Uh-Oh New Resolution Needed? I thought everything was affirmed!!!! Yadda Yadda Yadda

[Dreadsox]

[Q]"There are some nations who have expressed the desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations and I am in conversations with some ministers about this," said Mr Powell. Mr Annan said: "The question has been posed as to whether or not the Security Council may not help to improve the situation.Security Council action that expands UN activities, and perhaps appeals to member states to make troops, policemen and other resources available for the stabilisation of Iraq."[/Q]
I thought they were authorized 12 years ago? Can't these nations read????? What in the world is the Secretary General of the United Nations talking about??? Clearly he does not have a grasp of foreign affairs. Is his DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE TRANSLATOR working????

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1057562474250


[Q]About 13,000 non-American troops are now in the country, most of them British, compared with about 147,000 Americans. [/Q]

Clearly the Iraqi's must be lacking in the area of diplomacy to grasp this difficult situation. The United States is CLEARLY not an OCCUPYING force. We have 13,000 people from other countries. Although, most of the 13,000 are British it is clearly not an OCCUPYING POWER, but a VAST MULTINATIONAL nationbuilding force. Citizens of Iraq, be happy that these 19 nations understand the DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE.

[Q]"There are some nations who have expressed the desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations and I am in conversations with some ministers about this," said Mr Powell.[/Q]

This is for all of you citizens of the world who cannot understand diplomatic language like "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES". Mr. Powell is in diplomatic language stating very clearly, "HELP this is not going the way we planned. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20030719/ts_nyt/usmaybeforcedtogobacktounforiraqmandate


[Q]Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, said: "It is necessary for the UN Security Council to adopt new resolutions on the deployment of international security forces or whatever the situation requires.

"That's the most likely way of securing the participation of a large number of countries."[/Q]

Obvioulsy we have here another person that does not understand diplomatic language. Why can't the Russians see clearly that their troops are welcome because they were authorized under 1441 which reaffirmed 683 from 12 years ago? http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1057562516695


[Q]United Nations-AP -- Washington seems to be discovering that the United Nations may be useful after all in Iraq.

The U-S turned its back on the U-N after the Security Council refused to endorse the war to oust Saddam Hussein.[/Q]

Clearly the AP repoter from the United Nations is ignorant of the fact that the UN Sanctioned this war in Iraq. Can't the AP find a qualified reporter that can understand the diplomatic language? Gosh dang it all......

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q] Joint declaration by France, Russia, and
China on resolution 1441

FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

November 8, 2002


In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the security council by the executive chairman of UNMOVIC or by the director general of the IAEA. It will be then for the council to take a position on the basis of that report.[/Q]

This statement was issued on the DAY 1441 was voted on. Clearly there was an understanding that force would not be used without another vote by the Security Council.

Unless you do not understand UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm so happy you're back Dread.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'm so happy you're back Dread.

Awwww come here you lefty you and give me a

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:

Thanks Dreadsox, great points - i guess that will stop the myth that the US-led invasion of Iraq was approved by any UN mandate

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"I thought they were authorized 12 years ago? Can't these nations read????? What in the world is the Secretary General of the United Nations talking about??? Clearly he does not have a grasp of foreign affairs. Is his DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE TRANSLATOR working????"

The resolutions from 12 to 13 years ago were in regards Saddams requirments and consequences if he did not fullfill those requirements. Resolution 1483 clearly allows for other countries to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. Its ok to discuss another resolution that might settle some of the whining thats going on by some, thats diplomacy. It doesn't change the legal facts of the prior resolutions.

"Clearly the Iraqi's must be lacking in the area of diplomacy to grasp this difficult situation. The United States is CLEARLY not an OCCUPYING force. We have 13,000 people from other countries. Although, most of the 13,000 are British it is clearly not an OCCUPYING POWER, but a VAST MULTINATIONAL nationbuilding force. Citizens of Iraq, be happy that these 19 nations understand the DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE."

Perhaps you would be interested to learn of the break down of troops that initially occupied Germany after World War II, Japan after World War II, Bosnia in early 1996, Afghanistan in 2001-2003, and hundreds of other multi-national missions around the world.

What these missions all have in common is that one country usually supplies the majority of the troops, while there are several other countries that supply a small number of the remaining troops.

If Iraq is not a multi-national effort, then the above operations are not either.

I'd be interested to know specifically the number of troops and from what countries such a coalition would have to have in order for it to be considered a "true multinational force"? Could you also provide a historical example as well that would be a model for Iraq.


"This is for all of you citizens of the world who cannot understand diplomatic language like "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES". Mr. Powell is in diplomatic language stating very clearly, "HELP this is not going the way we planned. ""

No, this is Mr. Powell bending over backward to get a little more support from other nations. Thats part of his Job. That does not mean things are not going the way things were planned. Mr. Powell was apart of another administration that avoided going to Baghdad precisely because they knew of the difficulties that would follow. Its in fact been much easier than that former administration believed it would be.

"Obvioulsy we have here another person that does not understand diplomatic language. Why can't the Russians see clearly that their troops are welcome because they were authorized under 1441 which reaffirmed 683 from 12 years ago?"

Oh lets see, Moscow had 2,000 troops in Iraq advising SADDAM's military just a couple of months prior to the first Gulf War. Moscow has always had a different view of things when it has come to Iraq.

In any event, in the aftermath of the War, its resolution 1483 that provides the framework for involvement. 1441 and the other resolutions speak of Iraqs requirments and the consequences if those requirments are not met.

"Clearly the AP repoter from the United Nations is ignorant of the fact that the UN Sanctioned this war in Iraq. Can't the AP find a qualified reporter that can understand the diplomatic language? Gosh dang it all......"

Yes, please remind that the AP is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to US foreign policy. If only Colin Powell and the State Department got their instructions from the AP. Jeez.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"This statement was issued on the DAY 1441 was voted on. Clearly there was an understanding that force would not be used without another vote by the Security Council."

"Unless you do not understand UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE."

Nothing in that statement says, "any use of military force must have the approval of another UN Security Council vote".

Its obvious what "Serious Consequences" meant. If it did not mean the use of military force, why the hell can't anyone provide an alternative definition? If you have one I'd be interested to know what it is.

In any event, I'm happy that US foreign policy is decided by the USA and not the French, Russians and Chinese. I understand many prefer French Ideas on Foreign Policy and International Law, thats ok. I actually prefer some French Idea's on domestic law and government. But when it comes to international relations, I prefer the current US governments opinion.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox:

Thanks Dreadsox, great points - i guess that will stop the myth that the US-led invasion of Iraq was approved by any UN mandate

Klaus, seriously now, you really do not believe the UN used clear and concise language that authorized the use of force?

It was approved!!!!! Is your diplomatic translator working?

1483 Recognizes the United States as an Occupying Power. That means in Diplomatic Terms, friendly visitor.

1441, which had a 15-0 vote(In case you did not know it). See it was 15-0 and this means that all 15 agreed that the US can declare war. Clearly they all knew what they were voting for. It said "serious consequences" and serious consequences means :

1441 also Reaffirmed 16 other resolutions dating back 12 years These resolutions clearly give the US the power to kick the ever loving out of Iraq even though in 12 years they have not attacked another country.

Get your translator fixed!!!

 

[verte76]

Dreadsox:

Thanks Dreadsox, great points - i guess that will stop the myth that the US-led invasion of Iraq was approved by any UN mandate

Mais oui........

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

Whats your definition of Serious Consequences?

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

its the twilight zone.

come on kids, i could kill for some burgers.

 

[pax]

Let's try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum, kids.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

It's unfortunate that those in charge don't have Sting advising them. He'd set them all straight on matters of international law in a jiffy. Then all those millions of people around the world who saw the war as a unilateralist pre-emptive strike without the blessing of the international community would would realize the error of their ways.

On a serious note tho, it is looking more and more like the US will have to go back to the UN, which it couldn't be bothered with before, to get the proper approval if they hope to get much help militarally or financially. And with deficits looming and more of our troops being killed daily, I think it is obvious that the US won't be able to go it alone for too long.

One perspective from this story in the Guardian

The US is in danger of moving from a unilateralism it freely chose to an isolation it neither desired nor expected. As the costs and difficulties of reconstructing Iraq come home to Washington, it looks as if America is going to be left to bear the burden without the major aid from its friends and allies, other than Britain, that it now desperately wants.

An over-confident administration had at first assumed it would not need much help from others in Iraq. They then concluded they did need it but that it would not be too difficult to drum up. Now they are realising they are unlikely, at least in the near future, to get soldiers and financial help from other countries in anything like the quantities they had hoped.

...

The disconnection between the American view of reality and that of other countries can be amazing. Reports speak of "calls" from congressional committees - shocked by rising estimates of occupation - for "more international sharing" of those costs. Such calls are made as if international help was available on tap whenever the US should choose to turn the faucet. There seems to be scant understanding, despite everything, of the way in which American resistance to cooperation with others, not only on Iraq, might induce in them a reluctance to cooperate with America. Senator Edward Kennedy would not make this mistake, and yet even he can speak of the "best trained troops in the world" tied down in policing in Iraq as if it was self-evident, first, that they are in fact well trained, and, second, that others, not so well trained and more disposable, should take their place. As for Donald Rumsfeld, he is reduced to bizarre musings that the US, which recently closed its peacekeeping centre, might take the lead in training and gathering together an international corps of peacekeepers for use in emergencies.

...

 

[anitram]

Such calls are made as if international help was available on tap whenever the US should choose to turn the faucet.

And that's another thing that bothers me.

Let me start off by saying that I do believe a broader coalition using Muslim peacekeeping troops would likely be more welcome in Iraq.

However, it seems like certain factions within America happen to believe that the rest of the world would be just dying to send over some of their finest, sending them into death traps. Frankly, why should we? Our opinion clearly didn't count for two shits, our people are against this war, the emerging scandals over lies or exaggerations, both in the US and Britain, and I just don't understand why anybody in the USA should just think that all these other countries will readily ship over their boys to a war they didn't support and an American administration which has dealt with them dismissively since its inception.

That's not a coalition or a friendship, that's using somebody at your own convenience.

 

[STING2]

sulawesigirl4,

"It's unfortunate that those in charge don't have Sting advising them. He'd set them all straight on matters of international law in a jiffy. Then all those millions of people around the world who saw the war as a unilateralist pre-emptive strike without the blessing of the international community would would realize the error of their ways."

You always have been supportive and respectful of people with a different view point.

"On a serious note tho, it is looking more and more like the US will have to go back to the UN, which it couldn't be bothered with before, to get the proper approval if they hope to get much help militarally or financially. And with deficits looming and more of our troops being killed daily, I think it is obvious that the US won't be able to go it alone for too long."

The US never left the UN, rather other countries have been unwilling to support the process approved by the UN. I suggest you read resolution 1483.

 

[Klaus]

Sting2: well calling the UN irellevant or not paying for several years can be missinterpreted as leaving

 

[Dreadsox]

Let's try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum, kids.

yes mom