U.S. haters proved wrong once again as it seems the U.S. have worked out an agreement rather than “go it alone”.
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 7 — The United States and France came to a last-minute agreement Thursday on a tough U.N. resolution giving Iraq a last chance to disarm or face war, making a vote Friday fairly certain. It was still not clear whether Russia — which along with France has been wary of so-called “hidden triggers” that could lead to a U.S. war against Baghdad without further consultation with the Security Council — would vote in favor or abstain.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/821736.asp?0dm=C12LN
This fresh Resolution, in my humble opinion, still contains several negative clauses. But then again what can you expect from a communist like me? :~)
oh well - resolution or no resolution, Bush is bent on invading another country and as usual, most Arab govts. will fall over themselves in trying to toe the line.
An Iraq without Saddam is a good thing, it would save lives. Who knows maybe old Saddam will surprise us all.
An Iraq without Saddam is a good thing, it would save lives.
It did not save the lives of 1.5 million who have died since the imposition of the trade embargo.
At any rate let us see how this latest Resolution goes. Security Council voting is scheduled for this Friday i believe. A few links:
Extracts from draft resolution on Iraq, BBC, 6 November 2002
Comments on the US-UK draft resolution of 5 November 2002
Glen Rangwala (not an official source)
Re: U.S., French agree on Iraq draft
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
U.S. haters proved wrong once again as it seems the U.S. have worked out an agreement rather than "go it alone".
[/QUOTE]
In fact those who believe in the rule of law and international legality have been proved entirely correct. The Bush administration promised in early September that Iraq would have to comply to its demands in days and weeks, but now we are two months on. It found itself stuck in a diplomatic quagmire, unable to get authority to bomb Iraq, which it has failed to in this resolution. No wonder as Nadia mentioned the US has consistently said it will go alone i.e. attack Iraq if the UN does do as it wants. That threat remains. In September some US government officials were claiming that Iraq was just three months away from building a nuclear device i.e. by December, but now it seems they will have to wait at least till March 2003 before it can make any war against Iraq. So presumably if we are to believe US claims bad Sad will have a nuke by next month, and the US will not be able to do anything, cause it has been forced to accept this resolution...?
Got this in a forward from the IPS; the IPS will (presumably) publish the report on their website within a few days.
According to the former UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq (former supervisor of "oil-for-food"), Denis Halliday, the text is "dripping with double standards":
"Even if the Iraqis wanted to comply - and it's not clear to me that they do - I doubt that they could comply with this resolution. It has components that are simply geared toward Mr. Bush's war. If the Iraqis close the door on an inspector in a bike shop at 3 in the morning, that could be used as a pretext, as being in 'material breach,' for war. It's likely that at some point [the U.S.'s UN ambassador John] Negroponte will use confused wording to argue that Iraq is in material breach and the U.S. will say one thing and the rest of the world another. Many paragraphs of this new resolution are simply dripping with double standards - much in this resolution should apply to all states in the region violating Security Council resolutions and possessing weapons of mass destruction. *Whether or not Iraq complies, it is a country under threat and has a right to defend itself*."
Source: "US at the Security Council: The Bush Administration Makes Some Concessions, But Hidden Traps Remain", Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies (Washington), 5 November 2002