Posted on 03/16/2003 10:21:48 AM PST by Amelia
For discussion.
Is the second resolution still on the table??
Quote from President Bush in his opening statement:
"Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world."
When questioned later during question and answer period, President Bush stated:
"Tomorrow is the day when we find if diplomacy can work".
The UN can either convene tomorrow and join us, or we're going in. Saddam was told to disarm immediately, and it was clear they meant *today* or that was it. Or course we all know he won't.
One interesting added intrigue: Hans Blix has inserted himself by stating he thought the conference showed a divided group. Than he spoke with reporters denying he had used the word "divided", but Swedish TV has him on tape saying it. Jonathan Hunt on Fox is referring to it as an "is" moment.
Blix also feigned ignorance of grasping the meaning of the conference and told reporters he had not heard an ultimatum.
Heck no!
It's been clearly off the table since, oh, about last Thursday by my reckoning.
So if I hurt any feelings I am very sorry...
Thanks for the update.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865109/posts?page=295#295
Obviously, it will be this "Atlantic Alliance" that liberates Iraq, NOT the UN. Blair and Bush were both in a bit of a box with this issue of a second UN resolution. Blair felt like he needed one to clear any question of legitimacy in his country, while Bush has called for a vote in his recent press conference. I believe they extracted themselves from their position quite nicely. Once again, the press is missing the deft move. Again, they don't want to be perceived as killing the UN. If the UN withers and dies on the vine, they want history to record that it was countries like France who refused to back up resolutions it had voted for. I believe Tony Blair got the most out of this meeting and here is what he got: A SECOND RESOLUTION IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ LEGITIMATE. With this summit, the "Atlantic Alliance" have completely turned the tables on the other countries in the UN SC. Remember how the US and UK were scrambling like mad to get the votes for a second resolution for the past few days? They could not get it due to the French. This gave the effect of making it look like France held the key as to whether war would be legitimate. All France had to do is veto any resolution to keep the UN from taking action, which is precisely what they vowed to do. THIS PUT THE ALLIANCE ON THE DEFENSIVE. The Summit today turned that all around. The Alliance made it clear that UN 1441 gives them the "legitimacy" (that Blair needs) to wager war on Saddam. They are basically saying to the rest of the UN SC now, "you have your chance to get on board with us and pass a second resolution". Now if France or anyone else submits another resolution that the Alliance doesn't like, IT WILL SIMPLY BE VETOED by the US, UK, and Spain. Beautiful, ain't it? In other words, the Alliance is saying in a nutshell "UN 1441 AUTHORIZES FORCE TO DISARM SADDAM. WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT." Now, if France or anyone else submits a resolution that opposes that notion, IT WILL BE VETOED, thus making 1441 the binding resolution. NOW, instead of the US and UK scrambling for SC votes, it is France and the others that will be scrambling for votes if there's one at all. As I said, the tables have been turned on France. As you can see, the US and UK are making NO attempt any longer to get a second resolution. If there is going to be another resolution voted on, it will be one crafted by France and the others, and they know that it will be vetoed by the Alliance countries unless it meets their demands. Obviously, France is not prepared to do that, so don't expect another resolution, therefore, the Alliance is acting in regards to 1441.
As I said, the leaders would each make their statements and then leave for their homelands to address their nations. That indeed is happening. Bush didn't use the word "charade", but he did call out France for "already showing their cards", which is the same thing as saying continuing the process is a "charade". I have heard other members of the administration use that word today.
No, they did not give Saddam a deadline. Yet. That would have overshadowed their ultimatum to the UN to do something within the next 24 hours. Now, when those 24 hours have expired, expect the ultimatum and deadline for Iraq to come.
As I said, expect to hear from Bush Monday night, or Tuesday at the latest.
If the inspectors had any brains, they would leave Iraq on the next plane. If they wait until the Alliance has to issue it's ultimatum to Iraq, they are subject to being held agains their will. Hopefully, they and others will evacuate between today and tomorrow.
No, the UN didn't die today, but these leaders made it clear that a new alliance has been formed. Documents and agreements were signed, and as things play out, as the legitimacy of this new alliance rises, the relevance and legitimacy of the UN is lowered. It's like a teeter-totter if you will.
That's not quite accurate: There could be another resolution, with a deadline and an automatic trigger for war (the U.S. position), but it would have to be agreed to by the Security Council by tomorrow.
That's undoubtedly a practical and political possibility -- but for one more day, it's still technically "on the table".
haven't been able to type all damn day.
Yep. I just heard it again. Tomorrow is D-Day/Decision Day for the U.N.
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.