Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
dnice35

Dissarm or else....

Recommended Posts

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council on Friday unanimously approved a resolution that forces Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm or face "serious consequences" that would almost certainly mean war with Iraq.

The vote was 15-to-nothing. A minimum of nine votes and no veto was required for the resolution to pass.

"If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein," President Bush said in the Rose Garden Friday in response to the vote.

"The world has now come together to say the outlaw regime in Iraq must not be allowed to build or possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons," said Bush, flanked by Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Now the world must insist that that judgment be enforced."

But Bush cautioned that promises of disarmament and cooperation from Iraq aren't new.

"Iraq can be certain the old game of cheat and retreat -- tolerated at other times -- will no longer be tolerated," Bush said. "Any Iraqi noncompliance is serious."

Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution's terms and 30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

After the U.N. vote, the Iraqi ambassador said his country will study the new resolution before deciding on acceptance.

Meanwhile, members of the U.N. Security Council took turns explaining to the world exactly what the resolution -- and a violation of it -- will mean.

"I know it has not been easy to reach an agreement -- it has required both patience and persistence, but the effort has been well worth while," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "Whenever the council is united, it sends a very powerful signal and I hope that Iraq will heed that signal."

"The road ahead will be difficult and dangerous but empowered by this resolution," Annan continued, saying weapons inspections and others "stand equipped to carry out their vital tasks." He said success of the inspections will require "full and unconditional cooperation" from Iraq and the "continued determination" from the international community to hold Iraq accountable.

"How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the courts of peace and security" in the region and the world, Annan said.

John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the UN, said there is now just one message being sent to Iraq from the international community: noncompliance is no longer an option.

"This resolution constituted the world community's demand that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction," he said. "We hope all member states will now press Iraq to undertake that cooperation. This resolution is designed to test Iraq’s intentions."

Negroponte sent a strong warning to Iraq against not complying with what is outlined in the resolution, saying, "every act of Iraq noncompliance will be a serious matter because it will tell us Iraq has no intention of disarming."

"This resolution affords Iraq a final opportunity," Negroponte said.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock stressed that the resolution "makes crystal clear" what is expected of Iraq. "This will reinforce international confidence in the inspectors, it will also, I hope, lead Iraq away from a fatal decision to conceal weapons of mass destruction."

If Iraq fails to live up to its responsibilities, Greenstock, said, "we would expect the security council then to meet its responsibilities," which include going to war.

Even Syria decided to align itself with the United States. That nation, which has repeatedly opposed any new resolution, was expected to abstain, vote "no" or not vote at all. It had asked for voting to be delayed until after an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo this weekend.

After eight weeks of diplomatic wrangling, the final draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N. weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying.

But it also gives Saddam "a final opportunity" to cooperate with weapons inspectors, holds out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and reaffirms the country's sovereignty.

In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said Friday that Russia still had concerns over the U.S. resolution but "the important thing is that the automatic use of force against Iraq was scrapped."

In Thursday evening's final revision, just two words were changed to meet French and Russian concerns about a possible trigger.

In a key provision that would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N. obligations, the United States changed wording that would have let Washington determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction. Such a determination, France and Russia feared, would have triggered an attack on Saddam.

The new wording requires U.N. weapons inspectors to make an assessment of any Iraqi violations.

In Iraq, the government-controlled media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged the Security Council not to bow to American demands.

"America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation," the ruling Baath Party newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday.

Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of its large petrochemical industry in that time, but the United States decided against giving Baghdad more time.

Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10 days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to actually begin work, and must report to the council 60 days later on Iraq's performance.

Inspectors will have "unconditional and unrestricted access" to all sites, including eight presidential compounds where surprise inspections have been barred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good...sounds like a good thing...

But it won't mean anything till the end results and inspection comes and we see how thoroughly it's been carried out and how satisfied others...namely the US Gov...are. Otherwise it doesn't mean much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stupid as we might think Bush is, he def. pulled this off......He actually got the UN to pass a resolution that calls for unrestricted inspections....So Saddam is left with nowhere to hide whatever WMD he might have....Just look at some of the scenario's......Saddam realizes that he cant hide the weapons anywhere and admits them and then disarms.....Bush wins because he silences any doubters and it gives him the upper hand in confronting future threats.....Scenario 2....Saddam lets the inspectors in and they find the weapons...Bush once again wins......Scenario 3.....Saddam refuses to let the inspectors in leading everyone to believe he has these weapons....Then the UN goes in and Saddam is gone...Once again Bush comes out on top.....The only question left is whether Saddam will be in power a year from now......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by nycmuzik2000

As stupid as we might think Bush is, he def. pulled this off......He actually got the UN to pass a resolution that calls for unrestricted inspections....So Saddam is left with nowhere to hide whatever WMD he might have....Just look at some of the scenario's......Saddam realizes that he cant hide the weapons anywhere and admits them and then disarms.....Bush wins because he silences any doubters and it gives him the upper hand in confronting future threats.....Scenario 2....Saddam lets the inspectors in and they find the weapons...Bush once again wins......Scenario 3.....Saddam refuses to let the inspectors in leading everyone to believe he has these weapons....Then the UN goes in and Saddam is gone...Once again Bush comes out on top.....The only question left is whether Saddam will be in power a year from now......

The eleven years Sadam has PUSSY FOOTED arounf while our then president spewed his seed on some intern dress has come to an end. The illustration of your senarios are 100% and will once again prove we have the ideal leadership in the oval office to confront and defeat this global anti- American threat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by bigmahs

The eleven years Sadam has PUSSY FOOTED arounf while our then president spewed his seed on some intern dress has come to an end. The illustration of your senarios are 100% and will once again prove we have the ideal leadership in the oval office to confront and defeat this global anti- American threat...

oh yes...the big, bad mighty USA to the world's rescue!!!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by normalnoises

If Iraq should disarm the US should disarm too, in fact ALL countries should disarm.

sounds good in theory....however reality is if the US ever disarmed then we would be wiped off the face of the earth....can you argue that 60-70% of the world is seething to kill americans for religious and political beliefs?.......normalnoises - you add so such little substance to any of these boards.....why don't you add in some opinion based with fact once in a while.....maybe you can help me out on one point though....where can i learn more about globalization and the arguements against it.....i want to see what you tree huggers are saying about this issue....much like everything else you say i only see a bunch of people protesting with very little substance to their arguement...back on point.....IRAQ MUST DISARM B/C THEY HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF AGGRESION/TYRANNY/MURDER/ AND HAVE USED WMD BEFORE....it would only be a matter of time before ira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

oh yes...the big, bad mighty USA to the world's rescue!!!

:rolleyes:

if you look at history....you will find the reality is that the US has done a good job at rescuing parts of the world....i can name 3 of the top of my head...

1) North Korea from oppressing South Korea

2) Defeating Hitler before he controlled Europe and went for world domination

3) Saving Kuwait from Iraq's invasion

US HAS NEVER ATTACKED ANOTHER NATION UNPROVOKED!!

no its your turn...name 3 times the us has helped to destroy the world???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×