Iraq Parliment REJCTS UN resolution

Various, KDKA radio, MetroSource news | 11/12/02 | NA

[prisoner6]

At 5:30 AM eastern KDKA radio announced and MetroSource newswire confirms Iraq rejects the UN resolution.

prisoner6

[1Old Pro]

Saddam will stall until the end. I suspect that we're looking at a January invasion.

[rightwing2]

Saddam will stall until the end. I suspect that we're looking at a January invasion.

He'll agree to the resolution and let the UN inspectors in, then figure out a way to keep them out of some presidential sites or conceal his CBR efforts elsewhere. I agree that we are going to invade in January. The decision has been made.

[WarSlut]

Wow, I never knew.........

LOL.

I didn't think you needed a sarcasm tag, either. Guess we were both wrong.

[steve-b]

This is a piece of Kabuki theater. Saddam will "agree", having used his rubber-stamp "parliament" to spew defiance and to play the "bad cop" role. Then he'll jerk the world around for as long as he can get away with it.

[steve-b]

Parliament speaker Saadoun Hammadi asked deputies to vote on the first clause of the resolution by a show of hands and announced it had been accepted unanimously. It was not clear how many members were present for the vote.
Hammadi then called for a vote on the second clause referring the matter to Saddam, and again announced unanimous approval. A third vote was held for the entire proposal, and it also was approved unanimously.

The King of Ghargaroo, who had been abroad to study the science of government, appointed one hundred of his fattest subjects as members of a parliament to make laws for the collection of revenue. Forty of these he named the Party of Opposition and had his Prime Minister carefully instruct them in their duty of opposing every royal measure. Nevertheless, the first one that was submitted passed unanimously. Greatly displeased, the King vetoed it, informing the Opposition that if they did that again they would pay for their obstinacy with their heads. The entire forty promptly disemboweled themselves.

"What shall we do now?" the King asked. "Liberal institutions cannot be maintained without a party of Opposition."

"Splendor of the universe," replied the Prime Minister, "it is true these dogs of darkness have no longer their credentials, but all is not lost. Leave the matter to this worm of the dust."

So the Minister had the bodies of his Majesty's Opposition embalmed and stuffed with straw, put back into the seats of power and nailed there. Forty votes were recorded against every bill and the nation prospered. But one day a bill imposing a tax on warts was defeated -- the members of the Government party had not been nailed to their seats! This so enraged the King that the Prime Minister was put to death, the parliament was dissolved with a battery of artillery, and government of the people, by the people, for the people perished from Ghargaroo.

  --Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary)

[BikerNYC]

...I think war is certain because President Bush is set on invasion to avenge his father.

I don't know if avenge is the right word (do you avenge a living person, a dead person, or doesn't it matter?), but it has clearly gotten personal. The President's statement that "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," kind of worried me.

[Mixer]

The Iraqi Parliament is useless, Saddam holds all of the power.

Saddam might be planning to comply, at the last second.

You are right. He is just buying time. Why else would he wait until Friday. If he were that brave and defiant he would have already announced that he is against the resolution.

What a pointles debate they must have had. It took 250 people to vote on whether or not it should be left up to SH when it was always up to him in the first place. ....and the Western media buys into it.

[Mixer]

I think I understand now. My confusion was/is regarding yesterdays rejection by an Iraqi parliment >committee<. The "breaking" news is that the full parliment has now unanimously rejected the UN resolution.

I agree with you. Since the Iraqi parliment just decided this overnight this is still Breaking News. The other stories from yesterday were not the official announcement of refusal. They couldn't have been since the parliment just met last night to vote on this.

Thanks for posting.

[Mixer]

This is a ploy. The Iraqi Congress has rejected the UN ultimatum unanimously. Now, it is Saddam's turn to step in and play the statesman by agreeing to the UN resolution in the interests of peace.

I am not saying that won't happen but if it does it will make him and his goverment look even worse then they already do. I do agree with you and I think that he will stall as far as he can. He will state that it is ok to come in and inspect. This gives him even more time to plan his counter and when the inspectors are finally let in (what did they say, 30 days later?) They will get hit with a surprise attack or Iraq will refuse to allow them into certain areas as they always have. I just hope we are planning on sending in some heavily armed troops with the inspectors.

[rightwing2]

I don't know if avenge is the right word (do you avenge a living person, a dead person, or doesn't it matter?), but it has clearly gotten personal. The President's statement that "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," kind of worried me.

Well, I am very happy to see that someone else was taken aback by the President's increasing personalization of this feud with Saddam. While everyone agrees that Iraq is a threat and that it is time for Saddam to go, when the President of the United States suggests that one of the reason's he's sending hundreds of thousands of US troops into harms way is because he wants to kill Saddam as payback for his alleged attempt to kill his father, you have to think twice about the President's true motivations for launching this war against Iraq.

[TheBattman]

Not really up on their heathenistic practices

Satanic, you mean?

[Nuke'm Glowing]

The Iraqi parliment must have the same brilliant consultants the DNC used.

[Gunrunner2]

Sir,
>> This is a ploy. The Iraqi Congress has rejected the UN ultimatum unanimously. Now, it is Saddam's turn to step in and play the statesman by agreeing to the UN resolution in the interests of peace.<<

Hmmm. . .you sound a whole heck of a lot like a left-wing poster on the anti-American, anti-sanction, pro-Iraq website (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02056.html)

This poster writes: “My guess - and I have almost no detailed knowledge of Iraq's parliament - is
that this is theatre: Saddam will give a speech before the deadline in which he indicates that he hears and sympathises with the parliament's arguments, but concludes that Iraq, no matter how much aggrieved, must give peace a chance.

Colin Rowat

work | Room 406, Department of Economics | The University of Birmingham |
Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK | web.bham.ac.uk/c.rowat | (+44/0) 121 414 3754 |
(+44/0) 121 414 7377 (fax) | c.rowat@bham.ac.uk”

Things that make you go hmmmm. . . .

Cheers!

[Gunrunner2]

I would caution against using the word "avenge."

In the context provided---your posting---you list only one reason for Bush’s possible action against Iraq, and that is to avenge a foiled assassination attempt against his father. (“I think war is certain because President Bush is set on invasion to avenge his father.”)

That certainly cannot be your heart-felt belief, as this would say that Bush, as good and great a man that he is, is willing to have American warriors die to avenge an unsuccessful assassination attempt against his father. Clinton may be capable of such selfishness and cruelty, but not Bush.

However, you do say in a subsequent posting, “. . .when the President of the United States suggests that ONE of the reason's he's sending hundreds of thousands of US troops into harms way is because he wants to kill Saddam as payback for his alleged attempt to kill his father, you have to think twice about the President's true motivations for launching this war against Iraq.” This is an improvement, but again, I suggest, you are not representing Bush’s motivation accurately.

You see, his use of the word was less than politic, I grant you that, but it was understandable. You see, Bush Sr IS his father, and it is a fact that Saddam did try and assassinate Bush Sr during a visit to Kuwait. You can also be certain that Bush views his father as "dad," not as "Mr. President." Therefore, I can forgive Bush for the slip, as I recognize it was nothing more than an innocent reference to his father and not to be sole justification for any action against Iraq.

Bush's statement was not in any way meant to be "I'm gonna get you because you tried to kill my father," rather in context, it is best understood as "I am coming to get you, you are a bad man, and evil man, and heck, you even tried to assassinate a President of the United States."

You may be "troubled" by his use of the word "father," I am not as I am not reading anything into it.

I think we should refrain from jumping onto the left-wing loony bandwagon that alleges Bush is immature and a simpleton and cares not a whit about American lives, or that he thinks an attack on his “dad” would be enough to launch an attack. Indeed, I think an assassination attempt against the president of the United States is justification alone for an attack, and Bush Sr. is not my father.

With best regards.

[TigersEye]

Iraq isn't exactly a democracy....everyone knows if parliament said something Saddam was against they'd lose their heads. This vote was unanimous because it's what Saddam wants.

Actually that's a pretty good example of how a true democracy does work or at least what it will quickly become. That's why our Founding Fathers made us a republic instead a democracy.

[rightwing2]

This is a ploy. The Iraqi Congress has rejected the UN ultimatum unanimously. Now, it is Saddam's turn to step in and play the statesman by agreeing to the UN resolution in the interests of peace.

I think you completely misunderstood my statement here. I was saying that Saddam would try to appear like a man of peace by going against his Parliament. He is most certainly not a man of peace, but a bloodthirsty dictator who invaded Kuwait and deserves to be ousted. I think you knew my meaning as I said he would try to "play the statesman", but were just chiding me for fun. Leftwing poster? Good one.

[Gunrunner2]

Yup. . .pulling your chain. . .or at least trying to.
;-)

[mvpel]

We should run a pool on how long Uday will last before his father has him offed.

[Captain Shady]

You know,if it weren't for this coming war-thing,a job as a parliament member in Iraq would be a cool thing.As long as you vote Saddam's way,you never get thrown out even by voters. Just sit back and collect government paycheck as long as your rubberstamp doesn't wearout.
Of course,there is really that coming war-thing I mentioned before.Those guys in parliament will have to answer for their actions(or inactions) someday.

[rightwing2]

I would caution against using the word "avenge." In the context provided---your posting---you list only one reason for Bush’s possible action against Iraq, and that is to avenge a foiled assassination attempt against his father. (“I think war is certain because President Bush is set on invasion to avenge his father.”) That certainly cannot be your heart-felt belief, as this would say that Bush, as good and great a man that he is, is willing to have American warriors die to avenge an unsuccessful assassination attempt against his father. Clinton may be capable of such selfishness and cruelty, but not Bush.

I believe Bush is a good man and a good President. I have pledged to support him for re-election. He is sincere in his beliefs. He is a man of faith who has expressed his devotion to God, which is the stellar opposite of Bill Clinton. That being said, he is not infallible by any means. I did not mean to imply that a personal vendetta is the sole rationale for the President’s decision to invade Iraq. Clearly, it is not.

In truth, I see two primary reasons for President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq at the current juncture. One is personal—avenging the failure of his father to oust Saddam and Saddam’s alleged attempt to kill his father. The second is a neoconservative exercise in de-facto neocolonialism, the purpose of which is to conclusively demonstrate the military power of the United States in conquering Iraq and engage in a successful nation-building effort there and from thence destablilize the Iranian terror regime in an attempt to recast the balance of power there in the US favor. Disarming Iraq of its remaining WMD potential is only a secondary rationale followed by a tertiary rationale of fighting more or less non-existant Iraqi terrorism.

I do not fault President Bush at all in wanting to avenge his father. I think that is a very understandable rationale for his decision. However, I think he may be misinformed about the likely casualty count from an all-out US invasion of Iraq and the consequences to follow.

I think we should refrain from jumping onto the left-wing loony bandwagon that alleges Bush is immature and a simpleton and cares not a whit about American lives, or that he thinks an attack on his “dad” would be enough to launch an attack. Indeed, I think an assassination attempt against the president of the United States is justification alone for an attack, and Bush Sr. is not my father.

I absolutely do not think Bush is immature or a simpleton. You are putting words in my mouth here that I never even thought let alone suggested. In fact, he has demonstrated a great ability to lead both on foreign and domestic policy as demonstrated by his twin triumphs of retaking the Senate for the Republican Party and getting Congress to bend over backwards to support him on Iraq last month. He is consistently underestimated by his leftwing opponents, of which I am not one. I think he cares a great deal about the lives of his fellow Americans.

I agree that an assassination attempt alone is enough justification for an attack on Iraq and more particularly an attempt by us to assassinate Saddam himself. Keep in mind that we have been bombing Iraq non-stop since Clinton wagged the dog in December 1998 and the air campaign of Desert Storm II began a couple of months ago. However, I am not sure that this attempt would justify an all-out invasion, which would likely result in CBR attacks against US troops and thousands of American KIA and WIA. Freegards, Rightwing2