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

Skip to comments.

Iraq says it will not abide by any unfavorable Security Council resolutions
Associated Press ^ | 9-21-02 | SAMEER N. YACOUB

Posted on 09/21/2002 5:00:28 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: inspections; iraq; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 09/21/2002 5:00:28 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The irrelevance of the UN is apparent if you ask the question: Who will enforce any new resolution? If China, Russia, and Framce agree to a new resolution, who will furnish the enforcement? We see now, the advantage of world government in action. Zilch, zero, nada. By far the best approach would be to exit the UN and give them notice to leave our country.
2 posted on 09/21/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
So much for their acceptance of inspectors "without conditions".
3 posted on 09/21/2002 5:35:33 AM PDT by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"Here come the planes...
They're American planes,
Made in America.
Smoking?
Or non-smoking..."

4 posted on 09/21/2002 5:40:51 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Iraq declares it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts of what has been agreed upon with the U.N. Secretary General,"

There you have it, Koffe you rat b*stard!

5 posted on 09/21/2002 5:47:28 AM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past," Bush wrote. "We cannot let our enemies strike first."

It is time for action!!!
6 posted on 09/21/2002 5:53:44 AM PDT by luv2ndamend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This is an Iraqi anticipatory repudiation a 17th U.N. resolution that hasn't even been adopted yet. They are therefore in breach, and the "contract" is cancelled. Now, it's time for a "self help" remedy by the U.S.
7 posted on 09/21/2002 5:55:39 AM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Sounds like SH is misreading GWB's appearance before the UN as "proof" that the US cannot act without the UN's permission, and will abide by any vetos from SC members China, Russia, and France.
8 posted on 09/21/2002 5:56:34 AM PDT by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaylar
LOL!!! My first reaction to your abbreviation "SH" was sh!t head instead of Saddam Hussein.
9 posted on 09/21/2002 6:11:45 AM PDT by Siouxz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Russia held to its view that threats should be deferred at least until U.N. weapons inspectors take up Saddam's offer to resume work.

Don'y you get it Russia. Iraq is never going to allow the UN inspectors to resume work.

10 posted on 09/21/2002 6:40:33 AM PDT by Mixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siouxz
That works, too.
11 posted on 09/21/2002 6:45:00 AM PDT by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Please correct me if I'm wrong -- but is there really a need for another resolution? Saddam hasn't abided by the other 16 resolutions -- those should be enforced. Is the 17th resolution the only one stating that non-compliance will result in miltary intervention? Do any of the other resolutions have this wording? Weren't we ready to go to war in 1998 (something the Dems seem to have forgotten -- they were unanimously willing in '98 -- now, with elections and all, they're pussy footing around)?

Seems like a Catch-22 for Saddam (yeah, that Bush, he's not too bright, eh? -- sarcasm off). I'm also amazed at the number of idiots who think that Saddam has somehow complied with President Bush's requests -- I listened to his full speech to the UN at least twice -- heard nothing about weapons inspectors alone. Heard lots about regime change, handing over prisoners, totally and immediately removing any and all chemical, biological and nuclear WMD... What about that wasn't clear to the rest of the world?

12 posted on 09/21/2002 7:43:57 AM PDT by alethia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Baghdad will not abide by unfavorable new resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council.

Ok, now we have that ploy out of the way. Just gotta wait until the weather moderates a bit...........

13 posted on 09/21/2002 7:51:47 AM PDT by Thermalseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
What are the advantages for the US to be a paying member of the UN? Let's see......... We "get" to be the enforcement arm of the UN, we get to pick up over 25% of the tab. We "get" to provide a city where the despotic delegats park their cars without paying, break our laws, bring their filthy habits and disgusting behavior to parade OUR streets with immunity. We also "get" to provide a forum where the rest of the world can be rude and abusive to us under the cloak of multilateralism. Hmmmmmmm. Frankly, I don't see any advantages to being a member of this club. What are they going to do if we leave? Say bad things about us? LOL, they will be just as abusive and obnoxious to us if we don't participate. They will hate us just as much (how can they possibly hate us more), and they will be totally toothless without us. Neither China nor Russia can financially pick up the tab for providing a military arm. The EU would have to raise the taxes on their people to over 70% in order to bring their military up to bare minimum standards, it would cripple their economy.

I keep hearing that the US needs europe more than europe needs the US. I'm not so sure, I'd be willing to find out if they keep up their insults. Frankly, it would be fun to watch what would happen if all the multinational companies all started packing up to come home.

14 posted on 09/21/2002 8:13:12 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Also posted by MadIvan HERE, albeit from the BBC source.

LET'S ROLL!

15 posted on 09/21/2002 8:28:33 AM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
By far the best approach would be to exit the UN and give them notice to leave our country.

Can't do that. The UN building and the property on which it is located was given to the UN at is creation some 50 or so year ago. It's like an embassy. It may be in NYC but its not part of the US. The US may leave the UN but there is no way I can see of that the UN will leave the US.

16 posted on 09/21/2002 8:32:24 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meenie
The irrelevance of the UN is apparent if you ask the question: Who will enforce any new resolution?

I am greatly enjoying watching our "dumb, cowboy" President indelibly underscoring what his Euro critics and Democrap critics have not previously admitted: the UN 'emperor' has no clothes.

The Third World long has cynically used the UN (along with plenty of help from Ford/Rockefeller Foundation-financed Marxist 'NGO's") as a means to undermine U.S. policies and sovereignty. Daschle and his crew play the same game, insisting that the U.S. get U.N. 'permission' to do what our own Constitution demands that we do.

It appears to me that young Bush and his advisers have neatly turned the tables on all of them. Iraq has not only ignored previous U.N. resolutions but has announced IN ADVANCE! it will ignore any new ones. The U.N. is powerless and irrelevant, as you say. And it's hilarious to watch Daschle and his cronies get apoplexy trying to use this dysfunctional organization as cover for their anti-U.S. positions.

It really doesn't matter whether we resign from the U.N. or merely ignore it. Without our cooperation and active financial support it will become more of an international bad joke than it already is. It will wither and die, as it should have years ago.

17 posted on 09/21/2002 9:01:31 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Mixer
Russia has a money deal going with Iraq, that they hate to see stopped!
19 posted on 09/21/2002 9:07:41 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
"The US may leave the UN but there is no way I can see of that the UN will leave the US"

Sure there is...just cut off the sewer, power and water to the property. After awhile, they'all leave....abandon property goes back to the city, I believe.

20 posted on 09/21/2002 9:13:41 AM PDT by lgjhn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 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