China rallies behind war opponents

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
China has said there is no need for a new resolution on Iraq, dealing a fresh blow to US efforts to push a second motion through the UN.

However China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxun did not say whether Beijing would resort to a veto in a vote on a second resolution in the Security Council, which is deeply divided over whether military action against Iraq is necessary.

In another development, President George W Bush is to hold a news conference on prime-time television on Thursday night (0100 GMT Friday).

The White House has denied a rumour that the US has caught al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, and said the news conference is "not a scheduled announcement of anything". "It's an opportunity for people to ask questions and for the president to discuss what's on his mind," spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

On the eve of a crucial report about progress on Iraqi disarmament to the Security Council, it has emerged that the UK and US are considering setting a tight deadline giving Iraq a final opportunity to disarm peacefully under their proposed second resolution.

Sources in London said the draft resolution co-sponsored by the UK, US and Spain could be amended in an attempt to secure the support necessary for the proposal to succeed in the Security Council.

However, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has now said he would be willing to go to war against Iraq even if more than one country vetoed a second UN resolution.

Threshold of conflict?

Against the diplomatic backdrop, military preparations for possible war are gathering pace.

Washington has revealed that aircraft from the US and British forces enforcing the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have more than doubled the number of their patrols.

Pentagon planners hope that by dramatically increasing flights in this way, they will be able to mask the start of any conflict.

In other developments:

* Three Iraqi civilians were killed when US and UK warplanes bombed targets in the southern "no-fly" zone overnight, Iraqi officials said

* Five suspected Islamic militants were arrested and a large amount of weapons and ammunition are seized in Kuwait

* Russia says it is evacuating about 600 of its workers and their families from Baghdad

* Japan tells its nationals in Kuwait, the Khafji area of Saudi Arabia and Israel to leave at once

* Two Iraqi UN diplomats are ordered to quit the US within 72 hours for "activities incompatible with their status"

* The Iraq crisis is expected to dominate talks between German and Italian leaders.

Diplomatic pace

China's foreign minister, speaking before leaving for the UN on Thursday, said: "We think it is not necessary to introduce any new resolution".

Tang Jiaxuan said he backed France, Germany and Russia, who have threatened to block any resolution paving the way for war with Iraq.

Russia has repeatedly said it might use its veto.

But French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Thursday that the use of the veto "wasn't an issue" because the majority of council members supported France's position.

The BBC's Francis Markus in Shanghai says China's pragmatic instincts make it reluctant to jeopardise an improving relationship with Washington by using its veto against a war it knows might well go ahead anyway.

Efforts to bridge the deep divisions in the Security Council over disarming Iraq have been continuing.

A spokesman for the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said all kinds of ideas were being considered.

Well-informed sources in London say the UK and US are discussing how far they can move to draw support from six uncommitted members of the Security Council.

However, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that US patience is running short.

"Nothing we have seen since the passage of [UN Security Council resolution] 1441 indicates that Saddam... has taken that strategic and political decision to disarm," Mr Powell told the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2825519.stm
 
The Raytheon building next door to where I work has been 'buzzing' all day.
 
I hate to admit it, (sorry Gonz), but I'm starting to think the same thing myself. IF, and only IF, they actually keep looking, and Iraq keeps cooperating. Any more signs of them not, and we go kick some ass.
 
Wow, first Hex and now PT. Looks like Saddam's campaign of "stall long enough and their reesolve will weaken" is working.

Well, WTF, those tactics have worked well for 12 years, why not again.
 
HomeLAN said:
Wow, first Hex and now PT. Looks like Saddam's campaign of "stall long enough and their reesolve will weaken" is working.

Well, WTF, those tactics have worked well for 12 years, why not again.
Exactly. Why not again?


And so the brainwashing is successful.... "PEACE PEACE PEACE" blah, No worries folks, Saddam is a nice guy and will willingfully disarm...

Well, France and Germany shares that opinion ;)
 
No war!! .. I dun wan' CNN breakin' into mah 'rasslin show with all o' that them there briefn's and whatnot. I can't be bothah'd with Gen-ral yakkity yak talkin' bout tanks and see-villians whan I'm a-tryin to watch HHH put tha sleeper on Rey Mysterio.

*spits*
 
Its not Germany, France, or Brtiain that makes me wonder about this, and it's certainly not Saddam. It's that I wonder if sending our troops to Iraq right now is the wisest course of action.
 
I've got more to say about this, but I'm still mulling it over, I'll try to put it all in words and post either later tonight or tomorrow with it.
 
Squiggy said:
Even Btritain is now saying the inspectors should be given more time.....

my understanding is that britian itself was against the war it was only one guy who supported bush but he wasnt supported by his country. unless i got bad facts or facts confused.\



unclehobart said:
If we offered Saddam a lifetime supply of viagra, do you think he would disarm for real?

possibly he could be compensating. then again he could just be an asshole(which is my guess) in which case hell be horny and armed.


Jerrek said:
And so the brainwashing is successful.... "PEACE PEACE PEACE" blah, No worries folks, Saddam is a nice guy and will willingfully disarm...


whered you get that from?? noone said hes a nice guy the peace protesters are against him we just dont like the idea of innocence dying for power and oil. i for one doubted hed disarm but i wasnt sure if hed ever use it on anyone.





and the list of countries against the war grows. i guess America is alone now.
 
Ok, here's my take on it.

First of all, I do believe it is necessary to remove Saddam from power. This should be at the head of our intentions. How to do that? I'm just not sure. I have a hard time believing the only way to do this is to start a full scale war, although I also realize that the sanctions that were put in place were for this very purpose, however, they aren't working.

So, we bring it back again. What should we do? I don't think the proper course of action is to sit and wait as some people want. The inspections are doing some good, but then we also have the question of whether or not Saddam is still playing a cat and mouse game or if he's actually cooperating. I think it's somewhere in between what Saddam says and what Bush says. I don't think that everything he does is part of a huge deception, but I don't think he's really cooperating the best he could either. I don't think I would be if I were in his shoes either though, give up all your weapons when you know the largest army in the world wants you dead? I don't think so.

So I guess I'm just struggling with the morality of it, do we have the right to step in? What are the dangers if we don't? What are the dangers if we do? That last question I think is alot of what has me thinking right now. We know or at least are pretty sure that Saddam has ties to terrorists. What kind of retribution are we to expect from a war with Iraq? and, what kind of crap is this going to start with N. Korea? If I recall correctly he has said that if we do a preemptive strike against Iraq because Iraq may use their weapons against us in the future, what is to stop him from doing a preemptive strike against us because we might use our weapons against him in the future. Not too shabby of logic there, in my opinion. Can we really afford to start WW3 over this? That is what it's getting to, we now have France, Germany, Russia, and China saying no to this war. Can we really afford to piss them off right now? France and Germany, Yeah, they aren't much anyway. Russia surely has plenty of armament left over, and god knows who in control of it all, China, although from what I hear lack the technical advancements we have in our military still could do some severe damage just by thier sheer size.

Ok, I think I'm done for now, still not completely sure of this....
 
So I guess I'm just struggling with the morality of it, do we have the right to step in? What are the dangers if we don't? What are the dangers if we do? That last question I think is alot of what has me thinking right now. We know or at least are pretty sure that Saddam has ties to terrorists. What kind of retribution are we to expect from a war with Iraq?

I'm sure it'll be as much as he can throw at us.

On the other hand, what can we expect if we don't? You're right, we ARE pretty sure this guy funds and supports terrorists. So, which is worse, take him out and risk some attacks now, or allow him to harbor and protect those who would launch more (and more damaging) attacks later? Why let him continue to help our enemies regroup?

and, what kind of crap is this going to start with N. Korea? If I recall correctly he has said that if we do a preemptive strike against Iraq because Iraq may use their weapons against us in the future, what is to stop him from doing a preemptive strike against us because we might use our weapons against him in the future. Not too shabby of logic there, in my opinion. Can we really afford to start WW3 over this?

Korea has its own agenda. While I agree with you that they are a present threat, and I do believe Bush is underplaying the situation there, I think it's entirely possible that thjis can be resolved through diplomacy IF THEIR NEIGHBORS HELP. That's a big if. I'm really not sure that whatever happens in Iraq bothers the Koreans at all.

That is what it's getting to, we now have France, Germany, Russia, and China saying no to this war. Can we really afford to piss them off right now? France and Germany, Yeah, they aren't much anyway. Russia surely has plenty of armament left over, and god knows who in control of it all, China, although from what I hear lack the technical advancements we have in our military still could do some severe damage just by thier sheer size.

Name me one serious engagement where the Chinese have sided with us. That's just status quo. The Russians will come around, once someone reminds them in no uncertain terms that Chechnia makes them a player in this game as well, and they should be helping us. As for Germany and France, I think they're flat-out scared of their own muslim populations.

To me, the greater threat lies in leaving this guy in place to provide a safe base ops and funding to terrorist groups.
 
HomeLAN said:
Name me one serious engagement where the Chinese have sided with us.

maybe im wrong but were they on our side in WWII since they were against the Japanese? other than that and even then im in doubt.


PuterTutor said:
First of all, I do believe it is necessary to remove Saddam from power. This should be at the head of our intentions. How to do that? I'm just not sure


noone knows really pt. its not clear cut. there is more than one way and i think its one of those no matter what were damned. go with the lesser of two evils. unfortunatly there isnt one less evil than another.






i heard on the radio a while back Hussein wanted to get into a debate with bush rather than war but bush refused :shrug: i wanted to know if anyone else heard this or not.
 
Yeah, he did make the offer freako, but I don't disagree with Bush's refusal either. It would have just been a pissing contest with no clear winner.

The only way I see to do this is to have the man assasinated. Why we haven't done this sometime in the past 12 years astounds me. Surely the cia has some guy they are willing to lose to get this task done. I'm sure we could even make it look like we had nothing to do with it if they wanted to.
 
HomeLAN said:
So, which is worse, take him out and risk some attacks now, or allow him to harbor and protect those who would launch more (and more damaging) attacks later? Why let him continue to help our enemies regroup?

Good point, I just hate to think we might actually need that plastic wrap and duct tape, or bottled water. The attack on the WTC was minor compared to what could be done.

HomeLAN said:
I'm really not sure that whatever happens in Iraq bothers the Koreans at all.
I don't think it really bothers them either, in fact, they could probably give a shit if we do or don't. However, this could also be used as an excuse by them in the future.
 
Back
Top