Iraq: Friday deadline

tweedyburd · 11-12-2002, 11:37 PM

Iraqi lawmakers reject U.N. resolution
By Sameer N. Yacoub
ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers denounced a tough, new U.N. resolution on weapons inspections yesterday as dishonest, provocative and worthy of rejection, despite the risk of war. But parliament said it will trust whatever President Saddam Hussein decides.

One after the other, senior lawmakers rejected the resolution, the latest in a long effort to ensure Iraq scraps its weapons of mass destruction. This time, however, the United States and Britain have made clear they will attack Iraq if it does not fully comply.
Saadoun Hamadi, speaker of Iraq's parliament, said the resolution was stacked with "ill intentions," "falsehood," "lies" and "dishonesty." Salim al-Koubaisi, head of parliament's foreign relations committee, recommended rejecting the resolution but also advised deferring to the "wise Iraqi leadership" to act as it sees fit to defend Iraq's people and dignity.
"The committee advises the rejection of Security Council Resolution 1441 and to not agree to it in response to the opinions of our people, who put their trust in us," Mr. al-Koubaisi told fellow lawmakers.
Saddam has used parliament's action as cover for difficult decisions in the past, and harsh rhetoric does not necessarily mean parliament will reject the proposal. Saddam ordered parliament to recommend a formal response, and lawmakers were expected to vote on recommendations for the Iraqi leadership today.
Iraq has until Friday to accept or reject the resolution, approved unanimously last week by the U.N. Security Council. Exactly when on Friday was left intentionally vague in the resolution, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
There are numerous interpretations for the deadline: one week from the minute the resolution was adopted, the minute Iraq was notified, the end of business Friday or midnight Friday. It is up to the Security Council to interpret its own resolution, Mr. Eckhard said.
If Saddam does not follow through, a Pentagon plan calls for more than 200,000 troops to invade Iraq.
Parliament's advice on the new U.N. resolution, which demands that Iraq cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences," will go to the Revolutionary Command Council, Iraq's ruling body, led by Saddam.
Should parliament recommend acceptance, it would allow Saddam to say the decision was the will of the Iraqi people and more smoothly retreat from previous objections to any new resolution governing weapons inspections.
In Washington, President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, rejected the legitimacy of the parliament debate.
"One has to be a bit skeptical of the independence of the Iraqi parliament from Saddam Hussein," she said. "I don't think anyone believes this is anything but an absolute dictatorship and this decision is up to Saddam Hussein."
She also said Iraq has no right to accept or reject the resolution. "They are obligated to accept, but the U.N. thought it best to ask for return-receipt requested," Miss Rice said.
On Sunday, Arab League foreign ministers ended meetings in Cairo with a final communique urging cooperation between Iraq and the United Nations. The Arab ministers also called on the United States to commit to pledges Syria said it received that the resolution could not be used to justify military action. They also put forward a united position of "absolute rejection" of military action.
The Iraqi parliament is stacked with Saddam's allies. During opening speeches aired live on Iraqi television, lawmakers applauded every mention of Saddam's name in speeches praising "His Excellency Mr. President, the holy warrior leader Saddam Hussein."
Wafa Samir, a 30-year-old teacher, watched the speeches on television at a Baghdad shopping center. "For how long will they keep issuing resolutions and expect Iraq to implement them?" she asked. "They have to stop sometime for the Iraqis' sake."
On convening the session, Mr. Hamadi, the parliament speaker, told lawmakers that the resolution "does not have the minimum of fairness, objectivity and balance" and violates international law.
"The ill intentions in this resolution are flagrant and loud in ignoring all the work that has been achieved in past years and takes the issue back to square one," Mr. Hamadi said. "This resolution *******s many impossible demands that can't be executed."

Irrelevant · 11-12-2002, 11:38 PM

good for them. the resolution is bullshit.

all bush ever talks about is iraq this, iraq that. he's got a complex.

ammy · 11-12-2002, 11:40 PM

to sum it all up: THE END IS COMING IN LESS THAN A WEEK, tell your loved ones you love them.

BeautifulLoser · 11-12-2002, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ammy
to sum it all up: THE END IS COMING IN LESS THAN A WEEK, tell your loved ones you love them.

At least I'm pretty sure that I'm not going anywhere this time. I could be wrong though. I've already been to Kuwait once, don't want to go back to that region of the world again.

frail_and_bedazzled · 11-13-2002, 12:00 AM

oh, what's that i see? why, it's the four horsemen of the apocalypse! and they've got balloon animals!

jenn · 11-13-2002, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ammy
to sum it all up: THE END IS COMING IN LESS THAN A WEEK, tell your loved ones you love them.

exactly. <3 netphoria.

tweedyburd · 11-13-2002, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by killtheyouth
besides, logistics will dictate that we don't move for a while either. it'll take weeks to get all the troops and supplies ready for an invasion.

We've had thousands of troops stationed in the general area for months now. Everything has been ready to go for some time--it was just a matter of going through the motions.

Oh, and always a good chuckle to see all the comments about the end of the world, WWIII, etc being voiced with even a mild amount of sincerity.

tweedyburd · 11-13-2002, 01:01 AM

The last I read it was nearly a quarter million troops.

PkPhuoko · 11-13-2002, 01:30 AM

killtheyouth

1) war during "jesus's b-day" is bad politics? That was thrown out the window years ago. Flashback to the previous battles in the region. Iraq and Saddam have purposely started shit during christmas holidays as it puts strain on military forces. Since then the military has adjusted to the mentality "saddam wont call timeout during the holidays and neither will we" The only religious holidays we take into consideration during war are muslim holidays... why? Because if we attack it'll be easier to point a holy war. If the time is right we'll attack during xmas. If we don't do it you better believe saddam will. Its almost his trademark move.

2) There are almost a third of the troops needed for the operation in the region. The supplies have been collected since 9-11 of last year. Since the gulfwar the military has adopted a deployment program where a large chunk of the military is ready to deply at anytime. Meaning, tomorrow if the call was made we could have about 50k in surrouding areas by tomorrow. By the end of the week we'd have about 75% of what was needed. Won't take much... the military has been waiting for the go ahead for over a year.

3) I think you're severely over estimating how this war with Iraq will happen. Since the last gulf war we've started to rely on the b-2s more. You wont see 100 fighter jets over baghdad bombing and fighting off anti-aircraft fire. You'll more likely hear about b-2s flying in undetected with minimal opposition and knocking out more precision targets in a more timely matter. The actual bombing shouldnt last over a week. It took us all of 2 days to dismantle the meat of the Iraqi army and air force last time which they have yet to recover from. We wont waste money having b-52s carpet bomb and take the risk of losing 100's of americans... we'll likely rely on 16 planes that have minimal risk.

The big thing will be going around and actually disarming which is where the unkown lies. If Saddam is going down he'll likely do it in a blaze of glory. I think thats a given.... the job is to control that "blaze"

Karl Malone · 11-13-2002, 01:41 AM

Karl Malone think W. won't actually bomb Iraq. He'll just keep giving them more time.

11-12-2002, 11:37 PM	#1
tweedyburd Ownz Location: greensboro, nc U.S. Posts: 708	Iraq: Friday deadline Iraqi lawmakers reject U.N. resolution By Sameer N. Yacoub ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers denounced a tough, new U.N. resolution on weapons inspections yesterday as dishonest, provocative and worthy of rejection, despite the risk of war. But parliament said it will trust whatever President Saddam Hussein decides. One after the other, senior lawmakers rejected the resolution, the latest in a long effort to ensure Iraq scraps its weapons of mass destruction. This time, however, the United States and Britain have made clear they will attack Iraq if it does not fully comply. Saadoun Hamadi, speaker of Iraq's parliament, said the resolution was stacked with "ill intentions," "falsehood," "lies" and "dishonesty." Salim al-Koubaisi, head of parliament's foreign relations committee, recommended rejecting the resolution but also advised deferring to the "wise Iraqi leadership" to act as it sees fit to defend Iraq's people and dignity. "The committee advises the rejection of Security Council Resolution 1441 and to not agree to it in response to the opinions of our people, who put their trust in us," Mr. al-Koubaisi told fellow lawmakers. Saddam has used parliament's action as cover for difficult decisions in the past, and harsh rhetoric does not necessarily mean parliament will reject the proposal. Saddam ordered parliament to recommend a formal response, and lawmakers were expected to vote on recommendations for the Iraqi leadership today. Iraq has until Friday to accept or reject the resolution, approved unanimously last week by the U.N. Security Council. Exactly when on Friday was left intentionally vague in the resolution, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said. There are numerous interpretations for the deadline: one week from the minute the resolution was adopted, the minute Iraq was notified, the end of business Friday or midnight Friday. It is up to the Security Council to interpret its own resolution, Mr. Eckhard said. If Saddam does not follow through, a Pentagon plan calls for more than 200,000 troops to invade Iraq. Parliament's advice on the new U.N. resolution, which demands that Iraq cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences," will go to the Revolutionary Command Council, Iraq's ruling body, led by Saddam. Should parliament recommend acceptance, it would allow Saddam to say the decision was the will of the Iraqi people and more smoothly retreat from previous objections to any new resolution governing weapons inspections. In Washington, President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, rejected the legitimacy of the parliament debate. "One has to be a bit skeptical of the independence of the Iraqi parliament from Saddam Hussein," she said. "I don't think anyone believes this is anything but an absolute dictatorship and this decision is up to Saddam Hussein." She also said Iraq has no right to accept or reject the resolution. "They are obligated to accept, but the U.N. thought it best to ask for return-receipt requested," Miss Rice said. On Sunday, Arab League foreign ministers ended meetings in Cairo with a final communique urging cooperation between Iraq and the United Nations. The Arab ministers also called on the United States to commit to pledges Syria said it received that the resolution could not be used to justify military action. They also put forward a united position of "absolute rejection" of military action. The Iraqi parliament is stacked with Saddam's allies. During opening speeches aired live on Iraqi television, lawmakers applauded every mention of Saddam's name in speeches praising "His Excellency Mr. President, the holy warrior leader Saddam Hussein." Wafa Samir, a 30-year-old teacher, watched the speeches on television at a Baghdad shopping center. "For how long will they keep issuing resolutions and expect Iraq to implement them?" she asked. "They have to stop sometime for the Iraqis' sake." On convening the session, Mr. Hamadi, the parliament speaker, told lawmakers that the resolution "does not have the minimum of fairness, objectivity and balance" and violates international law. "The ill intentions in this resolution are flagrant and loud in ignoring all the work that has been achieved in past years and takes the issue back to square one," Mr. Hamadi said. "This resolution *******s many impossible demands that can't be executed."

11-12-2002, 11:38 PM	#2
Irrelevant Minion of Satan Location: kitties Posts: 6,842	good for them. the resolution is bullshit. all bush ever talks about is iraq this, iraq that. he's got a complex.

11-12-2002, 11:40 PM	#3
ammy yer mom Posts: 23,180	to sum it all up: THE END IS COMING IN LESS THAN A WEEK, tell your loved ones you love them.

11-13-2002, 12:00 AM	#5
frail_and_bedazzled Ownz Location: lon guyland Posts: 880	oh, what's that i see? why, it's the four horsemen of the apocalypse! and they've got balloon animals!

11-13-2002, 01:01 AM	#8
tweedyburd Ownz Location: greensboro, nc U.S. Posts: 708	The last I read it was nearly a quarter million troops.

11-13-2002, 01:30 AM	#9
PkPhuoko Minion of Satan Posts: 6,309	killtheyouth 1) war during "jesus's b-day" is bad politics? That was thrown out the window years ago. Flashback to the previous battles in the region. Iraq and Saddam have purposely started shit during christmas holidays as it puts strain on military forces. Since then the military has adjusted to the mentality "saddam wont call timeout during the holidays and neither will we" The only religious holidays we take into consideration during war are muslim holidays... why? Because if we attack it'll be easier to point a holy war. If the time is right we'll attack during xmas. If we don't do it you better believe saddam will. Its almost his trademark move. 2) There are almost a third of the troops needed for the operation in the region. The supplies have been collected since 9-11 of last year. Since the gulfwar the military has adopted a deployment program where a large chunk of the military is ready to deply at anytime. Meaning, tomorrow if the call was made we could have about 50k in surrouding areas by tomorrow. By the end of the week we'd have about 75% of what was needed. Won't take much... the military has been waiting for the go ahead for over a year. 3) I think you're severely over estimating how this war with Iraq will happen. Since the last gulf war we've started to rely on the b-2s more. You wont see 100 fighter jets over baghdad bombing and fighting off anti-aircraft fire. You'll more likely hear about b-2s flying in undetected with minimal opposition and knocking out more precision targets in a more timely matter. The actual bombing shouldnt last over a week. It took us all of 2 days to dismantle the meat of the Iraqi army and air force last time which they have yet to recover from. We wont waste money having b-52s carpet bomb and take the risk of losing 100's of americans... we'll likely rely on 16 planes that have minimal risk. The big thing will be going around and actually disarming which is where the unkown lies. If Saddam is going down he'll likely do it in a blaze of glory. I think thats a given.... the job is to control that "blaze"

11-13-2002, 01:41 AM	#10
Karl Malone BANNED Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 254	Karl Malone think W. won't actually bomb Iraq. He'll just keep giving them more time.