| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq |
| 2003-03-25 |
| Edited for Length The U.N. Security Council agreed on Tuesday to hold an emergency debate on Iraq but Arab envoys were undecided whether to push a resolution demanding an immediate end to the U.S.-led war. The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations. Arab diplomats said they feared a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq could be defeated and thereby serve to legitimize the U.S.-British invasion after the fact. Syrian U.N. Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe, who on Monday said the Arab group at the United Nations intended to seek adoption of a resolution demanding an end to the U.S.-led invasion, said on Tuesday that no decision had yet been made on a resolution. The Arab group of 22 countries formally requested an urgent Security Council debate on Monday evening after Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo adopted a declaration demanding an immediate end to the Iraq war and the withdrawal of all foreign forces. The group's request was delivered to the council by Iraqi U.N. ambassador Mohammed Aldouri, this month's Arab group president. But a resolution demanding an end to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq would appear to have no chance of approval. Both the United States and Britain have veto power in the council. In addition, six of the council's 15 members refused to take sides earlier this month when the United States and Britain pushed for a resolution giving Iraq an ultimatum to quickly show its commitment to disarmament or face war. |
| Posted by:Yosemite Sam |
| #16 Dominique You |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-26 10:11:17 |
| #15 "Arab diplomats said they feared a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq could be defeated and thereby serve to legitimize the U.S.-British invasion after the fact." haha, am I the only one who's laughing at this one? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-25 20:59:31 |
| #14 On second thought, let's not "French" them, let's "Dominique" them. That has a nicer ring to it and will leave Villepin a legacy. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-25 20:44:56 |
| #13 It's all so simple. Just tell 'em now that we're going to "French" them -- i.e., veto anything that has the word Iraq in it or in any way relates to Iraq. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-25 20:41:40 |
| #12 Dumb. They're idiots. Villepin is probably longing for his 15 glorious minutes in the world spotlight to return. Same for the other windbags. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-25 18:09:49 |
| #11 I assume this debate will be to discuss the use of human shields and mistreatment of prisoners. Also, is Sammy going to send an ambassador or show up himself? |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-03-25 16:02:58 |
| #10 I got yer resolution hangin' baby... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-03-25 16:01:34 |
| #9 The U.N. Security Council agreed on Tuesday to hold an emergency debate.. True to form, they're back at it again. And like most of the other issues that has been put in front of it, the U.N. isn't going to do diddly-squat about anything... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-03-25 16:01:34 |
| #8 Don't feel bad, biggus. That's an easy mistake to make. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2003-03-25 15:54:15 |
| #7 League of Nations fails again to get a basic concept of todays issues ... ooohh did i say league of nations .. i meant U.N. |
| Posted by: biggus 2003-03-25 15:29:30 |
| #6 As we say in America, talk to the hand. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-25 15:22:26 |
| #5 The US should not say a thing and let the spittle committee debate, pontificate, salivate, etc etc. As Fearless Fred sez, "no skin off our fore." If they get frisky, we can always veto. You mess with us and we will get the job done with or without you. Now they will get a taste of their own medicine. What clowns! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-25 15:21:14 |
| #4 Wow . . . all 191 member nations get to address the Council. 191 windbag ambassadors times twenty minutes each . . . plus two weeks to prepare a preliminary draft resolution . . . plus one hour for debate times fifteen council members equals . . . well, hell, the war will be over by then! |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-03-25 15:12:22 |
| #3 Of course they could pass a resolution that the UN should go out of business, but wait, France would probably veto that |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-25 15:10:06 |
| #2 Well, golly gee, looks like the US and the UK both have veto capabilities just like France and Russia. Bring on your b.s. resolution... |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-25 15:02:50 |
| #1 I do believe we need to call a pre-meeting to dicusss what we intend to talk about at the Pre- meeting, so as we can be clear of the objectives for the first draft writing meeting prior to assembling the team that would be appropriate to have imput into the first draft... Hey, is it lunchtime yet? I just got my new UN Amex card and its dying to pick up its first tab! |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-03-25 14:58:02 |