UN Security Council Votes 15-0 in Favor of Iraq Resolution

Oops.

I guess Iraq underestimated what the world thinks of Saddam.

DaDakota

 

Geez...talk about a sore winner.

 

UNANIMOUS approval from the UN Security Council for weapons' inspectors with the threat of solid action in the event of Iraqi non-compliance.

What the resolution says is:

(1) Iraq needs to allow access.

(2) If they don't, then whatever.

Basically, it just doesn't say that the US can't attack on its own - of course, no resolution would ever say that. What we didn't necessarily get was world commitment to supporting said attack. What that means if that if Iraq doesn't comply, we'll likely to have to go through another negotiation if we want to get everyone on board.

A breakthrough in negotiations came Thursday when France and the United States reached a critical agreement to address French concerns that the resolution could automatically trigger an attack on Iraq.

Don't underestimate France either, who got their way here. This isn't Bush's fault - he got the best resolution we were likely going to get. It just would have been nice to get the version he really wanted - that's the one with the teeth in it.

 

i just think it's funny...there's so much talk about how stupid this guy is from those who stand on the opposite end of the political spectrum. but he continues to surprise...just like he did to ann richards...just like he did to al gore..just like bill clinton warned.

How is this a surprise? He did exactly what the Democrats & much of the American people have been pushing him to do for the last 6 months in getting world support instead of going on his own. No one thought he couldn't a UN resolution. The concern was that he wasn't even trying ... and he wasn't until he got the public backlash against a solo-war.

 

Max: Just a hint...YOUR GUY WON! He's actually in power! Isn't that enough? Do those of us who DIDN'T vote for him have to declare our undying support for the victory to be complete?

I'm wondering, when Clinton and the Dems swept in '92, did you just drop your dislike of the man because he had the mandate then? I'm betting not.

 

i disagree that this doesn't have teeth...everyone knows what "serious consequences" means in this context. even this article says it "surely means war." they know what this is about...bush is already making clear what this is about...particularly after getting congressional support...if iraq doesn't comply, it will be a un effort.

The serious consequences means the US can attack:

<I>While the United States made some major concessions to critics, the final draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N. weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying.
</I>

But this is where we already were - the threat of unilateral action (well, along with the UK) has been sitting there for a long time. The idea was to get UN support for the attack so, if we do attack, it doesn't look like the US playing a power game and trying to take over Iraq. It's still to be seen what happens with other countries when Iraq likely doesn't comply. This was a case of the UN anti-war countries hoping one last time that Iraq will comply, and leaving their actions open-ended in the case that they don't. <I>No country in the world committed to attacking Iraq if they don't comply.</I>

 

gee..it was my understanding he was incapable of getting world support for ANYTHING?



What annoys Democrats isn't that he's incapable of cooperating with the world, but that he never seems to care about it and doesn't mind alienating the rest of the world, except when there is huge backlash against him.

 

This is a landmark breakthrough in the war on tyranny and terror. President Bush said it best (paraphrasing):

The disarmament of Iraq *will* occur. It is just a matter of how. We hope they do it voluntarilty -- we will be prepared if they do not.

 

When George W. Bush perjures himself I will dislike him as much as I do Clinton. Until then the two aren't comparable. Sorry...but you can't equate a dislike of somebody's politics with an unprosecuted felon in the White House.

 

the united nations said, "do this or there will be serious consequences." an attack for non-compliance, even if it's US forces only, will be sanctioned by the UN.

I disagree with this. I think the resolution reads: do this or there MAY be serious consequences. There's no commitment by anyone but the US to attack, but the US was already committed with or without UN support.

What I really wanted from the UN was a commitment by all the major powers to support and threaten an attack. Maybe I was just hoping for too much, though.

 

Major,

We could always act unilaterally, but that is why the rest of the world dislikes us so much. They think we always act that way.

Well, we are trying to become more involved in a global system, so we went through the UN first.

If this does not work, no one in Germany or France or anywhere can say that we did not try.

That is the difference.

DaDakota

 

We could always act unilaterally, but that is why the rest of the world dislikes us so much. They think we always act that way.

Well, we are trying to become more involved in a global system, so we went through the UN first.

If this does not work, no one in Germany or France or anywhere can say that we did not try.

That is the difference.


Perhaps... But I still wouldn't be surprised, assuming Iraq doesn't comply, if France comes back and suggests we try this or that before attacking. And that will have the effect of again turning world opinion, even though they are not prohibiting us from attacking. They can still aggressively suggest other routes of action. That's why I wanted their commitment to using force in writing.

Like I said - Bush got what he could and we have to roll with it. I'm more disappointed in the other countries. This was a great opportunity for them to present a unified stance and make a stand, and it seems to me they just avoided the tough issues.

 

You know Bush started out with a take or leave it "diplomatic" approach. He ended making serious concessions to the French and the Russians (meeting the Congressional Democrats' demand to establish UN support). The UN inspectors and the UN Security Council are back in the driver's seat. The UN will be responsible for determining Iraq's compliance or lack there of.

The end Iraq goal for Bush Jr (as well as Clinton and Bush Sr) is a regime change. If Saddam complies well enough to keep the UN happy, the goal will not be meet. Remember that in 1998, the UN inspection thought that Iraq was 90% disarmed. If after the next inspection go round, they could be of the opinion that Iraq is 100%. What then? Saddam is still in power and the embargo is lifted.

I agree that this is a political victory for Bush, albeit a qualified one.

 

I'm totally happy. Good job, Bush. This is the sort of international cooperation people like me wanted to see. It's much more Colin Powell, to be honest, than it is Wolfowitz or Cheney. I am probably delusional, but I like to think all the letters to elected officials and the protests against unilateral action* actually made a tiny difference to the president's key advisors... that this helped motivate their many returns to the Security Council instead of quitting in a huff and starting their war.

* by the way, the New York Times finally updated their estimate of the attendance at the DC rally to "over 100,000 people," after originally reporting "under 20,000 people." It's a little freaky that all media outlets downplayed the attendance when DC police figures (available data) said over 100,000 all along.