US to push a vote it knows it will lose.

Post #86,561 by Brandioch 3/7/03 4:50:39 PM Reply	US to push a vote it knows it will lose. [link\|http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2346157\|Here] The United States, Britain and Spain on Friday proposed a March 17 ultimatum for Iraq to cooperate fully with disarmament demands or face war, but their U.N. draft resolution still lacked a majority and faced a possible veto. Look for a quick, last minute rush with the US credit card to all "undecided" nations. "Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity ... unless on or before March 17, 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation with its disarmament obligations," it said. So, if Iraq doesn't comply with the UN resolutions........ But the president vowed to go to war with or without U.N. approval to fulfill what he saw as his duty to protect the American people from the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. .....then the US will not comply with UN resolutions. Pakistan's U.N. ambassador Munir Akram said: "The cost of delay in our view will be much less than the cost of war." And Pakistan is VERY close to Iraq. But Saddam is a THREAT! NOW! Saddam is a THREAT NOW!!! Why can't those dense Paki's SEE the THREAT that is IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD!?!
Post #86,570 by boxley 3/7/03 5:14:22 PM Reply	paks dont see it because they are too busy plotting hoe to get the taliban back in power in afghanistan. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #86,596 by JayMehaffey 3/7/03 7:41:33 PM Reply	Trying to pull a fast one. I get it now, the US and Briton are trying to pull a fast one here. This is designed to mimic the Canadian proposal but is setup in such a way that war can not be averted. Not only does the new resolution involve a absurdly short deadline and a vague to the point of useless definition of compliance. But it's also phrased such that the next resolution would have to be a positive one to prevent war. Notice that bit that says that the Security Council must conclude that Iraq has complied fully and in every way, otherwise we go to war. This means that the US can veto the next resolution if they can't get enough votes, letting us get UN backing based only on our own vote. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!