| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Bush Insists on Orderly Transfer in Iraq | |
| 2003-09-22 | |
| President Bush said Sunday he’s not sure the United States will have to yield a significantly larger role to the United Nations to make way for a new resolution on Iraq. And he continued to insist on an orderly transfer of authority to the Iraqis rather than the quick action demanded by France. In an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Brit Zing! Translation for Chirac: we don’t need you. But he said he did think it would be helpful to get U.N. help in writing a constitution for Iraq. "I mean, they’re good at that," he said. "Or, perhaps when an election starts, they’ll oversee the election. That would be deemed a larger role." Yep, when it’s time to gather people into a room for chatter, the UN is hard to beat! Germany, France and Britain have also called for more authority for the world body in Iraq, as Washington debates with its allies over a new U.N. resolution. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, has not joined France’s call for a quick handover of power to Iraqi, backing the U.S. stance instead.
"You know, the sort of thing the UN was founded to handle." He said the United Nations has a chance to do more as a result of U.N. resolution 1441. The United States argues that U.N. resolution 1441, passed unanimously in November, provided sufficient authority for the U.S.-led war. That resolution threatened Baghdad with "serious consequences" if it failed to show it had handed over or destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. "That’s the resolution that said if you don’t disarm there will be serious consequences," he said. "At least somebody (the United States) stood up and said this is a definition of serious consequences." "See, Jaques, that’s what it means to keep your word and thus be taken seriously." | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Russian troops aren't a good idea either. Their soldiers aren't the "Ambassadors of Goodwill" anywhere they go. They're nothing, but problems. Besides, it's amazing they'd entertain the idea. They're still getting their asses stomped on a daily basis in Chechenland. A Russian air support mission = carpet bombing. Besides, do you really think countries like France, Russia, China, or Turkey, would have any other motive than to help Georgie Pooh to fall flat on his face? |
| Posted by: Paul 2003-9-22 5:07:09 PM |
| #6 Chirac yesterday said France would not veto - the only negotiating left is whether they vote yes or abstain. Apparently the Germans and Russians moved away from them, and France wasnt willing to veto on its own. I dont expect any help from France. I do expect help from Germany, in terms of training police, and money. Russia may put troops on the ground. And i expect 10,000 to 15,000 decent troops from 3rd world countries - Turkey, India, etc. Not a lot, but enough to help us over the hump. And I expect significant monetary help from Japan and S Korea. All of which will be welcome. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-22 4:24:18 PM |
| #5 Right Bomber. Background: Remember in the buildup to GWII, all the criticism heaped on W and Powell re Powell's not going to every corner of the globe to make kissy-face with potential supporters? But Baker had been to X number of countries in '90-91? Well, Powell wasn't doing it because he wasn't asking for dough. Baker was. I can tell you this, the Saudis thought we were the smartest guys around, the way we got others to pay for that show. Only problem was we didn't get rid of Saddam thanks to the UN limitations put on the mission. This time the UN had a chance, didn't live up to the 15 or so previous resolutions re Iraq and W took action. We're paying our own way. It's more expensive, but there's nothing like having freedom of action when dealing in foreign affairs. The Left refrain? Let's "internationalize" the boots on the ground? A joke. How is the current force on the ground outside of the US any different from what a typical UN force would look like? Brits, check. Others? Fiji? They do a lot of peacekeeping. Poland? Ambitious country, wants to make an impression. Beautiful for UN purposes. I don't have a list in front of me, but I bet the UN forces in Bosnia and Kosovo are very similar to what we've ALREADY got on the ground in Iraq re GDP, democratic countries. As for money? France and Germany and anyone else who opposed us in Iraq is not going to ante up, anyway, no matter what W says. And you know what? Good for them. They sat out and why would we expect them to help us out? Only Americans who believe this is the wine-drinking and cheese-eating Francophile at-any-cost Leftist along the lines of Mark Shields, the PBS liberal. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-9-22 3:28:24 PM |
| #4 *crosses fingers* Any one of those responses would be wonderful. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-9-22 12:39:46 PM |
| #3 I'd like to hear him say something along the lines of "I came here a year ago and laid a challenge before the United Nations to be relevant. You have failed that challenge." I don't expect it, but it'd sure be nice... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-22 11:51:14 AM |
| #2 What I want to know is, why does GWB have to "ask"? Why solicit help? Just spell it out nice and clear - if you want to help out, great, and you also have input. If you don't, they you don't have any say in what happens. Simple as that. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-22 10:34:08 AM |
| #1 What's the likelihood that Bush will show up with the WMD ace during his UN speech? a short recap of the last 2 years, followed by a summary of WMD findings in Iraq, leading into a challenge: wanna keep arguing against the US, or are you WITH us? then a request to promptly deal with Iran, NoKorea, and Syria. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2003-9-22 10:29:16 AM |