New Blow to US Plans for Iraq War

[sassa]

New blow to U.S. plans for Iraq war

France, Russia, Germany say

they will oppose U.N. resolution

NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

PARIS, March 5 — The foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany said Wednesday they will not allow a U.N. resolution to pass that authorizes war against Iraq. Their statement, which followed a hastily called meeting in Paris, came amid a quickening U.S. push for military action against Baghdad. A White House spokesman played down the resistance, saying said President Bush remained confident that the draft resolution, sponsored by the United States, Britain and Spain, would be approved.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE, Bush and his national security team were being briefed Wednesday on the likely battle plan by Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander who would lead the 300,000 troops now in the gulf region awaiting orders.

France and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, have been joined by Germany in pushing for inspectors to be given more time and muscle to peacefully rid Iraq of any banned weapons.

“We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force,†French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said at a press conference.

When asked whether France would use its veto, as Russia has suggested it might do, de Villepin said, “We will take all our responsibilities. We are in total agreement with the Russians.â€

However, by refusing to explicitly threaten a veto, de Villepin appeared to be leaving open the door for a compromise within the deeply divided council.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said China, another veto-wielding member of the Security Council, shared the trio’s approach.

But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush was confident the resolution would be passed and said the resistance from France, Russia and Germany did not necessarily represent their vote.

“What you are observing is a fluid situation as different nations make different statements that all lead up to the one day which is the most important day, which is the day of the vote,†Fleischer said.

Broad range of views

How the Security Council feels about Iraq

Permanent members

• United States

• Russia

• China

• Britain

• France

Elected members

• Angola

• Bulgaria

• Cameroon

• Chile

• Guinea

• Germany

• Mexico

• Pakistan

• Syria

• Spain

The United States: Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, is failing to cooperate with weapons inspectors and is violating its obligations under U.N resolutions. Washington would like a new resolution but says it's willing to disarm Saddam Hussein along with a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations balks at authorizing military action.

Russia: Iraq is cooperating with inspectors and there is no evidence it is rearming. Officials have said the inspection process is working and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov joined his French and German counterparts on March 5 in threatening to block a U.S.-backed war resolution.

China: Supports continued inspections and wants the crisis resolved peacefully. However, U.S. officials don't believe Beijing will cast its veto to prevent a new resolution.

Britain: Prefers a second Security Council resolution authorizing any military action, but is expected to join U.S.-led action without one. Says Iraq is not cooperating or disarming and that time is running out for it to do so through weapons inspections.

France: Says inspections are starting to work and sees no justification for military action now. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said on March 5 that he and his counterparts from Russia and German had agreed to block a U.S.-backed war resolution at the Security Council.

Angola: So far, it supports continued inspections in Iraq. However, it is under fierce pressure from the United States to back a new motion that would authorize war.

Bulgaria: Indicated it would support U.S.-led military intervention without a Security Council authorization.

Cameroon: Supports continued inspections and has not taken a position regarding military action. However, Cameroon is under fierce pressure from the United States to back a new motion that would authorize war.

Chile: Supports continued inspections and has not taken a position regarding military action. Its ambassador to the United Nations has urged the veto-wielding permanent members to work on a compromise on dealing with the Iraq issue.

Guinea: Supports continued inspections and has not taken a position regarding military action. However, it is under fierce pressure from the United States to back a new motion that would authorize war.

Germany: Insists Iraq must be disarmed peacefully and has said it will not participate in any military intervention, even if the Security Council authorizes such action. Germany joined with France and Russia on March 5 to say the three nations would block the U.S.-backed war resolution.

Mexico: Supports continued weapons inspections and could support military intervention authorized by the Security Council. The U.S. neighbor is under fierce pressure from the United States to back a new motion that would authorize war.

Pakistan: Supports continued weapons inspections and a diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Officials have suggested the Muslim nation would like to abstain on the new resolution. However, they also indicated Islamabad will support Washington if it needs the extra vote to pass the motion.

Syria: Damascus says Iraq is cooperating with its obligations under U.N. resolutions and has called for U.N. sanctions to be lifted. It will not support any new resolution.

Spain: Supports the Bush administration’s stance on Iraq and has co-sponsored, along with the United States and Britain, a draft resolution that would pave the way for military action.

PRODUCING RESULTS

The statement from Paris was issued amid a flurry of last-minute consultations ahead of a oral presentation to the Security Council on Friday by top weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, along with most of the 15 foreign ministers, will attend the briefing on Iraq’s disarmament efforts. He has said that Washington wants a vote of its resolution shortly afterwards, suggesting the United States would call for one the following week.

However, the draft resolution — clearing the way for forcibly disarming Iraq — needs nine votes to pass in the 15-member U.N. Security Council, and no vetoes.

With time running out, both sides are vying for the votes of six undecided members of the Security Council — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan.

Washington asserts that President Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and has dismissed Iraq’s recent cooperation with inspectors whereby it has begun destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles.

The three ministers, for their part, said inspections were producing results and that weapons experts should be given more time to search for arms that Iraq is not supposed to have, as set out in U.N. resolution 1441.

“We see there is progress,†German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said. “I do not see personally how we can stop the process of resolution 1441 and resort to war.â€

Prior to the statement in Paris, Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, a staunch U.S. ally, predicted a U.N. vote would succeed as long as Iraq continued to defy the United Nations.

“If (Saddam) is not complying, there will undoubtedly be a resolution put to a vote,†he told parliament. “We are confident of securing the votes for that resolution.â€

CHALLENGE FOR U.N.

However, while the Bush administration wants to win Security Council approval for war, it has warned that it is prepared to go to war without U.N. authority.

On Tuesday, according to a State Department transcript of an interview on Russia’s ORT television, Secretary of State Colin Powell explained that Russia and the United States were divided over both the usefulness of further weapons inspections and the scale of the threat Iraq poses to the world.

Dueling visions on Iraq

Powell said that Saddam Hussein “must be disarmed ... and he will be disarmed — peacefully, hopefully, but if necessary, the United States is prepared to lead a coalition of the willing, a coalition of willing nations, either under U.N. authority or without U.N. authority, if that turns out to be the case, in order to disarm this man.â€

France’s De Villepin rejected any unilateral U.S. war on Iraq.

“The United Nations is indispensable,†de Villepin said. “The United Nations is the authority of legitimacy for the international community.â€

“We can only achieve peace together. And to do it, we would need the United Nations — to organize, to bring their legitimacy to the action of the international community in Iraq.â€

MILITARY PLANS

Gen. Franks, who reviewed his war plan with commanders last week, met at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before consulting with Bush and his advisers at the White House on Wednesday.

As part of the buildup, the Army’s oldest armored division, “Old Ironsides,†got orders to head for the Persian Gulf as the total of U.S. land, sea and air forces arrayed against Iraq or preparing to deploy neared 300,000.

American war planners also still hope the Turkish parliament will reverse itself and permit the deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops to allow an invasion of Iraq from the north.

Nevertheless, with the military almost in position, one option under serious consideration, according to officials, was for Bush to give Saddam a final ultimatum, perhaps with a short-term deadline, in an address next week.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that a variety of options were under consideration and that they depended on the outcome of the debate in the council.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Demonstrators clad in white pledged to become martyrs for Iraq on Wednesday, parading through the capital as Saddam Hussein sought to show he had support among his people against a possible U.S.-led war to oust his regime. The 90-minute parade on a major Baghdad street came as U.N. weapons inspectors returned Wednesday to sites around the city where they have been destroying banned missiles. The U.N. inspectors have crushed 19 Al Samoud 2 missiles since March 1, but it was not immediately known how many were destroyed Wednesday.

Iraq’s vice president shouted, “Shut up, you monkey!†at a Kuwaiti diplomat during an emergency summit of Islamic nations that sought but failed to develop a new position on preventing a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq. In the end of the day, divisions remained too strong and delegates to the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference summit broke up with a final statement welcoming Iraqi cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors and expressing hope it would continue.

Pope John Paul II appealed for efforts by all to avert a “dramatic conflict†over Iraq and urged the world’s 1 billion Catholics to join him in fasting and prayers for peace on Ash Wednesday. The pope, a staunch opponent of war in Iraq, said everyone must “assume their responsibilities and make common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict.â€

[dnice35]

they'll just have to go in with the allies they do have.

[sassa]

Originally posted by dnice35

they'll just have to go in with the allies they do have.

like who?...except for the UK...whose (over 70%) constituents oppose the war?

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by sassa

like who?...except for the UK...whose (over 70%) constituents oppose the war?

sharpen ur pencil honey....i think u forgot to "carry" that infamous 1...

[underwater]

Originally posted by sassa

like who?...except for the UK...whose (over 70%) constituents oppose the war?

see latest results

75% of Britons back war...(Contingent upon UN)

BRITISH public opinion last night swung dramatically behind American and UK military action to disarm Iraq.

In a major victory for Tony Blair, 75 per cent of voters said they back a war if the UN gives the all-clear.

A poll by Mori shows a significant ten per cent swing behind Mr Blair since he launched his campaign for public hearts and minds last month.

The change of mood emerged as the PM prepared to summon Parliament for an emergency debate on Saturday next week.

That would almost certainly follow a decision to join America in the first air strikes against Saddam on Thursday or Friday, as revealed by The Sun.

The poll shows support for war depends on evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

Mori chief Bob Worcester said: “This latest research shows Blair has turned a corner. There has also been a fall in the number of people who would oppose military action without UN backing.

“Opposition falls to two in five if the inspectors do find evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction — even if the UN still does not vote in favour of action.

“If the inspectors report a smoking gun in Saddam’s hand and the UN second vote is passed the British, by three to one, think troops should be used alongside Americans.â€

The increasing tempo towards war was accompanied by a continuing build-up of military activity in the Gulf, despite Turkey’s reluctance to let American troops use its bases.

And US President George Bush insisted it was America’s duty to help the UN protect the world from terror.

He said in Washington: “The first law of the 21st century requires the United States to work with international bodies to deal with these threats and we will continue to do so.â€

But Mr Bush insisted the UN must support its own ultimatum ordering Saddam to scrap weapons of mass slaughter.

[dnice35]

thank you!

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

like who?...except for the UK...whose (over 70%) constituents oppose the war?

Sassa..

You are incorrect....there are a multitude of nations that support US action....check the Wall St Journal op-ed from a few weeks ago...I believe 8-12 (forgot the number) European countries signed a letter stating support for the US....

Many of them "new Europe", plus Italy and Spain....

And Chirac got all pissy, and told them "they missed their chance to shut up" and it would hurt their EU membership chances....

Which of course the leaders were not happy at all

[dnice35]

Originally posted by igloo

Sassa..

You are incorrect....there are a multitude of nations that support US action....check the Wall St Journal op-ed from a few weeks ago...I believe 8-12 (forgot the number) European countries signed a letter stating support for the US....

Many of them "new Europe", plus Italy and Spain....

And Chirac got all pissy, and told them "they missed their chance to shut up" and it would hurt their EU membership chances....

Which of course the leaders were not happy at all

I remember that article.

[sassa]

yes, like bulgaria, the czech republic, spain....

guess why they are supporting the war? money......

the US does not give a damn about these countries, but now they are courting them in the UN for their votes....surprising? hardly not. brown nosing is common in politics. but interestingly, these countries are trying to gain entry in the EU/NATO/etc etc....hence their support for the US. do you honestly think they care otherwise...i don't think so.

remember, every political move has an economic motive behind it...

[dnice35]

Originally posted by sassa

yes, like bulgaria, the czech republic, spain....

guess why they are supporting the war? money......

and you know why France and Rusia... are opposing the war?... thats right! MONEY,

C.R.E.A.M.

[sassa]

Originally posted by dnice35

and you know why France and Rusia... are opposing the war?... thats right! MONEY,

C.R.E.A.M.

yep.

the US had talks with the Taliban in January 2001 concerning the building of a pipeline from Afghanistan going into Central Asia. Since the countries in this area were former republic of the USSR, and are now considered "satellite states" (which in essence means Russia still profits from them...but mafia style), that means Russia has a keen interest in building this pipeline and making sure it happens.

Ironically, this is partly why the war in Chechnya is occurring...the Chechens want to split from the Russian Federation, but Russia won't allow this, especially since Chechnya is in a very sensitive area for future plans to build another pipeline stretching from the Caspian Sea region (which has an abundance of natural resources, including crude oil) down to the ME...to guess where? Iraq.

France had oil deals with Iraq in the past and with no doubt still does...Germany and France also supplied Iraq with materials in the 1970's and beyond that are necessary to make nuclear weapons.

Look, everyone is guilty of something. But people still have a right to object. The sad and sickening reality is that we common people can only talk, but we cannot take no action. No matter what happens, our fate has already been predetermined...and we can only step back and watch as these events unfold in front of us....and pray for the best.

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

yes, like bulgaria, the czech republic, spain....

guess why they are supporting the war? money......

the US does not give a damn about these countries, but now they are courting them in the UN for their votes....surprising? hardly not. brown nosing is common in politics. but interestingly, these countries are trying to gain entry in the EU/NATO/etc etc....hence their support for the US. do you honestly think they care otherwise...i don't think so.

remember, every political move has an economic motive behind it...

While I don't completely disagree with you about money....there is also more to it..don't you think these Eastern European countries know what it means to be liberated, by the U.S.?

It would not be right to dismiss the fact that they could be supporting the US based on a moral conviction (liberation)....you can not dismiss that...

And "old Europe", like Italy and Spain, are supporting the US for more reasons than just money...if anything, their stance has the potential to hurt them....

[trancerxn112]

Originally posted by dnice35

and you know why France and Rusia... are opposing the war?... thats right! MONEY,

C.R.E.A.M.

haha honestly did anyone forget that money makes the world go round... besides bombing the shit out of a small country will help our economy... and from the looks of it we are long overdue.... but in all seriousness now anyone who thinks that this war has nothing to do with almighty buck, yen, doiche-mark (spelling), rubel, and whatever monetary system they use in Iraq, Iran and any other country that employs a camel as its main form of transportation is greatly deluding themself... i dont disagree with the the need for war im just a little fumed at the way our government is handling the media... if u want to rally the people show us some intelligence that we know exist!

[rdancer]

well we already have a quarter of a million troops chillin near Iraq. It would be a waste if we sent them there for no reason!!

[kramadas]

Originally posted by underwater

see latest results

75% of Britons back war...(Contingent upon UN)

BRITISH public opinion last night swung dramatically behind American and UK military action to disarm Iraq.

In a major victory for Tony Blair, 75 per cent of voters said they back a war if the UN gives the all-clear.

A poll by Mori shows a significant ten per cent swing behind Mr Blair since he launched his campaign for public hearts and minds last month.

The change of mood emerged as the PM prepared to summon Parliament for an emergency debate on Saturday next week.

That would almost certainly follow a decision to join America in the first air strikes against Saddam on Thursday or Friday, as revealed by The Sun.

The poll shows support for war depends on evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

Mori chief Bob Worcester said: “This latest research shows Blair has turned a corner. There has also been a fall in the number of people who would oppose military action without UN backing.

“Opposition falls to two in five if the inspectors do find evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction — even if the UN still does not vote in favour of action.

“If the inspectors report a smoking gun in Saddam’s hand and the UN second vote is passed the British, by three to one, think troops should be used alongside Americans.â€

The increasing tempo towards war was accompanied by a continuing build-up of military activity in the Gulf, despite Turkey’s reluctance to let American troops use its bases.

And US President George Bush insisted it was America’s duty to help the UN protect the world from terror.

He said in Washington: “The first law of the 21st century requires the United States to work with international bodies to deal with these threats and we will continue to do so.â€

But Mr Bush insisted the UN must support its own ultimatum ordering Saddam to scrap weapons of mass slaughter.

Biggest point here - they would support a war WITH UN BACKING! Looks like Bush might not get that! Plus, a smoking gun is needed.

Ok, thats all I can write in my drunk ass state!

:D:D

[normalnoises]

"In a major victory for Tony Blair, 75 per cent of voters said they back a war if the UN gives the all-clear."

What part of that statement don't you understand, underwater?

[sassa]

Originally posted by rdancer

well we already have a quarter of a million troops chillin near Iraq. It would be a waste if we sent them there for no reason!!

your comments are really disturbing. do you actually think you're amusing?

[underwater]

Originally posted by normalnoises

"In a major victory for Tony Blair, 75 per cent of voters said they back a war if the UN gives the all-clear."

What part of that statement don't you understand, underwater?

i'm just making an assumption that the tide of opinion is changing and that when the war is on 75% will be backing blair regardless of UN approval....the coalition is big enough as it stands....