Skip to comments.
U.N. Members Push Back on Call to Share More of Iraq Burden
The NYtimes/AP ^
| August 22, 2003
| AP
Posted on 08/22/2003 1:01:01 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife
Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Friday that the Security Council would be unlikely to support a new resolution for sending more troops to Iraq if the U.S.-led coalition doesn't agree to share decision-making and responsibility.
The U.S. campaign to get more countries to contribute troops to U.S.-led forces in Iraq faces an uphill struggle in a Security Council still bitterly divided over Washington's decision to launch a war without U.N. approval.
Annan reiterated that the United Nations was not considering sending a peacekeeping force to Iraq ``but it is not excluded that the council may decide to transform the operation into a U.N.-mandated multinational force operating on the ground with other governments coming in.''
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: annan; bombing; iraq; seccouncil; security; terrorism; un; usmilitary
To: Pan_Yans Wife
share decision-making and responsibility. Food for Oil scheme. Creating it helped Kofi get his CEO gig.
2
posted on
08/22/2003 1:07:00 PM PDT
by
Shermy
(Live from Iraq, you're watching the Saudi-Iranian Supply Side Oil War (plus France grabbing for $))
To: Pan_Yans Wife
"Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Friday..."
And exactly whom was he warning? The press?
And with what power does he intend to follow thru on this warning? Why is he averting attention from the slaughter?
Why isn't he warning Al Qaeda?
Isn't this guy supposed to be a neutral leader and rep ALL nations equally? Instead, he has a press conference to state his alliance with anti US members.
Doesn't this influence the outcome of a vote that has not even happened yet. Like the media coming out before an election and declaring a winner.
To: At _War_With_Liberals
When Annan made noises last time, the US did not push forward a resolution to launch a war against Iraq. From my understanding Ambassador Negroponte was so angry he stormed out of the UN meeting.
I think in many respects we should ALWAYS look at each and every UN action as being counterintuitive to US interests.
4
posted on
08/22/2003 1:15:58 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
To: Pan_Yans Wife
Then do an end run around the silly twit. Go to Germany and tell them we are going to move our personnel in Germany out to help with the manpower in Iraq. Same thing with any other country where we are stationed. Tell NATO no goodies until they either comply or pressure that third world entity. I'm sure NATO is trying to become more Euro and less US but unable to without our stuff.
Do we really want this incredibly incompetent SG calling out shots? Time to make his life unhappy.
5
posted on
08/22/2003 1:27:23 PM PDT
by
OpusatFR
(being bottom heavy keeps you bobbing on the water, not under it.)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
Pani,
The UN is a rival to US interests. Everyone, except the sheeple, know this. I guess we have to play the diplomatic game. What drives me up the wall how globalist politicians and the media sanctify and affirm the power of the uN. They imply regularly that the goals of the UN, representing the world community, naturally supercede our singular flawed interests. It is nothing short of a propaganda campaign.
"The massive bomb at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed 23 people and wounded at least 100 added to the security woes of the U.S.-British occupation force."
But it never 'added to the woes' of the UN?
To: At _War_With_Liberals
I think the greatest symptom that the media and globalists don't "get it" is the fact that until the UN building in Iraq was bombed, they never really even gave the terrorists or the WOT a second thought. They thought this was just a political scheme being used by the Bush administration. And some even believe that the war in Iraq is being fought only because of WMD.
They don't understand that when Bush was talking about the Axis of Evil, he was talking about the countries that aid and abet terrorism, and that the entire Middle East must be brought into the twenty-first century, democracy and peace.
BTW, no one has ever called me "Pani" before. A new nickname! :)
7
posted on
08/22/2003 1:35:45 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
To: Pan_Yans Wife
It's disturbing that even after the bombing...why isn't the UN working around the clock against terrorism?
They fully understand the Islam problem, but will oppose the US until a Democrat globalist President like Hillary promotes their form of socialism in the US. They will nor stop until US power is reduced to being equal to the weakest state in the UN.
To: At _War_With_Liberals
The UN is in league with the dictators that employ the terrorists to control not only their populations, but increase the flow of money. I think in many respects, war is seen as a profitable scheme. Isn't terrorism?
I truly agree with you. They want to be able to keep the US in checkmate. I also think that the fact that France, Russia, and China are on the Sec. Council is extremely frightening. Global politics have shifted so very much since the UN's founding. It is time to overhaul the security council. Better yet, it is time for us to pull out of the UN!
But, that will NEVER happen. A weak America is their goal.
9
posted on
08/22/2003 2:09:08 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
To: Pan_Yans Wife
Kofi can take it back to Ghana.
I never voted for his dumb-arse anyway.
10
posted on
08/22/2003 2:15:23 PM PDT
by
zencat
To: Pan_Yans Wife
Agreed.
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson