How is this Unilateral?????

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
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".
 
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".
 
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.
 
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 said:
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?..
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
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."
 
Beefeater said:


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."
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
Why is it unilateral?

pResident W. Bush announced the goal of regime change without building a consensus first.

It was a unilateral move.

There was no serious opposition to the Afghan/Taliban War because of the horrors of 9-11.

The administration was drunk* on their own success in Afghanistan. They wrongly assumed they had carte blanche to do what ever they wanted.

This is perceived as arrogant, dangerous, and intolerable by many.

This is a recurring problem with Rumsfeld.

Most of the world believes Saddam should go. They just don?t want to a unilateralist setting the agenda
 
Last edited:
Another thing to consider is how many people in those countries actually support their governments.

The polls indicate that a vast majority of the British, for example, completely disagree with Blair, but his country is listed here.
 
'Bullying' into a 'Multilateral' War.. Regardless of how one may feel about it.. It seems Bush has jumped through the hoops, and if he were to attack Iraq, he would be an elected president, with a Congressional resolution, with many voices of approval from NATO (The recently signed Letter), and a UN resolution. We all welcome conspiracy theorists, but the paper trail is there, may the allies step in line.

Melon, Many would consider overwhelming force or violence to be the only real relevant diplomacy.

Beefeater
 
Beefeater said:
Melon, Many would consider overwhelming force or violence to be the only real relevant diplomacy.

And North Korea is the master of it.

Melon
 
some were chosen to lead.
some were chosen to follow.
still others were chosen to shriek.

DB9
 
Last edited:
and do some always follow blindly?

miceblind.jpg
 
Beefeater said:
'Bullying' into a 'Multilateral' War.. Regardless of how one may feel about it.. It seems Bush has jumped through the hoops, and if he were to attack Iraq, he would be an elected president, with a Congressional resolution, with many voices of approval from NATO (The recently signed Letter), and a UN resolution. We all welcome conspiracy theorists, but the paper trail is there, may the allies step in line.
Beefeater
I'm not saying Hitler and Bush are anything alike, but according to this same exact logic, one could argue that Hitler's rise to power and the following exercise of it, was perfectly okay because it, too, was perfectly legal and legitimate (Hitler passed several laws and provisions in order to achieve his aims legally). Once again, I'm not saying Bush's intentions are anything like Hitler's, but the logistics of your argument are the same. Therefore, you haven't convinced me with such an argument.
 
deep said:
Why is it unilateral?

Most of the world believes Saddam should go. They just don?t want to a unilateralist setting the agenda



Unless your name Is Jack Chirac, and you don't believe that SADDAm should go, and you do WANT to set the agenda....

"It is not really responsible behavior," he told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Chirac was angered when EU candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined pro-U.S. EU members such as Britain, Spain and Italy last month in a letter supporting Washington's line on Iraq against the more dovish stance of France and Germany.

Paris was further upset when 10 other eastern European nations signed a similar letter a few days later.

?Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq.
He warned the candidates the position could be "dangerous" because the parliaments of the 15 EU nations still have to ratify last December's decision for 10 new members to join the bloc on May 1, 2004.
Chirac particularly warned Romania and Bulgaria, who are still negotiating to enter the bloc in 2007.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate," Chirac said. "If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."


:scratch: Roamania and Bulgaria not part of Europe?
 
Good post Us3. I think its about time we shined the light on French Unilateralism.
 
This is a great thread Dread, I thank you for posting alot of threads with great info!

Anyways, ON the topic of Canada. I have no doubt Canada will either support this war or send troops. Canada is playing it safe but if US goes it with or without the UN they would join or at least publically support(while not giving support, but thats jean for ya)

I would be intrested though to see how many nations would stand with the US if no UN resolution was passed! I really think that the US should let them inspect until the end of summer, prove that Iraq isnt disarming and then attack, this would help them in the world of the eyes. They could shut France up.

One more thing, doesnt anyone focus on the harm Saddam does on his own people? We all can agree he is evil but only some people totally think we should get rid of him. If you were being treated the way the IRaqi people are wouldnt you want the US to help. I just cant see the logic in turning the focus always on the US. We dont relize that in this war good will be done, but once again we need to beat up on the US...
 
Michael Griffiths said:

Once again, I'm not saying Bush's intentions are anything like Hitler's, but the logistics of your argument are the same. Therefore, you haven't convinced me with such an argument.

I'm not quite sure what it is you are looking for, I am giving a reply to those who whine and complain that Bush is 'Going this Alone', being a 'Cowboy', and Spitting in the face of the International Community. By the multitude of evidence referenced.... UN Resolution of Force, Verbal Support of 23 Nations, and Letters of Support from many of the NATO allies, it is obvious that he has genuinely won and convinced these nations and organizations. But keep tuned, more will most definitely be on the way. Dreadsox will keep you posted as long as he is not researching Gen. Clark.

I'm not quite sure what you require to be convinced that America is not 'bullying' its way into this war, But I hardly would think that these 23 nations, the UN, and many of our NATO allies would say that they were 'bullied' into their position.. for a whole host of reasons, No. 1 starting with pride. And did it ever occur to you that the backers of our stance on Iraq actually intrinsically hold similar positions as the US?...

But feel free, continue on your search for any and every natural deductional proof that allows you to feel right. In the meantime, I will await Jean Chr?tien's wise acknowledgement of support for the USA.

Beefeater
 
Last edited:
Beafeater, you must relize something about Jean.

Even though in my above post i said i do believe the country will go ahead with the US you cant really rule out us not going. Jean is in his homestretch of his nearly 10 yrs in power and he is liable to do anything! 90% he goes, or should i say the country goes but dont ever count out him going off and knocking the US. He passed the Kyoto, he can do ANYTHING!!!
 
Beefeater said:
But feel free, continue on your search for any and every natural deductional proof that allows you to feel right. In the meantime, I will await Jean Chr?tien's wise acknowledgement of support for the USA.
Beefeater
Look, I'm simply saying that the US should go through the UN, and if the UN doesn't give them permission, clearly there isn't enough evidence and incentive for the world to put up with a pre-emptive strike that will cost thousands of lives (not to mention pots of money). Basically, the US's position is based on fear. That fear is based on a suspicion that Iraq will use WMD on the US. I don't think Saddam Hussein would ever be that stupid, but now the US have pushed him so far that they have backed themselves into a corner, and now they have to go in (besides, at this point they would lose face if they didn't). This war will happen. There's no argument there. The question is whether it will happen through the UN or not. We'll wait and see.

BTW, Cretien isn't as much of a fool as people make him out to be. He knows very well why he should remain distant on this issue. He (publicly) supports the US, but like everyone else, he thinks it would be very unwise to go in without UN consent. And he's right.
 
us3 said:




Unless your name Is Jack Chirac, and you don't believe that SADDAm should go, and you do WANT to set the agenda....

"It is not really responsible behavior," he told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Chirac was angered when EU candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined pro-U.S. EU members such as Britain, Spain and Italy last month in a letter supporting Washington's line on Iraq against the more dovish stance of France and Germany.

Paris was further upset when 10 other eastern European nations signed a similar letter a few days later.

?Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq.
He warned the candidates the position could be "dangerous" because the parliaments of the 15 EU nations still have to ratify last December's decision for 10 new members to join the bloc on May 1, 2004.
Chirac particularly warned Romania and Bulgaria, who are still negotiating to enter the bloc in 2007.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate," Chirac said. "If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."


Wow, Jack. Threatening prospective members of the EU because they dare disagree with your shit country. How big of you.

Maybe it's time that France is relieved of the burdensome chore of being an "alley" of the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom