Moscow warns US on unilateral Iraq strike as Baghdad scraps more missiles

Russia warned Washington that it would be violating the United Nations Charter if it attacked Iraq without a UN mandate, as Baghdad destroyed more banned missiles and warheads under UN supervision.

Iraq's push for disarmament compliance followed a draft resolution given the UN Security Council Friday by the United States, Britain and Spain, which would give Baghdad a March 17 deadline to fully disarm or face military action.

Although the resolution -- with three of the five veto-wielding council members against it -- stood little chance of passage, US President George W. Bush reiterated his resolve to go to war alone.

"We don't really need United Nations approval," he said late in the week, although his government says it would much prefer to have the approval of the international community.

Russia labelled the March 17 line in the sand unnecessary and unjustified and echoed a threat from France, which also has a veto on the council, to block any resolution authorising the use of force.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned that "if the United States unilaterally launched a military strike on Iraq without a UN mandate, it would be in violation of the UN charter," in which case the Security Council would have to "make appropriate decisions."

In Baghdad, the UN inspectors' spokesman said Iraq had scrapped a further six of its banned Al-Samoud 2 missiles after a day's pause, raising to 40 the number of the missiles destroyed since the operation began a week ago.

"Six more Al-Samoud 2 missiles were destroyed, along with three warheads," spokesman Hiro Ueki said.

He also rejected an assessment by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix that the destruction of the banned missiles represented "substantial" disarmament.

"Our intelligence shows that even as he (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Iraq described Blix's report as "fair" and in return demanded the lifting of the embargo slapped on it for invading Kuwait in 1990, Iraqi television quoted an official as saying.

The latest draft resolution challenges the Security Council either to declare Iraq in full compliance with UN demands on disarmament by March 17 or to authorise war.

The resolution, amended at the last minute to give Iraq more time, was seen as a bid to turn the tables on France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria. They have locked horns with Britain, Spain and the United States, who are pushing the resolution authorising the use of force.

The amendment states that Baghdad will not have fulfilled its UN disarmament obligations unless "the Security Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation" by March 17.

The impending war on Iraq also upstaged International Womens Day, with peace demonstrations taking the limelight at rallies across Europe, the United States and beyond.

Tens of thousands meanwhile took to the streets of European cities protesting against a military strike on Iraq, with Italians burning president Bush in efigy, and an English bishop insisting there was no moral justification for an attack.

Tens of thousands protested outside a US military base near Pisa in northern Italy, burning an uniformed effigy of Bush.

Leftwing parliamentary deputies were among those who gathered outside US Camp Darby, with organisers estimating the crowd at 60,000 people and the police 20,000 people.

The Italian government has sided with the hardline camp in the Iraqi crisis, arguing that Baghdad should be disarmed by force if necessary, while polls show much of the country's population opposed to war.

Thousands across Germany called on Bush to respect the opinions of the hundreds of millions across the world who oppose a military solution to disarming Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction.

In Stuttgart some 300 people held a sit-in outside the US army's European Command.

Clad in pink and chanting peace songs, demonstrators marked International Women's Day outside the White House, where conservative counter-demonstrators urged them to find husbands and stop nagging.

"Get back in the kitchen," Pastor Mark Hines yelled at the women of the Codepink group, named as a spoof of the color-coding system the United States uses to describe the level of alert for terrorist threats.

"We are here because the world needs to know there are American voices that oppose the rush to war," said Shira Keyes, a gray-haired woman clad in pink.

"If we continue to rely on wars to resolve our differences, we will never truly be a just society," said 23-year-old Anne Claire Marshall, wearing a pink wig.

Meanwhile a London newspaper reported Sunday that British and US airborne troops are planning a lightning assault on Baghdad's Saddam International Airport as part of an offensive to overrun the Iraqi capital within 72 hours of an outbreak of war.

British paratroopers from 16 Air Assault Brigade will support US soldiers from the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions in any airport assault, The Sunday Telegraph said, without indicating its sources.

The Telegraph said any assault on the airport would begin in the hours after the launch of war. Combat jets armed with satellite-guided bombs would first destroy air defence sites and troops guarding the airfield before paratroopers or heliborne troops jumped down from a height of 250 feet (75 metres).

1999, when Clinton bombed Iraq, the Republicans supported the action (until he pulled the planes back early, though we knew of many more targets), the NY Times was "in full agreement" with bombing Iraq - as was the Wash. Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune and Miami Herald even though Clinton chose to bomb on the eve of impeachment hearings - WITHOUT the approval of the UN Security Council:

Wednesday night (AP Dec. 17) Iraq, Russia and China called to an immediate halt to the attacks. Iraq's UN envoy, Nizar Hamdoon, said that the uproar over weapons of mass destruction was "nothing more than a big lie" like the claim that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. He said that Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, had cited only five incidents in 300 inspection operations. In an almost unanimous resolution (Reuters Dec. 17), the lower house of the Russian Parliament, said that the U.S. and Britain were engaged in "international terrorism." Yeltsin said the strikes "crudely violated" the UN charter and should be halted immediately. Russia is furious (Reuters Dec. 18) that the U.S. bypassed the UN Security Council which gave it no chance to use its veto.

Newt Gingrich (CFR) strongly (AP Dec. 17) endorsed the military action as he formally passed his gavel to Bob Livingston: "We must carry the burden of leading the world."

Madeline Albright (CFR/TC) told Jim Lehrer (CFR) that (News Hour Dec. 17): "I believe that the President did the right thing to make the decision to have this military campaign at this time."

While the Washington Times said (Reuters Dec. 17) that Clinton's attack followed the pattern of the "Wag the Dog scenario," the New York Times said the action "was fully justified." Support for the President and U.S. troops also came from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune.

James A. Baker III (CFR) of the Baker Institute said (NBC News Dec. 16) there was a need for speed and that Clinton probably was forced to act: "We've diddled around . . . we probably had to act, this is the right thing, I think, for the United States to do . . . Nobody could be so craven as to risk the lives of our military men and women to cover their political backsides . . . "

Samuel R. Berger (CFR), U.S. National Security Adviser, explained (CNN Dec. 16) that the UN Secretary-General had agreed upon five criteria. Iraq has not cooperated. The inspection commission was not able to function. Richard Butler, on Tuesday, reported that due to Iraq's deception, the inspections were ineffectual. There was no choice but to take military action. The object was to take out missiles, weapons of mass destruction and prevent aggression towards neighbors. With the inspections no longer being possible, the U.S. had to make good on its threats of military force. (Clinton admin. KNEW Saddam had WMDs when inspections stopped. Think about that.)

Former President Jimmy Carter (CFR/TC) stated (Reuters Dec. 17): "American leaders played no role in the timing of Iraq's violations, which cannot be related to political events in Washington."

Laurence S. Eagleburger (CFR/TC), however, apparently broke rank, and said (NBC News Dec. 16) that "it smells."

Richard ("Dick") Andrew Gephardt (CFR) opposed holding a debate on impeachment (ABC Dec. 17) in part based on what Saddam Hussein would think.

Paul Gigot (BB) said there could be no debate while Americans are in harm's way (PBS Dec. 16) while Mark Shields said that Saddam Hussein had ran out his string.

Lott said he had been briefed by the administration (NBC De. 17) and stated: "I am going to take their word for it."

Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) , House Intelligence Committee Chairman, said (CNN Dec. 16) that he had not been briefed: "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice and dismantling his regime is what this is about."

Joseph Lieberman (CFR) (D-Conn.) supported (PBS Dec. 16) Clinton's actions "absolutely." It was made clear to Senators three weeks ago that if Richard Butler was frustrated, the U.S. would strike Iraq without delay or warning.

John Forbes Kerry (S&B 1966) said that Clinton was doing the right thing (K-Eye News Dec. 16).

Senator John Warner (PBS Dec. 16) said it was imperative to join together "to enforce the rule of law." He said England was "bravely participating" and that there was clear and convincing proof in the Butler report to the UN. Timing was an issue but now we must back our troops.

Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Iraq Foreign Minister, said (News Hour Dec. 17) that rather than "Operation Desert Fox," the operation should be called "Villians in the Arabian Desert."

All the comment on Russia and other serious matters has diverted attention to the rise of the "CodePink Movement" complete with pink wigs.

The Left is clearly going mad. Don't you tremble at the potential an antiwar "Pink Movement" could have to gather the masses throughout the world into one might righteous army for peace? Can't you see working class people in every nation rising to follow the Pink Banner?

This is the thing about George W. Bush that seems a little bit uncanny to me. All his enemies self-destruct.

To go no further back, there was Gore turning himself into RoboReagan at the first debate.

There was the Democrats' decision to go into the 2002 elections with no foreign policy position.

There was the Congressional Democrats' decision to make it their major legislative push of 2003 to keep a highly regarded Hispanic lawyer off the Federal Bench. Not to mention the Awful Fact of Nancy Pelosi.

Now Hans Blix has tried to hide evidence in the clumsiest possible manner, that any middle school student anywhere would know wouldn't work.

And the "Peace Movement" is wearing pink wigs.

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.