PhillyKev 0 #1 June 8, 2004 Now you guys can stop saying that some of us never say anything good. The administration was finally able to actually use diplomacy and get some postive steps forward. It's not my fault that it's the first time. U.N. Set for Unanimous Vote on Iraq Resolution Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #2 June 8, 2004 Amazing. Just a year ago I thought the UN was "irrelevant". If only the administration had worked the system then, I'm sure there'd be far fewer dead American soldiers. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #3 June 8, 2004 the article: QuoteU.N. Council Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution By Evelyn Leopold UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to adopt a U.S.-British resolution that formally ends the occupation of Iraq on June 30 and authorizes U.S.-led troops to keep the peace. In a packed council chamber, the 15-nation body endorsed a "sovereign interim government" in Iraq, following weeks of negotiations and a last minute addition by the United States and Britain on military policy that France and Germany had demanded. "The significance of this resolution ... is to take away the concept of occupation, which I would say was the main reason for many of the difficulties that we have been going through since liberation," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoghyar Zebari said in New York. The resolution attempts to pave the way for democracy by giving a timetable for elections -- not later than Jan. 31, 2005. It puts Iraq in charge of its oil proceeds and calls for the United Nations to help with elections, a constitution and many other tasks. Control of the 160,000 U.S.-led troops was the most contentious issue in the resolution, which authorizes a multinational force under American command to "use all necessary measures" to prevent violence. The United States pledged "partnership" and coordination with Iraq's leaders but did not agree to give Baghdad a virtual veto over major military offensives as France, Germany, Algeria and others had wanted. However, the resolution gives the Iraqi interim government the right to order U.S. troops to leave at any time and makes clear the mandate of the international force would expire by the end of January 2006. The Bush administration was anxious for a vote early this week on the official transfer of sovereignty so disputes over the resolution did not overshadow a summit of the Group of Eight industrial nations in Sea Island, Georgia. The resolution is expected to help patch up deep divisions on Iraq, prompted by the U.S.-led invasion, opposed by major European nations and most other countries around the world. Many diplomats praised the United States for taking account of their views and not forcing a confrontation. "I think it shows the international community coming together again to support the Iraqi people in their efforts to build a country that rests on the foundations of democracy and freedom and the rights of all," Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Washington. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The UN says it's peace keeping, not occupation, so I'm sure no more insurgents will lay in ambush or plant IEDs, and no more American troops will die. Andy, by worked the system, you mean bowed to unrelenting pressure to not do a damned thing about Saddam and Iraq? OK, seriously, according to you guys, this UN resolution is a big deal. So answer me this: what does it change? What is different?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 June 8, 2004 QuoteOK, seriously, according to you guys, this UN resolution is a big deal. So answer me this: what does it change? What is different? It means that GWB actually used diplomacy. It means that the Iraqis will actually have sovereign rule. It means the US agreed to conditions that they wouldn't have agreed to otherwise which if they didn't agree to, would have made us, once again, liars. If we didn't agree to these conditions and on June 30th said, here's your gov't, Iraq, but they can't tell us what to do with our military in your country, we're going to stay as long as we want and do what we want, it would have been more of the same old shit on the rest of the world policy GWB has practiced so far. We promised the Iraqis and the world that they would have sovereignty on June 30. Thanks to this agreement, we're upholding that commitment. If we, ocne again, said screw the UN, we'll do what we want, don't need their resolution, than it would have been another big fat lie to the world. That's a big difference. This is good, and I give GWB credit for taking this route. Christ, I finally find something good to say about the guy and you have to give me grief over it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirage63 0 #5 June 8, 2004 LOL-that's "something good" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #6 June 8, 2004 Saddam? Saddam who? Oh, the point man in the pyramid. I think we should let the sanctions work. BaaHA Ha Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month A free and democratic republic in the middle east: PRICELESS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #7 June 9, 2004 So, if we compromised, when are the Germans and French forgiving their debts? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteOK, seriously, according to you guys, this UN resolution is a big deal. So answer me this: what does it change? What is different? QuoteIt means that GWB actually used diplomacy. It means that the Iraqis will actually have sovereign rule. It means the US agreed to conditions that they wouldn't have agreed to otherwise which if they didn't agree to, would have made us, once again, liars. If we didn't agree to these conditions and on June 30th said, here's your gov't, Iraq, but they can't tell us what to do with our military in your country, we're going to stay as long as we want and do what we want, it would have been more of the same old shit on the rest of the world policy GWB has practiced so far. How do you know? QuoteWe promised the Iraqis and the world that they would have sovereignty on June 30. Thanks to this agreement, we're upholding that commitment. If we, ocne again, said screw the UN, we'll do what we want, don't need their resolution, than it would have been another big fat lie to the world. How do you know that wasn't the plan all along? QuoteThat's a big difference. This is good, and I give GWB credit for taking this route. Christ, I finally find something good to say about the guy and you have to give me grief over it It's good you are finally getting up to speed. Try and follow along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #9 June 9, 2004 How do I know? Read the news articles about it. We reluctantly agreed to those considerations in exchange for the support of the other nations. In other words, that wasn't the plan all along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #10 June 9, 2004 QuoteHow do I know? Read the news articles about it. We reluctantly agreed to those considerations in exchange for the support of the other nations. In other words, that wasn't the plan all along. It doesn't say we reluctantly agreed to anything in the article. This is simply a matter of setting the terms of returning governance to the Iraqis, which would have needed U.N. sanction anyway at some point. The only thing we reluctantly agreed to is whether the Iraqis have the right to order U.S. Troops to leave, which the PM has stated he has no intettion of doing anytime soon. As usual, the U.N. really doesn't "do" anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #11 June 9, 2004 From Scrappleface.com "U.N. Resolution Sparks Wave of Peace in Iraq (2004-06-08) -- As a new resolution on Iraq moved toward unanimous approval in the United Nations Security Council today, radical Muslims, Saddam Hussein loyalists and members of other armed groups with no links to Al Qaeda laid down their weapons and returned to their previous 9-5 jobs determined to see democracy flourish in their nation. "Finally, we have the legitimacy we crave," said an unnamed member of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. "With the blessing of France, Germany and Russia through the U.N., we may now enjoy the fruits of freedom. I can't wait to give a flower to the first blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeeper that I meet."" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 June 9, 2004 Here's a different perspective on the same story. Bush Convinces U.N. to Support Iraqi Sovereignty By Jeff Gannon Talon News June 9, 2004 WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of a resolution supporting the transfer of sovereignty to the new government of Iraq on June 30. The 15-0 vote was another victory for President Bush and his coalition partners who are now one step closer to achieving their goal of a free and democratic Iraq. France and Germany, staunch opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom, dropped their objections to the resolution after lengthy negotiations. At issue was control of American forces that will remain in Iraq to provide security and train the country's own army. The Europeans gave in when they were informed that command of U.S. forces would not be surrendered to the U.N. or Iraq. The coalition promised close coordination with Iraqi leaders in dealing with local problems like Fallujah but would not agree to give them a veto over U.S.-led offensive operations. The U.N. resolution allows the coalition to keep forces in Iraq to provide security, but gives the Iraqi government the right to ask them to leave at any time. Iraq's new leader dismissed a suggestion that U.S. troops would be asked to leave before the elections. Interim President Ghazi al-Yawer told reporters, "We are working together. These people are in our country to help us." Before the vote, President Bush said that unanimous approval would send a signal that the nations of the world "are interested in working together to make sure Iraq is free, peaceful and democratic." Bush added, "These nations understand that a free Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change in the broader Middle East, which is an important part of winning the war on terror." It is doubtful that nations voting for the resolution will contribute troops to Iraq, but it is likely they will forgive much of the debt incurred by the former regime and provide economic aid. "I expect nations to contribute as they see fit," Bush said. The resolution is expected to give the new Iraqi government greater legitimacy while the nation prepares for direct elections later this year. It also provides for a special representative of the Secretary General and the U.N. assistance mission for Iraq to help organize those elections. The U.N. will also assist in the drafting of a constitution. Additional provisions of the resolution condemn all acts of terrorism in Iraq and call upon member states to prevent the transit of terrorists to and from Iraq. The resolution also asks that those nations act to stop weapons and financing from being delivered to terrorists in Iraq. Key foreign leaders were optimistic about the future of Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "We all now want to put divisions of the past behind us and unite behind the vision of a modern and stable Iraq that can be a force for good, not just for Iraqis but for the whole region and thus the whole world." Russian President Vladimir Putin said, "Without any exaggeration, I would state that it is a major step forward." Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #13 June 9, 2004 QuoteThe significance of this resolution ... is to take away the concept of occupation, So now you agree with the policies, but only aftye a mostly liberal organisation signed off on the same ones. Lemme put it this way - You give props to Bush for convincing the UN that what we are doing is right, but only if you call it by another name. "I voted for the bill before I voted against it"I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #14 June 10, 2004 No...I've always agreed with giving Iraq sovereignty. Up until this point, that wasn't the policy. It was the stated policy, but it was empty words. Only after we agreed to certain conditions did our stated policy become a reality. And Gravitymaster, read some other articles. Do some research. Powell's own words that were we "reluctantly agreed" to those conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #15 June 10, 2004 Let me ask something to those hard line right wingers on here, you know who you are, that are arguing with me in this thread for complimenting the adminstration on doing something positive. Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,131 #16 June 10, 2004 >Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN > approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to > argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? Or it may be that they simply do not want to see the UN achieve any sort of success in Iraq. That might lend legitimacy to an organization they despise and fear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #17 June 10, 2004 You only see this as a huge positive step because you believe the administration has, is, and would have continued to do everything wrong. Somehow you image the UN involvement will change things. I really don't understand why you think that. There are not new troops going in. US troops will still not go under the command of non US officers. The resolution doesn't require anything we weren't dedicated to anyway. The only thing in there that the adminstration didn't ask for is the "troops will leave if asked" provision. I don't see that as a big detriment to anyone. No one would ask us to leave, but if they did, it would only showthat the US and Brits were the only thing holding it all together.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #18 June 10, 2004 QuoteLet me ask something to those hard line right wingers on here, you know who you are, that are arguing with me in this thread for complimenting the adminstration on doing something positive. Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? My view is this is nothing unexpected. At some point this was going to have to happen to lend some legitimacy to the new Iraqi Government. Yes, it's a positive step because it shows progress. On the other hand, the U.N. is only doing this because they can't wait to get their greedy little hands on those oil contracts again. Why else would they agree to the resolution but yet refuse to send troops? Wonder how Volkkers "Investigation" is going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #19 June 10, 2004 Quote>Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN > approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to > argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? Or it may be that they simply do not want to see the UN achieve any sort of success in Iraq. That might lend legitimacy to an organization they despise and fear. To acheive success, you must "do" something. What has the U.N. done that they can claim was successful? Oh, I know. They finally made that cowboy Bush jump when they said jump, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhillyKev 0 #9 June 9, 2004 How do I know? Read the news articles about it. We reluctantly agreed to those considerations in exchange for the support of the other nations. In other words, that wasn't the plan all along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 June 9, 2004 QuoteHow do I know? Read the news articles about it. We reluctantly agreed to those considerations in exchange for the support of the other nations. In other words, that wasn't the plan all along. It doesn't say we reluctantly agreed to anything in the article. This is simply a matter of setting the terms of returning governance to the Iraqis, which would have needed U.N. sanction anyway at some point. The only thing we reluctantly agreed to is whether the Iraqis have the right to order U.S. Troops to leave, which the PM has stated he has no intettion of doing anytime soon. As usual, the U.N. really doesn't "do" anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 June 9, 2004 From Scrappleface.com "U.N. Resolution Sparks Wave of Peace in Iraq (2004-06-08) -- As a new resolution on Iraq moved toward unanimous approval in the United Nations Security Council today, radical Muslims, Saddam Hussein loyalists and members of other armed groups with no links to Al Qaeda laid down their weapons and returned to their previous 9-5 jobs determined to see democracy flourish in their nation. "Finally, we have the legitimacy we crave," said an unnamed member of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. "With the blessing of France, Germany and Russia through the U.N., we may now enjoy the fruits of freedom. I can't wait to give a flower to the first blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeeper that I meet."" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 June 9, 2004 Here's a different perspective on the same story. Bush Convinces U.N. to Support Iraqi Sovereignty By Jeff Gannon Talon News June 9, 2004 WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of a resolution supporting the transfer of sovereignty to the new government of Iraq on June 30. The 15-0 vote was another victory for President Bush and his coalition partners who are now one step closer to achieving their goal of a free and democratic Iraq. France and Germany, staunch opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom, dropped their objections to the resolution after lengthy negotiations. At issue was control of American forces that will remain in Iraq to provide security and train the country's own army. The Europeans gave in when they were informed that command of U.S. forces would not be surrendered to the U.N. or Iraq. The coalition promised close coordination with Iraqi leaders in dealing with local problems like Fallujah but would not agree to give them a veto over U.S.-led offensive operations. The U.N. resolution allows the coalition to keep forces in Iraq to provide security, but gives the Iraqi government the right to ask them to leave at any time. Iraq's new leader dismissed a suggestion that U.S. troops would be asked to leave before the elections. Interim President Ghazi al-Yawer told reporters, "We are working together. These people are in our country to help us." Before the vote, President Bush said that unanimous approval would send a signal that the nations of the world "are interested in working together to make sure Iraq is free, peaceful and democratic." Bush added, "These nations understand that a free Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change in the broader Middle East, which is an important part of winning the war on terror." It is doubtful that nations voting for the resolution will contribute troops to Iraq, but it is likely they will forgive much of the debt incurred by the former regime and provide economic aid. "I expect nations to contribute as they see fit," Bush said. The resolution is expected to give the new Iraqi government greater legitimacy while the nation prepares for direct elections later this year. It also provides for a special representative of the Secretary General and the U.N. assistance mission for Iraq to help organize those elections. The U.N. will also assist in the drafting of a constitution. Additional provisions of the resolution condemn all acts of terrorism in Iraq and call upon member states to prevent the transit of terrorists to and from Iraq. The resolution also asks that those nations act to stop weapons and financing from being delivered to terrorists in Iraq. Key foreign leaders were optimistic about the future of Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "We all now want to put divisions of the past behind us and unite behind the vision of a modern and stable Iraq that can be a force for good, not just for Iraqis but for the whole region and thus the whole world." Russian President Vladimir Putin said, "Without any exaggeration, I would state that it is a major step forward." Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #13 June 9, 2004 QuoteThe significance of this resolution ... is to take away the concept of occupation, So now you agree with the policies, but only aftye a mostly liberal organisation signed off on the same ones. Lemme put it this way - You give props to Bush for convincing the UN that what we are doing is right, but only if you call it by another name. "I voted for the bill before I voted against it"I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 June 10, 2004 No...I've always agreed with giving Iraq sovereignty. Up until this point, that wasn't the policy. It was the stated policy, but it was empty words. Only after we agreed to certain conditions did our stated policy become a reality. And Gravitymaster, read some other articles. Do some research. Powell's own words that were we "reluctantly agreed" to those conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 June 10, 2004 Let me ask something to those hard line right wingers on here, you know who you are, that are arguing with me in this thread for complimenting the adminstration on doing something positive. Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #16 June 10, 2004 >Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN > approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to > argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? Or it may be that they simply do not want to see the UN achieve any sort of success in Iraq. That might lend legitimacy to an organization they despise and fear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #17 June 10, 2004 You only see this as a huge positive step because you believe the administration has, is, and would have continued to do everything wrong. Somehow you image the UN involvement will change things. I really don't understand why you think that. There are not new troops going in. US troops will still not go under the command of non US officers. The resolution doesn't require anything we weren't dedicated to anyway. The only thing in there that the adminstration didn't ask for is the "troops will leave if asked" provision. I don't see that as a big detriment to anyone. No one would ask us to leave, but if they did, it would only showthat the US and Brits were the only thing holding it all together.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 June 10, 2004 QuoteLet me ask something to those hard line right wingers on here, you know who you are, that are arguing with me in this thread for complimenting the adminstration on doing something positive. Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? My view is this is nothing unexpected. At some point this was going to have to happen to lend some legitimacy to the new Iraqi Government. Yes, it's a positive step because it shows progress. On the other hand, the U.N. is only doing this because they can't wait to get their greedy little hands on those oil contracts again. Why else would they agree to the resolution but yet refuse to send troops? Wonder how Volkkers "Investigation" is going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 June 10, 2004 Quote>Is it because you don't think it's a good thing that they got UN > approval at all? Or is it that you are so partisan that you have to > argue with anyone that you perceive as not towing your party line? Or it may be that they simply do not want to see the UN achieve any sort of success in Iraq. That might lend legitimacy to an organization they despise and fear. To acheive success, you must "do" something. What has the U.N. done that they can claim was successful? Oh, I know. They finally made that cowboy Bush jump when they said jump, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
