* Bush to ask conservatives to eat crow on UN and Iraq *
Spammeister
Security Council members' support in question
Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 12:33 PM EDT (1633 GMT)
The U.N. Security Council this week approved a resolution aimed at
protecting U.N. staff and humanitarian workers, while the United States
considers a U.N.-sponsored, U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is considering having a
multinational force in Iraq to be sponsored by the United Nations but
under U.S. command, a senior State Department official said.
"There are several ideas that are being looked at ... or explored, I
guess, is a better term," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard
Armitage said. "One is a multinational force under U.N. leadership, but
the American would be the U.N. commander."
The concept is among options the White House is considering to bring
more countries into the security effort in postwar Iraq, Armitage said
in a roundtable discussion with newspaper reporters. The State
Department made the transcript public Wednesday.
A senior Bush administration official said that U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan put forward the idea of a U.N.-sponsored force and that the
United States has been seeking feedback on the idea from Security
Council members.
Nations on the U.N. Security Council have been calling for the United
States and Britain to make power-sharing concessions. But U.S.
administration sources have said that the White House, which favors a
widening of responsibility in Iraq for other countries, intends to
maintain its primary military or political control of the postwar
transition.
"It is important to have unity of command," a senior Bush administration
official said, but added that other countries could take "sub-command"
of various areas of Iraq as part of the force.
The official said that a resolution could also provide a greater role
for the U.N. in the political process in Iraq, such as helping Iraqis
draft a constitution and move toward elections, but the U.S. doesn't
want to "deprive" Iraqis of involvement in the decision-making.
"It would mean more money and troops, but we are also trying to get
further reconciliation of the council on this issue," the official said,
referring to divisions in the Security Council over the war in Iraq.
-----
Read entire article at
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/28/sprj.irq.us.iraq/index.html
--
"Stupidity's the deliberate cultivation of ignorance."
-- William Gladdis
Tired of junk email??? Fight back! Visit http://www.craigbanks.us.
FauxPrez
}U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
}Security Council members' support in question
}
}Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 12:33 PM EDT (1633 GMT)
}
}The U.N. Security Council this week approved a resolution aimed at
}protecting U.N. staff and humanitarian workers, while the United States
}considers a U.N.-sponsored, U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq.
}
}
}WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is considering having a
}multinational force in Iraq to be sponsored by the United Nations but
}under U.S. command, a senior State Department official said.
So...the French aren't cheese-eating surrender monkies anymore??
----
"This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude
.. 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support
those answers.'"
- Gregory Thielmann, who served as a director in the state
department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in
September 2002, and who had access to the classified reports
which formed the basis for the U.S. case against Saddam, spelled
out by pResident Bush and his minions.
Julian D.
<gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>Security Council members' support in question
Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
JD
> So...we steal from other countries. And...we deserve what we get.
> Yep, I pegged you so well DG.
We do. On both counts. Of course, you have no prob with what wedo as
long as you have a cushy life at someone's expense.
-DG Porter
Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics
was to do nothing -– except when he needed to distract
from his impeachment and would suddenly start bombing
foreign countries at random. In eight years, the only
domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind
cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card
table with an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.
-Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/082703p.htm
"On the tape, Hussein acknowledged the death of his sons Uday
and Qusay Hussein and called their deaths "good news" - which is
more than the Democrats have said." -
Ann Coulter; July 31, 2003
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/073003p.htm
Julian D.
wrote:
>In article <rPacnX3G1rI...@comcast.com>, spamm...@comcast.net wrote:
>}U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>}Security Council members' support in question
>}
>}Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 12:33 PM EDT (1633 GMT)
>}
>}The U.N. Security Council this week approved a resolution aimed at
>}protecting U.N. staff and humanitarian workers, while the United States
>}considers a U.N.-sponsored, U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq.
>}
>}
>}WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is considering having a
>}multinational force in Iraq to be sponsored by the United Nations but
>}under U.S. command, a senior State Department official said.
>
>So...the French aren't cheese-eating surrender monkies anymore??
Of course they are. We'll just see if they'll continue being fools as
well. Beautiful stroke by Bush. He gets the UN, which was not
cooperative concerning Iraq, to share some of the burden.
Beautiful.
>
>----
>"This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude
>.. 'We know the answers - give us the intelligence to support
>those answers.'"
>- Gregory Thielmann, who served as a director in the state
>department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in
>September 2002, and who had access to the classified reports
>which formed the basis for the U.S. case against Saddam, spelled
>out by pResident Bush and his minions.
Spammeister
> Of course they are. We'll just see if they'll continue being fools as
> well. Beautiful stroke by Bush. He gets the UN, which was not
> cooperative concerning Iraq, to share some of the burden.
> Beautiful.
So far Bush and his lap dog Brits are the only fools stupid enough to
get sucked into the Iraqi mess. Other token forces are largely window
dressing. Now he's looking for a patsy so he can exit stage right.
Rico
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
><gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>
>>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>>Security Council members' support in question
>
>
>Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
>the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
>
>
Given his record at diplomacy in the UN, do you realistically think that
will happen?
Julian D.
We'll just have to see if they're the fools Bush and I think they are.
sayno2crackpls
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
> <gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>
> >U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
> >Security Council members' support in question
>
>
> Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
> the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
LOL !! they are gonna tell him to fuck off in five languages roflmao
> was to do nothing -? except when he needed to distract
sayno2crackpls
> <gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>
> >U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
> >Security Council members' support in question
>
>
> Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
> the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
LOL !! they are gonna tell him to fuck off in five languages roflmao
>
>
>
> was to do nothing -? except when he needed to distract
Rico
>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:56:41 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <qvkclvgne1d2mqk0f...@4ax.com>, Julian D.
> <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
>>><gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>>>>Security Council members' support in question
>>>
>>>
>>>Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
>>>the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Given his record at diplomacy in the UN, do you realistically think that
>>will happen?
>
>We'll just have to see if they're the fools Bush and I think they are.
>
>
>JD
>
>
On the basis of the news late in the day (after I posted and I suspect
after you posted) it seems at least the French and Germans are still
smarter then bush (not that that is a big accomplishment).
John Starrett
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:56:41 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <qvkclvgne1d2mqk0f...@4ax.com>, Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
>>><gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>>>>Security Council members' support in question
>>>
>>>
>>>Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
>>>the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Given his record at diplomacy in the UN, do you realistically think that
>>will happen?
>
>
> We'll just have to see if they're the fools Bush and I think they are.
<snip>
So the wise thing to do would be to refuse? Seriously, Julian, if it
would be foolish to assist us in Iraq, what would be the sensible thing
for them to do?
--
John Starrett
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
John Starrett
<snip>
> Of course they are. We'll just see if they'll continue being fools as
> well. Beautiful stroke by Bush. He gets the UN, which was not
> cooperative concerning Iraq, to share some of the burden.
> Beautiful.
Surely you don't think Bush conceived the plan, do you?
Julian D.
<jstarret@remove_this_part.nmt.edu> wrote:
>Julian D. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:56:41 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <qvkclvgne1d2mqk0f...@4ax.com>, Julian D. <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
>>>><gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>>>>>Security Council members' support in question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
>>>>the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Given his record at diplomacy in the UN, do you realistically think that
>>>will happen?
>>
>>
>> We'll just have to see if they're the fools Bush and I think they are.
><snip>
>
>So the wise thing to do would be to refuse? Seriously, Julian, if it
>would be foolish to assist us in Iraq, what would be the sensible thing
>for them to do?
To do it nonetheless. France in particular wants some of that oil.
They want those deals they had with Iraq resurrected and realized.
Julian D.
<jstarret@remove_this_part.nmt.edu> wrote:
>Julian D. wrote:
><snip>
>> Of course they are. We'll just see if they'll continue being fools as
>> well. Beautiful stroke by Bush. He gets the UN, which was not
>> cooperative concerning Iraq, to share some of the burden.
>> Beautiful.
><snip>
>
>Surely you don't think Bush conceived the plan, do you?
Surely you're not going to underestimate Bush again are you? You
don't really want to win in 2004, correct?
Rico
>Julian D. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:56:41 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <qvkclvgne1d2mqk0f...@4ax.com>, Julian D.
> <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
>>>><gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>>>>>Security Council members' support in question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
>>>>the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Given his record at diplomacy in the UN, do you realistically think that
>>>will happen?
>>
>>
>> We'll just have to see if they're the fools Bush and I think they are.
><snip>
>
>So the wise thing to do would be to refuse? Seriously, Julian, if it
>would be foolish to assist us in Iraq, what would be the sensible thing
>for them to do?
>
I know you are asking Julian, but if I may...
Answer what the major power members (Germany/France/Russia) are doing now,
watching bush spend American lives and treasure in trying to stablize the
mess he created. Why should they get involved, seriousily what is in it for
them?
Rico
>On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:25:21 -0600, John Starrett
><jstarret@remove_this_part.nmt.edu> wrote:
>
>>Julian D. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:56:41 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <qvkclvgne1d2mqk0f...@4ax.com>, Julian D.
> <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0400, Spammeister
>>>>><gotor...@below.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>U.S. considers U.N.-backed force for Iraq
>>>>>>Security Council members' support in question
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your subject line is misleading. Bush is going to see if he can get
>>>>>the fools at the UN to do what he wants them to do. Masterful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Given his record at diplomacy in the UN, do you realistically think that
>>>>will happen?
>>>
>>>
>>> We'll just have to see if they're the fools Bush and I think they are.
>><snip>
>>
>>So the wise thing to do would be to refuse? Seriously, Julian, if it
>>would be foolish to assist us in Iraq, what would be the sensible thing
>>for them to do?
>
>To do it nonetheless. France in particular wants some of that oil.
>They want those deals they had with Iraq resurrected and realized.
>
>JD
I think the French are waking up to the fact that oil is just too
expensive. Figure oil on the open makret is about $29/28(benchmark) add in
several Billion francs for saving bush's bacon and that oil gets mighty
expensive.
Julian D.
Wrong question Rico. It's what isn't in it for them?
America sits in Oil Central there.
Rico
I don't think you people who think this is over oil understand the way oil
works. All the US sitting in IRaq does is increase US control of supply at
any given time. US can (as now) cause the price to go up or can to some
degree cause it to go down. The US cannot embargo Europe. Germany pays to
the penny (less shipping etc) for oil what the US pays for oil. It is a
global commodity. If the price of a barrel of oil from Spindal Top is $30,
it is $30 everywhere else in the world. You really should learn how oil
works in world markets to understand what the real reason the US was
interested in Iraq's oil. It has not secured a new supply for the US to the
exclusion of others. It merely increases America's power in the overall
market place. The Saudis still hold the best cards.
Julian D.
So the US accomplished at least 2 good things by conquering Iraq. We
got rid of a murderous dictator and his rapist sons, and we've
increased our power in the market place. Actually 3 things...we've got
a permanent base in the middle east with the ability to lash out and
destroy terrorist-friendly countries. Sounds good.
Rico
At the cost of the US is now a rogue state.
> and we've
>increased our power in the market place.
Even then you need to understand what that means, bush and friends get
richer, you as a consumer recieve no benefit at all. THis was strickly for
Kenny Boy Lay and friends.
> Actually 3 things...we've got
>a permanent base in the middle east with the ability to lash out and
>destroy terrorist-friendly countries. Sounds good.
Already had that base in Qatar and had it without adding to Al_Quaeda's
ability to recruit. What the Iraq invasion did was create a still larger
pool of young men and women who hate the US more then they love life.