Skip to comments.
*SECURITY COUNCIL VOTES 15-0 TO ADOPT U.S. RESOLUTION ON IRAQ
Bloomberg NE
Posted on 11/08/2002 7:19:43 AM PST by NY Catholic
*SECURITY COUNCIL VOTES 15-0 TO ADOPT U.S. RESOLUTION ON IRAQ
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 next last
To: Publius6961
This in no way takes over the U.S. sovereignty. This is an effort to force the U.N. to do its job or else. It is an effort to make Saddam disarm himself after being told to do so by the international community.
Of course, he won't, then we will discuss with the U.N. However, that discussion will not be another effort to persuade him - it will be a discussion of how to disarm him.
We will be prepared to disarm him. President Bush mentioned in his press meeting yesterday that we did not need to worry about using force. It would be done swiftly, effectively and would take care of the problem.
In knowing Bush - these are not idle words.
121
posted on
11/08/2002 9:25:25 AM PST
by
ClancyJ
To: ClancyJ
It didn't matter what the UN voted, the US was going to do what it had to do. The best news is that it gives the commie libs one less issue to go after Bush with.
Comment #123 Removed by Moderator
To: NY Catholic
If Tony Blair was GW's Poodle, then today, the UN is W's DOG POUND. Who's yo daddy?!?!
To: ReaganRevolution
Why would he do something "stupid"?
He'll play ball. Longevity and control of Iraq are probably his two top priorities. His allies bought him one more chance through the UN.
If he doesn't, not only will he be doomed, he'll have humiliated every friend he had (Russia, France among others)
His best and only option is to play ball in which case he'll get the 1991 sanctions fully lifted (also part of the UN deal in question compliments of Russia). Saddam gets his victory at home (sanctions lifted/attack averted), world is content with Iraq.
I suppose we could attack anyway but it would be very bad form to violate a resolution we wrote and voted for.
To: NY Catholic; /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...
I think we need to have Kofi Annan pull up a chair at this table..
To: davidosborne
also dascHOLE!
free the south,sw
To: JasonC
I think they will be next regardless of what they want. They won't be able to stay out of it IMO. I know the value of Damascus Steel but anyone have the price on Damascus " green glass".......:o) USA and Israel is getting ready to flood the market with some !
Stay Safe !
To: NY Catholic
what's the text?
are years allowed for inspections?
if they conclude: yup, they're in 'material breech', how many months or years of debate would be possible regarding the remedy for this case?
129
posted on
11/08/2002 10:06:48 AM PST
by
1234
To: Jake0001
Don't you think he doesn't believe Bush would actually attack if he started his games again? That's all I'm saying, he's played games for years with no consequences. He may still believe there are no consequences.
To: davidosborne
LOL!!!!!!!
131
posted on
11/08/2002 10:08:44 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: RedBloodedAmerican; ppaul; Magnolia; RobFromGa; freedumb2003; pitinkie; Lurking2Long; All
To: Stirner
Syria accepts that real change is in the works Syria supports Bush on Iraq, Jim McDermott(D-WA) doesn't. Another reason for Terry McAuliffe's overwhelming victory last Tuesday.
To: Blue Screen of Death
The Heck with "speaking ill of the dead!" Wellstone was against us too!
So now France can be counted on more than a Liberal Democrat!
To: aristeides
What do you make of:" 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations?"
havin now read the resolution text, as given in this thread, i cannot see a definition of "serious consequences", nor a timetable for the length of the inpection phase and the evaluation of that phase.
135
posted on
11/08/2002 10:36:15 AM PST
by
1234
To: LurkedLongEnough
More B2's in the sky over Kansas yesterday, all going west.
To: 1234
That means we can interpret it however we want. Like I said in an eatlier post, we have cover for pretty much anything we want to do.
To: freedumb2003
That means we can interpret it however we want. oh. great.
Like I said in an eatlier post, we have cover for pretty much anything we want to do.
ok-jus not sure laywers and diplomats would concur....
am left w/impression there's a buncha 'weasle-room'-HOPE I'M SO WRONG!!
138
posted on
11/08/2002 10:48:13 AM PST
by
1234
To: B-Chan
That liquid squish you just heard was Saddam filling his diaper.
I doubt it. Saddam is like the demonrats. He lives in a fantasy world in which he is all powerful. I bet even now he thinks he will outsmart us.
To: Squantos
You underestimate our deterrence, their rational cowardice, and the absolute control their tyranny has over their population. Syria has been ideologically committed to the obliteration of Israel since 1973. But they have carefully steered out of their way. When they brushed in 1982, the Syrians did not at all like the result and backed down rapidly. They will steer clear this time, too. They simply don't want to lose, and they can easily choose to sit on their hands instead. So they will.
Whether we pressure them afterward, that is another question. But they are not going to accelerate a suicide by confronting us head on when they do not have to.
140
posted on
11/08/2002 10:56:37 AM PST
by
JasonC
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 next last
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