Posted on 09/29/2002 12:50:10 PM PDT by Torie
Three big powers tell US it's wrong on Iraq
By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York and agencies
September 30 2002
The United States was last night considering the implications of leading an attack on Iraq without the support of Russia, France and China, after all three rejected a US draft plan for dealing with President Saddam Hussein.
The US revealed at the weekend that it wanted to give the Iraqi leader 30 days to open his borders to weapons inspectors under new, strict conditions, or face a military strike.
The new conditions, which were quickly rejected by Baghdad, would include allowing weapons inspectors unobstructed access to factories, military bases and Saddam's presidential palaces.
The US wants the United Nations Security Council to adopt its plan as a binding resolution, but Russia, France and China, three of the council's five permanent members, have already said they do not support it.
Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, emerged from 90 minutes of talks with US diplomats to re-state Moscow's opposition to a military strike, telling reporters the UN should accept Iraq's offer to allow weapons inspectors to return before making threats.
advertisement
advertisement
"UN weapons inspectors should return to Iraq as quickly as possible," he said. "The necessary conditions for this exist."
France also appeared unmoved by US pressure, with a spokeswoman for President Jacques Chirac saying weapons inspectors should return to Iraq before threats were made because of "the seriousness of the decisions to be taken and the consequences".
The Chinese Premier, Zhu Rongji, said China had "respect for Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity".
"If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the authorisation of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq," he said.
Washington's lone supporter among permanent members of the council is Britain. In London, the Defence Ministry said it was preparing to add 4000 troops to the 60,000-strong US force already in the Gulf region.
President George Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to signal a willingness to proceed without the support of all members of the Security Council, saying: "The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced."
The US and Britain sent senior diplomats to Moscow, Paris and Beijing over the weekend in an effort to win support for their campaign, but met strong resistance from Russia and France, both of which have historic friendships with Iraq.
A US undersecretary of state, Marc Grossman, who has visited Moscow and Paris with the political director of Britain's Foreign Office, Peter Ricketts, said all nations appeared to agree that dealing with Iraq was "a challenge".
US and British diplomats are using two main arguments: first, that Saddam has obstructed the work of weapons inspectors so many times that the threat of force is necessary to make him comply this time; and second, that Iraqis support the invasion.
This latter point is the more contentious. The US is using diplomats who have travelled widely in Iraq to make the case that the people of that country, and in particular its women, want a change of regime as much as Washington does, and would welcome a US-led strike in the same way as citizens of Afghanistan did.
Yes, the administration got the plane and the crew back and resumed the surveillance flights inspite of China's demand they stop....
... announced a robust arms sales package for Taiwan and vowed to do "whatever it takes" to defend the island from attack by China.
....has resumed military cooperation with India including in areas of missile defense and recent Naval exercises all of which are aimed at containing China.
This administration has in fact increase ties and military presense with countries literally surrounding China.
The Ten Armies You Don't Want to FightI'm still searching for something more reliable than this but for now this clip from an article will have to do. And... as you can see France isn't even on the list. Turkey and Pakistan both rank above France. In fact France was ranked below both Taiwan and Vietnam on the list...
Taking into account quantity and quality, the ten most deadly armies on the planet belong to China, the United States, India, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Iran. America isn't on top because, while our ground forces are formidable, superior equipment and training go only so far to make up for the numerical advantage the Chinese have.
We have our final answer.
Three big powers......(laughing hysterically).............Larry, Moe and Curly.
"If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the authorisation of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq," he said.
Just remember that when it comes to Taiwan, my bellicose communist friend.
France is the world's third military power (after the US and Russia), and has the world's second largest defense industry (i.e. exocet missiles, radar technology.)The arrogant bastards do think highly of themselves...
...oh, and by the way, how many of the previously mentioned countries do we need to stomp Iraq into the ground.
Answer: None.
Question:
How many of these countries hate the United States because of its great strength, a strength built on principles that are alien to all of the above?
Yep, all three.
......we have no need to feel ashamed of being number one. This is the mindset being inculcated by leftists the world over.
We never were like them.......until recently. This 'global citizen' nonsense has always been patently anti-American; we didn't build a system based on the European way of doing things. We set up a new system, one that shunned and despised the 'old way' of doing things.
There is no reason for any American to feel any guilt about shedding these things like an old coat.
We are, vastly.
.....and there is no reason why we should ever subjugate ourselves to this gang of three.
Another poster posed some time ago.........imagine the world without the United States.
That's right, take a look around at what you've got, and picture it all under the control of some Chi-com despot, Putin, of some weak-kneed French socialist.
It doesn't take much imagination.
.........and these folks would suppose that they have some 'lesson' in government that they would enlighten us with.
That's fine. Let them sit on the sidelines and we'll demonstrate how ineffectual, weak, and irrelevantthey are.
Sometimes I get the feeling that when the US invades Iraq, we are going to find things out about China that are going to make us really angry.
Britain needs to recapture that Churchillian spirit. Britain needs to remember that they are an island, and to thank God for being an island.
The numerical advantage of ground forces is almost meaningless in modern warfare. The logistical problems of projecting power by moving and sustaining enormous numbers of troops doesn't match the technology and superior power of the American military.
China doesn't come close to matching the USA.
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.