How is this Unilateral????? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-17-2003, 02:31 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:18 AM
How is this Unilateral?????

Which countries support a war in Iraq?

February 16 2003 at 06:40PM



London - More than six million protesters took to the streets around the globe on Saturday to send a passionate message to US President George Bush not to invade Iraq and to give peace a chance.

The much-awaited UN weapons inspectors' report on Iraq on Friday highlighted the divisions between major powers on whether and when to launch a war against Baghdad over its suspected banned weapons.

Here is a summary of the main positions on the possibility of military conflict with Iraq:


Who says 'yes' to the war?

Australia: Australia is one of Washington's staunchest allies and has deployed around 2 000 troops to the Middle East.

Prime Minister Howard said he was not convinced that large crowds at anti-war rallies in the country's major cities were evidence that public opinion was against war.


Britain: Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing huge public opposition to his campaign for military action, tried to make a moral case by referring to Iraqi suffering under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

London and Washington have stood shoulder-to-shoulder since the September 11 attacks and Blair has reserved the right to follow the United States into war without a fresh resolution, fearing some UN Security Council members would block it.


Israel: Israel has said it would abstain from taking part in any US coalition out of recognition of the "sensitivities" in the region, but reserves the right to respond if attacked.


Italy: Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right government has been a staunch Bush supporter and has backed his tough stance on Iraq. Italy has said to the United States that transport planes bound for the Gulf can use military bases for stopovers and refuelling.


Japan: Although Japan's pacifist constitution bars it from taking an active part in any military action outside its borders, it is expected to find ways to back its most important ally, the United States, in the event of an attack.


Kuwait: Freed from Iraqi occupation by a US-led coalition in the 1991 Gulf War, Kuwait has offered all possible help. Kuwait is likely to be a launchpad for a US invasion of Iraq.


Portugal: Portugal and seven other European nations signed a joint letter expressing support for US policy towards Iraq. The letter deepened a split within the 15-nation European Union over whether to back the US position on attacking Iraq.

Portugal has also made an air base in the mid-Atlantic Azores islands available to US military aircraft.


Qatar: The Gulf state is home to a mobile command post staffed by more than 1 000 US communications personnel and several hundred British counterparts, which is likely to be the command and control centre in the event of an attack on Iraq.


Romania: Romania's parliament approved sending 278 troops, chiefly anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare units to the Gulf following a formal request from Washington and has offered its airbases and the Black Sea port of Constanta for the refuelling of warplanes.

Other east European states such as Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic have already committed various military assets.


Spain: Spain has emerged as one of Europe's most vocal US supporters and has said it was working with Bush to muster support for a resolution authorising the use of military force.

It would allow the United States to use its bases to support a possible military strike on Iraq.



Who is still undecided?


Canada: Canada said time was running out for Iraq to show it was in full compliance with Security Council resolution 1441. However, Foreign Minister Bill Graham also said that no decision on the use of force had been taken by the government and it was seen as a very last resort.


Nato: Nato remains divided over whether to start planning indirect military support for a possible US-led war on Iraq.


Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is trying to avert an attack on its Arab neighbour and has floated the idea of trying to encourage a coup against Saddam by his subordinates.

Arab states fear a war that would topple Saddam would fragment Iraq into rival Sunni Muslim, Shi'ite Muslim and Kurdish enclaves and heighten instability in the Middle East.

But Riyadh is unlikely to prevent the United States using bases in the kingdom should the United States opt for war.


Turkey: A compromise to end a Nato crisis on protective measures for Turkey in case of a US-led war on Iraq is likely to be agreed in the coming days.

Turkey is allowing the US military to modernise some bases for possible use in a war, but has not yet given Washington permission to use them for an offensive.

Though set to support an Iraq war, Turkey fears conflict across its borders could spark unrest among its Kurdish minority amid the return of hundreds of armed KADEK guerrillas presently holed up in the mountains of northern Iraq.



Who says 'no' to the war?

China: China, which has veto power at the UN Security Council, signalled that its desire for the United Nations to work out a diplomatic solution to the issue was undiminished.


France and Germany: French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who has refused to rule out using France's veto in the Security Council to brake what Paris sees as a US rush to war, said that Paris opposed having a new resolution as long as arms inspections were continuing.

At the United Nations, France defended the continuation of efforts to disarm Iraq through inspections following the report by chief arms inspector Hans Blix.

German Chancellor Schroeder insisted that Iraq could be disarmed without a war and that UN weapons inspectors should be given all the time and support they need.

However he has also guaranteed flyover and transit rights for US forces in the event of military action.


Russia: Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the inspections were proceeding smoothly and it was not yet time to consider the use of force against Baghdad.

Russia, also a veto-wielding Security Council member which has deep economic interests in Iraq, has striven to avert unilateral US action against Baghdad.


Syria: Syria said inspections were making substantial progress and war against Iraq would lead to "total anarchy".

Syria is a staunch opponent of US military action against Iraq, although it voted for UN Security Council resolution 1441 which told Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences".
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 02:38 PM   #2
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:18 AM
It was just reported that Nato has decided to back defense of Turkey. It is great that they are able to agree on something.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 02:53 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 08:18 AM
It might get unilateral if they decide to go in alone.
I read in the news today that US is determined to deal with Iraq "with or without UN".
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 02:58 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:18 AM
I guess, my point is, that even without the UN with the list of Nations that are supportive of action, I would hardly call it unilateral.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 03:07 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 08:18 AM
But suppose the second resolution would get a veto...would there still be other to support the action or will it be US (with Britain) in the end?
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 03:57 PM   #6
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 07:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
It might get unilateral if they decide to go in alone.
Brilliant Statement there, Last time I counted, there were 23 Nations that were with us in this, and Germany has recently recanted their position and would join in the military effort, or at least support it if that is what it came to. It won't get unilateral.. It isn't at the present moment, and when the shots are fired, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Canada among others will join our side.. This is just the political gamesmanship for countries to cover their ass and disclaimer themselves.

As I said in another thread.. France is the only Unilateral nation here, going against the War With such passion Alone. Perhaps it is because they are trying to make a stand to show some spine when the inevitable EU conglomeration becomes One Nation with France running the show?..
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:04 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I guess, my point is, that even without the UN with the list of Nations that are supportive of action, I would hardly call it unilateral.
Yes, but any nation that is a member of the UN has to comply with the UN, otherwise it no longer rests upon the foundation that the UN was created upon. It sets a very dangerous precedent. I don't understand how an admistration (such as the Bush admin.) can say that if the UN doesn't agree with them -- even if the majority of the rest of the world doesn't agree also -- than the UN suddenly has no credibilty. It's like, "You're either with us or you're against us, and if you're against us, well by darg gonnit, you have no credibility -- and that's that."
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:08 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Beefeater


and when the shots are fired, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Canada among others will join our side.. This is just the political gamesmanship for countries to cover their ass and disclaimer themselves.
Ah, no. Sorry, but most of the intelligent politicians in my country think this war is flat out stupid -- and for the US to go into Iraq without the UN is just flat out bad for their long term interests: in short, the common consensus is it would be a dumb move.

Regarding other nations joining the effort once it begins -- now that would be to "cover their ass and disclaimer themeselves."
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:14 PM   #9
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 07:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Ah, no. Sorry, but most of the intelligent politicians in my country think this war is flat out stupid --
Just as Germany is dropping hints that they will ultimately support this war when it happens, Canada also, won't want to be on the wrong side of the fence when this all shakes out. But we will see soon enough won't we, eh.

The UN has already passed a resolution, Iraq has violated this resolution.. I have no reason to believe that the UN won't pass a second, when it is time to go on transcripted record.

Beefeater
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:19 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Beefeater said: "The wrong side of the fence" -- ah, words I can't even begin to respond to.

Yes, once the war begins, like I said -- because Canada will want to cover their interests -- they will join the fight. It would be a politically bad move not to at that point. Right now, Canada is doing the best thing they can -- remaining distantly muddled. They know this a dumb war, but they can't say anything, as it would be political suicide to piss off the US.

As far as the UN passing a resolution to invade, they may. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:19 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:18 AM
I think it is fascinating really how Bush bullied his way into a multilateral war on Iraq, even though we completely know it is a grudge between the U.S. on Iraq. This is completely irrespective of whether that grudge is right or wrong, mind you.

I'm just reminded of some of the stuff that cranky old Margaret Thatcher said. The best diplomacy may be with the threat of violence...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:21 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 07:18 AM
hahaha, Melon! How true.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:30 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Lets not forget that the USA intervened in Kosovo without the Support of the United Nations. Is there anyone here that wants to argue that US intervention in Kosovo without the support of the United Nations was a bad idea?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:58 PM   #14
War Child
 
UKTan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 883
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Allegedly, Britain, Italy & Spain had the biggest turnouts for the anti-war protests at the weekend (in Europe at least). I will be interested to see whether these countries will actually follow the US (esp without UN backing) into war. Obviously, the protests at the weekend didn't represent an entire nation's view, but it was still a hell of show of resistance to war.

I would not be at all surprised if these countries backing the US now suddenly change their mind when they start thinking about their next respective elections.
__________________
UKTan is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 06:38 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:18 AM
E.U. Warns Iraq It Faces 'Last Chance'
By BARRY RENFREW
The Associated Press
Monday, February 17, 2003; 4:15 PM


European leaders united Monday behind a strongly worded declaration affirming solidarity with the United States and warning Saddam Hussein that Iraq faces one "last chance" to disarm peacefully.

"Baghdad should have no illusions. ... The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community," 15 European Union leaders said in a joint declaration.

The leaders gave strong backing for the U.S. and British demand for swift action to disarm Iraq, giving the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf credit for forcing Saddam to work with U.N. weapons inspectors.

2003 The Associated Press
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com