…
15-0
15 foriegn soliders dead for 0 americans. Thats what the ration means. 30 for 1, 45 for 2 etc etc. I do believe the world just got screwed....
All 15 Security Council's members (including Pakistan) voted yes on it.
Pakistan is speaking now.
As far as military involvement I don't believe it (Res. 1511) promises anything outright.
The resolution needed the backing of nine of the Security Council’s 15 members to pass and no veto.
The outcome of the vote will be hailed by some as a victory for American diplomacy, says the BBC’s Greg Barrow at the UN.
An announcement shortly before the vote confirmed France, Germany and Russia - leading critics of the US-led war on Iraq - would back the amended text, ending speculation they might abstain altogether.
**
But continuing concerns about the text mean they will not contribute troops or funds to the reconstruction effort.
**
The resolution was also backed by Syria, representing the Arab world on the Security Council.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan welcome the vote, saying the Security Council’s common objective was to restore sovereignty to Iraq as quickly as possible.
American Secretary of State Colin Powell said the US president was “very, very pleased” with the outcome and said the mutual goal was to help the Iraqi people.
He said he hoped the new resolution would lead to more foreign troops and money being offered to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq, although he indicated he did not expect any major financial contribution from France, Germany and Russia.
The resolution is a compromise but “there are more pluses than minuses”, Russia’s UN ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, told the Security Council after the vote.
France’s UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere also said France wanted to make unity in the council “a priority”.
Doubters
The shift began on Wednesday and was confirmed after the leaders of France, Germany and Russia discussed the US text and agreed that it went just far enough to win their votes.
The three dissenters had been pushing Washington for concessions on the text which is aimed at winning broad international backing for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The vote was delayed from Wednesday after Russia insisted on the last-minute discussions with its allies.
China - another veto-wielding member of the council - had also been unenthusiastic about the US resolution, which was proposed with the support of the UK, Spain and Cameroon.
But Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said on Thursday that the amendments made the text more acceptable.
No big changes
The broad shape of the resolution that was put to the vote has not changed dramatically.
The resolution confirms that for the time being the Coalition Provisional Authority will remain the over-arching power in Iraq, although it stresses that the transfer of sovereignty and government back to the Iraqi people will happen as soon as practicable.
The United Nations is promised a strengthened vital role in the political and economic reconstruction process, but only as circumstances, particularly security, permit.
Still missing is a clear timetable, with dates, for a transfer of power and anything like the more dominant role that the UN had sought, our correspondent says.
But the resolution asks Iraqi leaders to draw up a plan for a new constitution and elections by 15 December.
The three dissenting countries had raised concerns about the role the United Nations would play in the political settlement in Iraq, as well as about the mandate of a future international peacekeeping force.
well its still not clear whether any troops deployment under UN will take place or no. passing of resolution does not guarranties automatic deployments and funds for reconstruction. these countries are still at odds on many issues.
I pity the boys sent in and i pity their families for the inability of a leader to stand his moral ground. But C'est la vie. I hope those Pakistani have some friendly fire exchanges with americans....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
I pity the boys sent in and i pity their families for the inability of a leader to stand his moral ground. But C'est la vie. I hope those Pakistani have some friendly fire exchanges with americans....
[/QUOTE]
Helping your Muslim brethren isn't moral? Perhapes not in the past but today is a new day, no?
Helping a muslim in need is moral. Helping a muslim state against an invader is moral. Helping the invador control a muslim state is immoral and stupid.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Helping your Muslim brethren isn't moral? Perhapes not in the past but today is a new day, no?
[/QUOTE]
well sending troops to iraq is not helping muslim brothers but to help american terrorists.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Helping your Muslim brethren isn't moral? Perhapes not in the past but today is a new day, no?
[/QUOTE]
I didn't know the American troops in Iraq are Muslim.
Good, further progress so changes start happening in Iraq. Although i dont buy the idea that the foriegn troops from other countries muslim or non muslim will be spared by the "resistance" the attack on Turks just showed that.
Now that this thing is started, it must be ended properly, the country has to be stabilized, and if that means foriegn troops helping, sure..lets do it.
similar efforts shpuld continue in afghanistan, which seem to have slowed down recently.
UTD, you shouls have added the word "Humiliated" for the decriers of the resolution. Seems like a choice word in this case.
I believe this resolution will have direct impact on the Pakistani leadership and Pakistan Army and its future. So lets get ready to send our Jawans for Jihad this time, they have completed their missions in Kashmir and Palestine and especially at home, where they have been working for last 28 years.
I still don't think Mushy will send in substantial troops. Maybe a small representative force like Poland has done. The U.S. so far has disappointed Pakistan in the "carrots" given for their support to them. As a result the mullahs are stronger than ever and even the moderates are distancing themselves from Musharraf. I think if Mushy sends in troops now without "giant carrots" from the U.S., he will be done with.
The Pakistanis after seeing:
- how they were treated after 9/11.
- how the U.S. did not provide any military assistance (F-16's).
- how U.S. is now providing arms to India and allowing other countries to do so.
- how U.S. is taking the side of India on the Kashmir problem.
- how U.S. is openly calling India it's strategic friend.
- how U.S. provided limited financial support (compared to what Israel gets every year) after 9/11.
let's just say, the U.S. is not liked much in Pakistan right now. Musharraf is holding on to a thin thread and something like this might break it.
I do give Mushy credit for what he has done so far. He has made some good calls and utterly disappointed on others. The situation right now is not entirely due to him, but a result of last 20 or so years of weak leadership.
I don't know what he can do to please the U.S. and Pakistan at the same time?
UTD,
So now the armies of the UN are massing on the borders of Iraq, ready to rescue the bedraggled, suicidal US joke of an army from the evil clutches of the happy petal throwing liberated Iraqis?
So who's sending how many billions to the pot, and how many millions to the front lines.
15-0 is more like a tennis score for the US, not much of a defining moment.
'Show me the money'
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chota: *
UTD,
So now the armies of the UN are massing on the borders of Iraq, ready to rescue the bedraggled, suicidal US joke of an army from the evil clutches of the happy petal throwing liberated Iraqis?
So who's sending how many billions to the pot, and how many millions to the front lines.
15-0 is more like a tennis score for the US, not much of a defining moment.
'Show me the money'
[/QUOTE]
Due time my brother, it's a coming. :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
Good, further progress so changes start happening in Iraq. Although i dont buy the idea that the foriegn troops from other countries muslim or non muslim will be spared by the "resistance" the attack on Turks just showed that.
Now that this thing is started, it must be ended properly, the country has to be stabilized, and if that means foriegn troops helping, sure..lets do it.
similar efforts shpuld continue in afghanistan, which seem to have slowed down recently.
[/QUOTE]
Fraudia i woudlnt call this progress. What i would honestly refer to progress as would be training of the Iraqi people themselves so that law and order can be established. The US is seen as an invading force. That much is obvious. Now innocent men, many which may not agree with what Bush has done, may end up paying for it with their lives.
Stablize iraq? Eliminate all the debt for the country. Train the people so that they can take care of themselves. Allow all companies to develop the nation, not just US and British ones. There is no need for a military force in Iraq as there are no issues the Iraqis cant deal with themselves. Provide the necessary infrastructure, respect and tolerance and you wont have americans dying.
Could you elaborate on how you see this as a step forward?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
similar efforts shpuld continue in afghanistan, which seem to have slowed down recently.
[/QUOTE]
Afghan-iSTAN is that a country? I think I heard about it after 9/11/2001. I thought we were done with them. We brought them democracy, liberated thier women folk and brought peace and prosperity...no
Originally posted by CM: *
**Fraudia i woudlnt call this progress. What i would honestly refer to progress as would be training of the Iraqi people themselves so that law and order can be established. *
from what i know cops and soldiers are being trained.
*The US is seen as an invading force. That much is obvious. Now innocent men, many which may not agree with what Bush has done, may end up paying for it with their lives. *
and that is why it is needed to have some other neutral countries help in peace keeping until the country is back on its feet.
*Stablize iraq? Eliminate all the debt for the country. Train the people so that they can take care of themselves. *
debt will not be an issue, ppl are being trained, the overseeing council was established to get some momentum towards getting ppl to govern, i mnoted the cops and military training already
** Allow all companies to develop the nation, not just US and British ones.**
I do agree with this part.
** There is no need for a military force in Iraq as there are no issues the Iraqis cant deal with themselves. **
the question remains, which iraqis, the saddam loyalists who can regroup, or the extremists? what we have to make sure is that those elemnts are kept in check and represnetative govts of the ppl brought in.
**
Provide the necessary infrastructure, respect and tolerance and you wont have americans dying.**
I doubt it, saddam loyalists or al kayda types are not going to be happy no matter whattolerance and respect they are offered, not that they deserve any, they want power..
**Could you elaborate on how you see this as a step forward [/D]
I just did, its not the optimal solution, but we are not in an ideal situation. Its a practical solution for a mess, and thats why i think its a step in teh right direction.
Kaleem
thats why i said "should continue" there. more needs to be done , no doubt about it.
peer ji, that comment was tongue in cheek. I know there is a lot of work that needs to be done. I was just wondering if average american really cares about afgahni people? after all the promises that were made, no results...
can someone please summarize what the heck does the resolution state and how things will change in Iraq after it??