[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......
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......