This is a man's world...." ooooooooooohhhhhhh.....THAT'S why the world is so fucked up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by sassa ooooooooooohhhhhhh.....THAT'S why the world is so fucked up! Kindly reffer to my "women in power, and how PMS affects them" column..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by sassa ooooooooooohhhhhhh.....THAT'S why the world is so fucked up! A woman in power is as scary as it gets. Since they never had it, they dont know how to handle it.....Message from Michael Corleone...."Power wears out those who dont have it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted October 23 Author Report Share Posted October 23 Originally posted by dnice35 A woman in power is as scary as it gets. Since they never had it, they dont know how to handle it.....Message from Michael Corleone...."Power wears out those who dont have it" BULLSHIT. I am 100000% sure I could run this country better than Dubya can.Interesting how this country keeps talking about having democracies all over the world, but don't practice what they preach, why have we never had female presidents? Even fucking Latvia has a female president, Pakistan has had a female PM, the current president of Indonesia is female, and so forth...Maybe it is the US that is backwards in many ways and not the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 24 Report Share Posted October 24 Originally posted by sassa BULLSHIT. I am 100000% sure I could run this country better than Dubya can.Interesting how this country keeps talking about having democracies all over the world, but don't practice what they preach, why have we never had female presidents? Even fucking Latvia has a female president, Pakistan has had a female PM, the current president of Indonesia is female, and so forth...Maybe it is the US that is backwards in many ways and not the rest of the world. You got my vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted October 24 Report Share Posted October 24 Originally posted by sassa BULLSHIT. I am 100000% sure I could run this country better than Dubya can.Interesting how this country keeps talking about having democracies all over the world, but don't practice what they preach, why have we never had female presidents? Even fucking Latvia has a female president, Pakistan has had a female PM, the current president of Indonesia is female, and so forth...No wonder those countries suck...... Women can not be reasoned with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 25 Report Share Posted October 25 Originally posted by dnice35 No wonder those countries suck...... Women can not be reasoned with... I can reason with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.