Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Vote Away From 2nd Resolution
CNN | Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Posted: 9:42 AM EST (1442 GMT)

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-128 next last
To: maquiladora
Then how did "Latin America" get the name latin?
81 posted on 03/12/2003 8:08:51 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: nmh
The only reason we're doing this is for Blair.
82 posted on 03/12/2003 8:09:21 AM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
He wants the illegals here to be given special treatment.

Sounds like he's not getting it.
83 posted on 03/12/2003 8:09:44 AM PST by Howlin (Only UNamericans put the UN before America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dead
Latin America comprises those countries of the Americas that developed from the colonies of Spain, Portugal, and France. Because these European powers used languages derived from Latin, the term Latin America was devised to designate the parts of the New World that they colonized
thats..
84 posted on 03/12/2003 8:16:53 AM PST by what i think
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
We have guinea pigs. We call them fatty pigs. They tend to squeak at unusual hours. But they are much more loyal than these bureaucrats.
85 posted on 03/12/2003 8:20:36 AM PST by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Waiting for the UN now is BS.

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.

86 posted on 03/12/2003 8:20:58 AM PST by Wyatt's Torch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dead
Italy, Spain and to an extent France and Portugal are sometimes called the Latin Nations becuase of cultural and language ties to the old Roman Empire and the Latin language. Those nations (particularly Spain) colonized much of Central and South America, and the cultural tagging stuck there too.

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.

87 posted on 03/12/2003 8:20:59 AM PST by AzSteven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I agree that we dont need another resolution, but... if we get one that only strengthens our case.

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.

88 posted on 03/12/2003 8:21:26 AM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: what i think
OK. Thanks. I thought it was something like that, but wasn't sure.
89 posted on 03/12/2003 8:21:34 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: AzSteven
Thank you too. Interesting stuff. (from the latin "stuvius")
90 posted on 03/12/2003 8:22:42 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Texan5
Remember that the only army that Mexico ever defeated was the French. I don't think that says much for either of them.
91 posted on 03/12/2003 8:23:58 AM PST by ChipShot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
GlobalSecurity.org Countdown Clock:

T-minus 5 Days, 7 Hours, and counting...

92 posted on 03/12/2003 8:24:49 AM PST by mhking (Fasten your seatbelts....We're goin' in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
John Pike has changed that clock more times than I've changed socks! :-)

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.

93 posted on 03/12/2003 8:28:20 AM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
John Pike has changed that clock more times than I've changed socks!

[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).

94 posted on 03/12/2003 8:31:12 AM PST by mhking (Fasten your seatbelts....We're goin' in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Mexico is holding out? For what?

Perhaps, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, ?

95 posted on 03/12/2003 8:31:21 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
"Mexico is holding out? For what?

For US commonwealth status? "

Maybe we could give them back California for their vote.
96 posted on 03/12/2003 8:33:00 AM PST by Busywhiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I hope so...But the whole MS thing has been bothering me for all this time since the event. Especially since when WJC's signing of the document was looked at more closely, it was learned that as a 'charter', the US is legally bound by the Chief Executive's signature alone , and the approval of congress is not needed (as would be the case for a treaty, like Kyoto or the ICC). That does concern me...Why would they go to all the trouble of creating the stupid thing and getting hundreds of signatures on it if there was no desire to put it into effect? The only way it could be put into effect is if there was no way to veto it, and we've been hearing so much the last week or so re: the obsolescence of the SC and veto that I cannot but wonder if there's not more going on than we can see at this time.

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.

97 posted on 03/12/2003 8:35:24 AM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Yeah, I think we're in a clear phase where the action is close. Gen Franks is gone to the Gulf and has no date of return, the B-52's have been moved to RAF Fairford, the B-2 crews flew out to DG yesterday. USNS Comfort has been fulled staffed. Units have moved from camps to jumping off areas along the border. The 101st is ready for action as of today, and the number of UN inspectors in Iraq is mysteriously dropping....
98 posted on 03/12/2003 8:36:41 AM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Busywhiskers
Maybe we could give them back California for their vote.

That's a good idea, though we'd need to move FR's servers.

99 posted on 03/12/2003 8:36:42 AM PST by steveegg (Clinton and Blair didn't get UN authorization to launch Operation Desert (Kill Impeachment) Fox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
I think it would destroy the UN more quickly to get 9 or 10 yes votes, and a French veto.

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.

100 posted on 03/12/2003 8:37:03 AM PST by madison46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-128 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson