Russia May Use Veto Power to Stop War

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Reuters
Tuesday, March 4, 2003; 10:38 AM

By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Tuesday that Moscow would not support any measure leading to a war on Iraq and might be prepared to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council.

"Russia has this right and if the situation so demands, Russia will of course use its right of veto -- as an extreme measure -- to avoid the worst development of the situation," Ivanov said, according to a translated version of a BBC World Service interview in London.

"Russia would not support any decision that would directly or indirectly lead to a war with Iraq," he added.

Ivanov said Moscow, which like China, France and Germany opposes the hawkish stance by Washington and London against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, would not abstain in any future U.N. Security Council vote on Iraq.

"To abstain is a position that could not take place. Russia is not indifferent to the future of Iraq," he said. "Russia will not abstain. It will take a particular position."

Ivanov insisted that unanimity in the Security Council, rather than talk of veto-wielding, was the best way to pressure Saddam into disarming.

"Only unanimity will provide success in the solution of the Iraqi problem," he said. "In the past Iraq used the differences in the Security Council and has managed to avoid solutions."

Ivanov called for concrete time-limits to be set by U.N. inspectors -- led by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei -- to complete their work. "We insist that Blix and ElBaradei on March 7 give a clear plan for work ... and say how long it will take them," he said. "All we have asked Iraq to do so far, Iraq has carried out. Therefore, the inspectors should set out a concrete plan for their activity."

Ivanov said it would be a "serious mistake with serious consequences" if the United States went to war against Iraq without a second resolution, but declined to say what action if any Russia would take in response. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39471-2003Mar4.html
 
If Saddam can get away with ignoring the will of the UN, I don't see why we can't either. Ignoring the UN is a 'same game, different year' situation. Its dead. Bury it.
 
agreed unc, the administration is going to do what it wants, it just wants a UN resolution to legitimize it's actions.
 
They may not have to veto it.

WASHINGTON - With other nations' opposition hardening, the Bush administration left open the possibility Tuesday that it would not seek a United Nations (news - web sites) vote on its war-making resolution if the measure was clearly headed for defeat.
 
unclehobart said:
If Saddam can get away with ignoring the will of the UN, I don't see why we can't either. Ignoring the UN is a 'same game, different year' situation. Its dead. Bury it.

So we can attack them for defying the UN even if we have to defy the UN to do it....:confuse3: The REASON we are using to attack will be the status under which we attack. Good plan. :wink2:
 
I imagine that Washington would like to let Russia save some face in this regard....China too, for that matter, so once again the French get to hide behind ancillary diplomacy....

The UN is finished as an institution, I think. Oh, it'll continue to meet, and everyone will still spend this country's money...

But as for being a force for anything other than Madison Ave. geo-political flash...well....I just don't see much beyond that now.

I DO think it's quite funny , though, that the Russians actually said that everything required of Iraq has been done thus far...

hmmm..silly me...I was under the impression that they were to make a full and accurate account of their weapons programs, including specifically their prohibited ones...

...and aren't they now destroying missiles that are prohibited that were , amazingly enough, left out of that full and accurate accounting?

..oh, that's right...they only exceed the maximum limit by 20% or so...which by some definition created by Hussein is acceptable....

so they must not have counted....

MADrin
 
madrin said:
...and aren't they now destroying missiles that are prohibited that were , amazingly enough, left out of that full and accurate accounting?

hehe, slight oversight? :headbang:
 
Madrin, The missles were allowed. The range was determined to exceed the allowable limit but they were never tested, as requested by Sadam. We don't even know if they were actually capable of exceeding the allowed range and still they are being destroyed. And still no WMDs which we swore they had because of our top notch intelligence....Face it. Our position in this sucks.
 
Russia, PLEASE veto it. And France, PLEASE veto it. After the resolution fails due to a veto, the U.S. will attack Iraq anyway and that will be the end of the U.N. And the day I get drunk. :D
 
Squiggy said:
unclehobart said:
If Saddam can get away with ignoring the will of the UN, I don't see why we can't either. Ignoring the UN is a 'same game, different year' situation. Its dead. Bury it.

So we can attack them for defying the UN even if we have to defy the UN to do it....:confuse3: The REASON we are using to attack will be the status under which we attack. Good plan. :wink2:
Were not ignoring a cease and desist order in long standing like Iraq is. Were just asking the UN for a little backup in solving the mess theyve refused to clean up all of these years. If we have to do it alone and take the heat for being a bully like weve always done, so be it. This is on the raw ragged edge of becoming a protracted joke like Cuba and Korea. I don't want to keep seeing billions going into containment efforts until the end of time. If any lesson is to be learned, it is that when you see a cancer, you need to cut it out quickly. Im sick of half assed measures. Either we need to go utter isolationist and slap up the walls and let the world spiral into slow chaos, or we bend it against its will to make nice nice. There is no Sound of Music utopian easy answer. Either way leads to an Orwellian quagmire. All I know is that the dictatorship of maliase called the UN isn't cutting the mustard.
 
I think, Squiggy....that the accounting was to include all facets of weaponry...prohibited and otherwise....especially prohibited...

If you'll refer back to Blix's most recent reporting on the Al samoud missiles you will see that as functioning missiles they would certainly be required to be disclosed..but they were not.

The Hussein regimes excuse is that A. they aren't functional and B. even if they were they do not exceed by an appreciable amount the allowed limits of flight and C. even if they DID it would be because they carry no warhead OR guidance system...

so which is it..do they work or don't they?

of course they do...and I'm not sure whether or not you were watching CNN 2 days after Blix's people "leaked" the Al samoud report , but if you had you'd have seen them firing 3 Al samoud motor cannisters removed from the missiles being detroyed currently...

functional, reportable in any case, and excluded....

sure..America's position in this may suck....but it may not be for as obvious a reason as you suspect....

...neiher you nor I can know one way or the other what is what in the intel community, or even what is REALLY going on in Iraq itself. No one from either side is going to grab a talking head and tell us what's up.

You're not convinced....fair enough and I've already told you that several times. But you never really said what WOULD convince you...

what are your parameters? Do you need proof of a specific type of WMD? Proof of continuing provocation and/or aggressive acts? Something beyond that....or falling below ?

maybe next week when Blix starts digging up VX sites we'll get a read one way or the other, eh?

MADrin
 
My points of contention in all of this are...
1.that their are far worse regimes/countries that we should be dealing with first.
2. that the right wing is using a bunch of unfounded accusations by a cheerleading president to justify their willingness to kill.
3. that when their excuses are exposed as untrue, they won't admit it.

If you just want to kill Saddam and you think it worth a few American lives, THEN SAY SO. Don't pretend that these young lives are going there to defend some honorable cause. They are going there to satisfy our thirst for revenge. We want to make them all pay and the administration is taking advantage of those emotions for their own agenda. I have no qualms with attacking Iraq for the purpose of deposing Hussein. But if we are going to use his "evilness" as a reason, we should be attacking SA, Kuwait, and Syria first...NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS. And damn the politics. Innocent Saudis are no less entitled to our protection than innocent Iraqis.
 
..and one last word on this before I hit the sack..I think people misunderstand me about the UN argument.

I don't personally subscribe to the notion that in this case, or even in 91, there needed to BE any UN input. As mentioned before several times, I don't even think the UN is relevant....or even has been in 20 years or so...

..and further....I don't think America SHOULD pretend to care what the UN thinks....

you either think the target is worthy or not, for purpose of argument in this matter. I do...and from the perspective of whether or not we ought to be over in the region at all..if we ARE to be there, and by that I mean we have a legitimate reason(s) that most would accept, then the Hussein regime is a liability, and therefore uni or bilateral aggression is called for.

If, on the other hand, there are no acceptable reasons for being in the region, then the Hussein regime is not a liability, because we can pack it up and go home..totally...

You have to think of it this way....IF we pack it up, then our sole concern at that point is a party aiming a nuke at us...or some other weapon of considerable force....and make no mistake, if they were close to developing one we'd know about , and we'd know exactly where it is.....and further, there'd likely be an attack on that country, say Iraq, that people would look back on three days later and say "What the FUCK was that???...ahh well...it seems to be over"....

..and you know what? No one would be marching in the street...no one would have to jump through UN hoops...no one would probably miss a beat....

short and simple....I don't submit at all that this country needs or even should seek and UN approval....for anything....


MADrin
 
Back
Top