Change in UN may hit Bush's plans

The Scotsman ^ | Jan 2nd, 2002

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[However, the country’s ambassador to London insisted Berlin would not use its two-year tenure on the Security Council as a platform from which to lead opposition to war. Thomas Matussek said Germany would focus its efforts on securing a "co-operative" solution which preserved global peace and stability. ]

Not at the expense of OUR security, asshole.

[hove]

Hey...someone help me out here. Did the UN get attacked by Islamo-terrists on 9-11-01....or was it America that was attacked? Yeah....now why do we have to beg and wait for the UN's approval to attack our enemies? Is this all about our participation in a scheme of global governance? Why are the Bushes so hung up on our "proper" place in this global governance thing? Do you suppose our founding fathers would be proud of our President for insisting that we get the approval of the World government before we defend ourselves?

[ApesForEvolution]

Who can take the UNSC seriously when nations like Syria and germany are members? This among the top 1,000 reasons why the UN needs to be eliminated from the earth's face and America needs to be the first to lead everyone out of it...

[Brian Allen]

<< Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn .....

[ApesForEvolution]

"Do you suppose our founding fathers would be proud of our President for insisting that we get the approval of the World government before we defend ourselves?"

They would have impeached any POTUS that entered America into it and then had them tried for treason - and promptly lynched...

[dglang]

unfortunately, that would diminish the non-moslem votes in the UN and the Moslems would be able to exert even greater influence. Also, if england was part of that block, they would lose their permanent seat on the security council.

The arabs don't have a majority membership in the UN population wise, but they do have a sizable chunk in number of countries that vote in an anti-american and anti-Israel pattern.

We must strengthen,non-moslem membership and control of the UN, not weaken it.

[montag813]

The accession of Germany will substantially diminish the prospect of the US achieving unanimous UN approval for military action against Iraq

So what? Non-permanent members have no veto, so their vote is purely symbolic. War is far to important an issue to be concerned with pyrric posturing by anti-U.S. rabble-rousers.

I could not understand why Mexico was so heavily lobbied by the Administration to support the last vote. Apparently there was MUCH promised to Mr. Fox in return for his meaningless vote.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this left wing diseased dribble from the Red Scotsman.

My three year old grand daughter would write a better story than this POS filled with Maybes/mays/mights and other left wing mantras posing as news.

[Stultis]

Side note, I support us "going it alone"..

Fine by me, but paying for it alone I'm not so wild about.

[Blue Collar Christian]

I'm probably fantasizing, but Gee Dub would be hoping like I am, that the UN is against US so that we can once and for all hack off their little......

[Blue Collar Christian]

Did Japan ever pay us their pledge for the 1st Gulf war?

[Smile-n-Win]

We must strengthen,non-moslem membership and control of the UN, not weaken it.

The problem is that Euroland will be a Muslim nation rather soon. Even now, they're acting like they could be a Muslim nation.

The only real solution is to zap the UN.

[vannrox]

Who cares what the UN thinks?
The UN doesn't care at all what happens to the US.
Bush has been elected to defend the interests of this Nation.
I think that he is doing a great job.
He will do what ever he feels is necessary.
.God bless him.

[Ace the Biker]

The arms inspectors will report to the UN security council on the 27th of Jan that Iraq is not in full compliance. There is a new moon Feb 1, Saddam will not be in power to receive any Valentine Cards. LOL

[Blue Collar Christian]

Here's an angle that may be Germany's chance to be a pain.

[Domestic Church]

"There's an awful lot that can go wrong here......" "Yeah, for the U.N."

Exactly, if the UN is to survive with any illusion of power then it has to be supportive...once the US bails out then it will be kaput and all for the better.

[Momaw Nadon]

Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

[philetus]

I'd much rather pay for this than some of the other crap the POL's spend our money on.

[Light Speed]

Barf alert

U.N. Security Council takes on five new members

2003-01-02 / Reuters /
With the start of 2003, the powerful and prestigious U.N. Security Council took on five new members yesterday and bids adieu to another five who wrapped up two-year terms on the 15-nation body. With disarmament of Iraq at the top of the council's agenda, Germany, Spain, Pakistan, Chile and Angola take rotating two-year seats on the council. They join the council's five permanent members -- the United States, France, Russia, Britain and China -- and five other nations with one year remaining of their two-year terms -- Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico and Syria. The five newest members were elected by a vote of the 191-nation U.N. General Assembly in September. They fill seats vacated by Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore. Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Its resolutions can be binding under international law, and it has the power to decide war and peace issues and impose sanctions such as arms embargoes and economic restraints. Representatives of each of the council's 15 member-nations are required to be constantly on standby at U.N. headquarters in New York in case of a crisis somewhere in the world. The five new members elected each year are initially nominated by regional groups. The General Assembly rarely challenges the slate if there are no rival candidates, as was the case this year. The council is run from day to day by a presidency which rotates monthly. France assumes the post for January, to be followed by Germany in February and Guinea in March. The council's agenda for January is expected to be dominated by Iraqi arms inspections as U.S. President George W. Bush carries on preparations for a possible war on Baghdad . The council decided earlier this month to name Germany to chair its sanctions panel on Iraq in 2003-04 after the White House dropped its opposition to the move. The United States had initially opposed Germany's bid to chair the panel because it feared Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government, which campaigned against an attack on Iraq, might challenge U.S. policy. The committee monitors enforcement and compliance of sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of neighboring Kuwait. Chile, Washington's original choice for the Iraq panel, will take over the Afghanistan sanctions committee that compiles lists of people and organizations suspected of association with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network and remnants of the country's former Taliban rulers. Spain was given the chairmanship of the council's counter-terrorism committee, also a high-profile post, when British U.N. ambassador Jeremy Greenstock retires in mid-2003. This panel, set up after the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States, monitors reports from all U.N. members on what they are doing to combat terrorism.

[Libertina]

Germany, Spain, Pakistan, Chile and Angola
Thye should be a real help. /s Anyway, thanks, Light Speed, for the data rich posting.