Posted on 03/12/2003 6:59:49 AM PST by maquiladora
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance, a senior U.S. State Department official said, and officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile.
President Bush has spent much of the last week on the telephone, lobbying council members to support the resolution.
"Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair are attempting to do whatever it takes to get the Latins to commit," the official told CNN's Andrea Koppel.
Blair told members of the House of Commons on Wednesday that the council was considering a series of benchmarks that Iraq would have to meet to prove it was disarming -- a step that Chile and Mexico previously suggested.
The State Department official also said the United States is confident it has the support of the three African members of the Security Council -- Cameroon, Guinea and Angola -- despite a visit this week by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to secure their opposition to the resolution.
In addition, U.S. and Pakistani officials said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can be counted on for his support when a vote happens this week.
That leaves Mexico and Chile as holdouts, the State Department official said. To secure these votes, the United States, Great Britain and Spain have teamed up to work all the angles. On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held a three-way conference call with his allied counterparts as they coordinated strategies.
Nevertheless, Russia and France have threatened to veto the resolution. Nine council votes are needed to pass the resolution, but a veto by any of the five permanent members would defeat it. Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States are permanent members.
The UN is proven irrelevant, and America needs to get it on with the enemy.
This is not about the US waiting for the UN. This is about providing cover for Blair. He has been a tremendous ally over the last 18 months and this is the right thing to do. That being said, Bush has also told him that he'd understand if he had to pull out of Iraq as we will need him for bigger fish down the line: Iran and North Korea.
Interesting trivia - scholars who specialize in language studies beleive the form of Spanish spoken in central and eastern Spain is quite close to the later forms of Latin spoken thoughout the Western Roman Empire. Apparently those areas retained a lot of Roman culture fom the fall of the Empire up until the Moorish Conquest. There are Arabic influences in Spanish, but the scholars feel the vocabulary and pronunciation in those areas is close to the late Empire more so than the Italian langauge is.
Wether we like it or not, Blair has been a true friend in all of this, and if he needs it, it is the least we can do.
I personally dont want to wait, but lets face it, I was on this board after 9-11 listening to everyone (me included) complain that it was taking too long to invade Afghanistan. That all worked out ok.
I would love to know if anyone remembers the "national mood" in 1991 during those 6 months of military build-up. I don't quite remember if we were told when the build up started that we would be going in soon, or 6 months later?
Did we all complain everyday about how long it was taking?
I realize that we may have a weather factor here, but can 10 days really hurt? This is all contigent on the fact that the new resolution says, that at the end of 10 days, if Sadaam doesn't do XYZ (etc.) that we will be taking military action.
If it is a strong resolution, does it hurt us?
I think Freepers are a little anxious,(myself included), but mid-America is ok to wait a few more days.
I would love to hear others opinions.
But I think he's right, as long as this March 17th deadline is still the one that will be voted on, then it sounds right.
Of course, if France veto, this makes the deadline worthless, and it's likely that Bush will deliver a U.S. deadline instead, which may very well be the same date, we shall see.
[sigh] I know, but I think this time, it's for real (that is unless, W gets fed up with the Security Council tomorrow and says the heck with it, let's go now).
Perhaps, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, ?
Hopefully, though, this will end with the UN (and the ICC) mortally wounded though perhaps lingering for a few years before fading away, and France disgraced by discoveries in Iraq's arsenal.
That's a good idea, though we'd need to move FR's servers.
I think so to...if nothing else, it destory's the idea france is any friend or ally and isolates them. Helps destory the UN in general pop as well...if it happens. I won't hold my breath.
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.