SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Let's Start The War And Get It Over With -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 5:04:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 808
 
And I'll add them to the header.



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 5:07:07 PM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 808
 
Blix Says No Iraqi 'Fundamental Decision' to Disarm

Blix Says No Iraqi 'Fundamental Decision' to Disarm
1 hour, 54 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Evelyn Leopold and Andrew Cawthorne

UNITED NATIONS/LONDON (Reuters) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix handed fresh ammunition Wednesday to hawks threatening war with Iraq, saying Baghdad still had not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm.

Reuters Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein




Latest news:
· U.S. Rejects Deadline for Iraq to Disarm
AP - 14 minutes ago
· Baghdad Police Drill for Wartime Defense
AP - 46 minutes ago
· Mexico Appears to Shift Stance on Iraq
AP - 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
Special Coverage





His comments came as President Bush prepared to say a change of government in Iraq would promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered a major revolt in his own party against war.

Blix is due to make a further report to the U.N. Security Council on March 7 on progress in tracking down Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which Baghdad denies having.

Answering reporters' questions at U.N. headquarters in New York, he said full cooperation on the Iraqi side or a disarmament breakthrough were still lacking, despite recent handovers of documents.

"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision (to disarm), but there is some evidence of some increased activity," he said.

In Washington, President Bush was to address the American Enterprise Institute later Wednesday.

"He'll talk about how a different Iraq will make it easier to achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Oil prices hit their highest point since the 1991 Gulf war after the U.S. government reported a big drop in winter heating fuel stocks and the administration pressed the case for war.

Pentagon planners, meanwhile, said the cost of a possible war could balloon to $95 billion or higher, eclipsing earlier estimates.

BLAIR FACES REVOLT

In London, nearly 200 members of parliament -- possibly more than half from within the ruling Labor Party -- defied Blair's hawkish stance and staunch support for Bush, saying the case for war had not been proven.

The government put forward a motion asking parliament for backing for U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq, without mentioning the possibility of war. But 199 MPs backed an amendment stating the case for war was as yet unproven.

Blair's huge parliamentary majority and the support of most opposition Conservatives ensured he won the vote easily. But the scale of the revolt added to the impression of a leader standing dangerously out on a limb.

Blair is betting that political and public opinion will come round if the Security Council passes a new resolution that Britain circulated this week with the United States and Spain, saying Baghdad has missed a "final opportunity" to disarm peacefully.

So far, only four of the nine votes needed for the new resolution to pass in the 15-strong Council are assured. China, France or Russia could veto even a majority decision.

A U.S. administration official in Moscow said Washington doubted whether Russia or China would cast a veto.

Germany, France, China and Russia have angered Washington by refusing to back its drive to be given a free hand to use force against Iraq.



Washington and London would like approval for the draft by mid-March -- rising summer temperatures mean U.S. generals would rather fight sooner than later. Blair told parliament he thought the resolution would gain the required support.

PUTIN, SCHROEDER DISCUSS IRAQ

German Chancellor Helmut Schroeder met Russian President Vladimir Putin Wednesday as part of a diplomatic drive by Berlin and Moscow to head off conflict.

But an unnamed Kremlin source, quoted by Russian news agencies, said the meeting should not be seen as an attempt to antagonise the United States.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said in Baku that he expected no major decisions before Blix's report on March 7.

While Bush was due to emphasize what he believed to be potential benefits of disarming Iraq and ousting President Saddam Hussein, it remained to be seen whether his words would allay Arab fears that chaos could ensue.

Leaders of the Arab League's 22 members are to hold a summit at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh Saturday.

League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said there was a range of opinions within the group, but a general consensus against war, which he said could unleash chaos in the Middle East.

In Baghdad, hundreds of armed members of the ruling Baath Party took to the streets in a one-day exercise for war.

Some in military fatigues, others in civilian clothes, they directed traffic and stood guard at key buildings in a drill aimed at testing their ability to police the city during a war.

WARPLANES OVER IRAQ

The United States said warplanes taking part in U.S.-British patrols over northern and southern Iraq had attacked two air defense communications installations in the south Wednesday, a day after striking at what the U.S. military said were five missile systems in the north and south.

An Iraqi military spokesman confirmed the raids over the past two days, but said the Western planes had targeted civilian installations. He did not mention casualties.

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told the Russian newspaper Vremya Novostei that countries that supported America in any future war would be legitimate targets for retaliation.

Asked whether Iraq could attack Kuwait or Turkey, he said: "War is war. If aggression is shown against Iraq, it can of course use any means to defend itself. I want to say only that whoever helps the Americans will be seen as their accomplice."

Washington has pressed Ankara to allow U.S. troops to invade northern Iraq from Turkey if necessary.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 5:23:00 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
SADDAM HUSSEIN: WE DEMAND THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THE WORLD'S DEMAND THAT YOU DISARM AND THAT YOU COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, OR RESIGN

e-mail address for the IRAQ Mission at the UN is:

MissionOfIraq@nyc.rr.com

Message 18619280

note that "PartyTime" never addressed this part of the issue, proving conclusively that all his posts, and the demo libbs on his thread, were not serious about achieving peace in Iraq or a substantive plan to promote LASTING INTERNATIONAL WORLD PEACE as the outcome of President Bush's actions is destined to achieve



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 5:30:05 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
WIN WIN WIN WIN SITUATION

1. weapons of mass destruction eradicated, in accordance with the world's demand, as evidenced in UN 1441

2. oppressed people of Iraq freed from murdering dictator

if anyone is confused about that ask anyone who has lived under same, people of the eastern bloc countries being a fine example

it is not a humorous situation

nor is it a demo libb "theoretical" situation

3. the possibility of WORLD PEACE becomes viable, because in future orders of the UN or other institution, such as an effective WORLD COURT, future conflicts will be under pressure to be resolved peacefully or face ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES

4. terrorist activities will be reduced, both because of the threat of ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES and because they will see that whatever their grievances may be, real or imagined, that conflicts can and hopefully will be resolved peacefully



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 5:40:32 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Lithuania's New Leader to Stay Pro-West

2 hours, 17 minutes ago

By LIUDAS DAPKUS, Associated Press Writer

VILNIUS, Lithuania - Military planes roared and helicopters clattered over Lithuania's capital Wednesday as former stunt pilot Rolandas Paksas became the country's third president since it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Paksas, 46, won a surprise victory in Lithuania's presidential runoff last month, defeating incumbent Valdas Adamkus, a 76-year-old former U.S. citizen who was the overwhelming favorite.

Paksas said he would continue his predecessor's pro-West stance that saw the Baltic state gain invitations to the European Union (news - web sites) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"Together with other allies we will protect the security of Europe and the world," Paksas told some 600 dignitaries, including Adamkus, during his inaugural speech at parliament. "Safe, wealthy, influential and responsible: this is my vision of Lithuania."

Paksas urged the country's 2.7 million eligible voters to give their approval to EU membership in a referendum set for May 11. Lithuania was invited to join the expanding 15-nation bloc in December.

He also said Lithuania would join NATO (news - web sites) next year.

Paksas, who was prime minister in 1999 and again in 2000, finished his speech by quoting former President Kennedy's inaugural remarks, asking Lithuanians to "ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

Flag-waving crowds lined the streets and squares in Vilnius as a motorcade took Paksas to the presidential palace.

"This is the great day for our country," said 54-year-old Danute Kairiene, a school teacher. "We have a new president, and people trust him."

In Lithuania's parliamentary system, the president is not involved in the day-to-day running of the country but plays a critical role in forming new governments.

Adamkus, who lived in Chicago for more than 50 years, has said he would remain in Lithuania. He gave up U.S. citizenship after he was elected president in 1998.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 5:48:31 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
<font color=green>SUPPORT OUR TROOPS thread:

Subject 53718



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/26/2003 6:02:23 PM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
demo libbers: are a collective -lol- group of goofballs who don't want to know the truth and who try to think that they can get other goofballs to believe them, and who screw the country up with their idealistic ideas and irrational actions and then the rest of us have to pay for mopping up after them

partial attribution to KLA for:

"But some goofballs don't want to know the truth. And try to think that they can get other goofballs to believe them."



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 6:21:06 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Text of Bush's Speech Wednesday Night
Wed Feb 26,10:19 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By The Associated Press

Text of President Bush (news - web sites)'s remarks Wednesday night to the American Enterprise Institute, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

Latest news:
· Blix: No Sign of Iraq Decision to Disarm
AP - 53 minutes ago
· Baghdad Police Drill for Wartime Defense
AP - 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
· Bush: Iraq War Will Build Mideast Peace
AP - Thu Feb 27, 1:57 AM ET
Special Coverage

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I'm proud to be with the scholars and the friends and the supporters of the American Enterprise Institute. I want to thank you for overlooking my dress code violation. They were about to stop me at the door, but Irving Kristol said, 'I know this guy, let him in.'

Chris, thank you for your very kind introduction and thank you for your leadership. I see many distinguished guests here tonight, members of my Cabinet, members of Congress, Justice (Antonin) Scalia, Justice (Clarence) Thomas and so many respected writers and policy experts.

I'm always happy to see your senior fellow, Dr. Lynne Cheney. Lynne is a wise and thoughtful commentator on history and culture and a dear friend to Laura and me. I'm also familiar with the good work of her husband. You may remember him, the former director of my vice presidential search committee. Thank God Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said yes.

Thanks for fitting me into the program tonight. I know I'm not the featured speaker; I'm just a warm-up act for Allan Meltzer. But I want to congratulate Dr. Meltzer for a lifetime of achievements and for tonight's well-deserved honor. Congratulations.

At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work and some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds. I want to thank them for their service, but I also want to remind people that for 60 years AEI scholars have made vital contributions to our country and to our government and we are grateful for those contributions.

We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others, the rest will be written by us.

On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale.

As a result, we must look at security in a new way because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: We will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men.

Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida.

Across the world we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning and we're showing them the definition of American justice.

And we're opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world and we will not allow it.

This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it.

The danger posed by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations (news - web sites) and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.



A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible.

The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF (news - web sites) to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We'll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war.

After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken.

The nation of Iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East.

Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps to political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth.

In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.

The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

But without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders, true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.

The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal.

Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity.

In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council so much that we want its words to have meaning.

The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all.

High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force."

Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose.

I've listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world. The threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands.

If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace, and by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that, in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.

Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we'll meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges.

Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: The liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people.

And I know something about these men and women who wear a uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage.

Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in the country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East after so many generations of strife.

Yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us. And Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times and we will meet the tests of our time.

We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history and free people will keep the peace of the world.

Thank you all very much.

END

story.news.yahoo.com;



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 6:45:05 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have “immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access” to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.

The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.

Following this morning’s vote, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the Security Council resolution adopted today had strengthened the cause of peace and given new impetus to the search of security in an increasingly dangerous world. The adoption represented an example of multilateral diplomacy serving the cause of peace and security. He urged the Iraqi leadership to seize the

opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people. “If Iraq’s defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities”, he said.

He said, “This is a time of trial -– for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world. The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people.” How the crisis was resolved would affect greatly the course of peace and security in the coming years in the region, and the world, he said.

Also speaking after the vote, Council members said that their views had been taken into account in the final version of the draft, which was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom. The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of “automaticity” for the use of force had been eliminated. The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution’s requirements.

The United Kingdom’s representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.

The representatives of Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Syria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius also spoke.

The meeting, which began at 10:15 a.m., adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

Resolution

The full text of resolution 1441 (2002) reads, as follows:

un.org



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 6:45:10 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
The full text of resolution 1441 (2002) reads, as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of

14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

“Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

“Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

“Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

“Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

“Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

“Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

“Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

“Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

“Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

“Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

“Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

“Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

“Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

“Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

“Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1.Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

“2.Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

“3.Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

“4.Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

“5.Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

“6.Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

“7.Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

“8.Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

“9.Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

“10.Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

“11.Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

“12.Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

“13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

“14.Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

un.org



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 6:45:13 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Annex

Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter

United Nations Monitoring, Verification International Atomic Energy Agency

and Inspection Commission

The Executive Chairman The Director General

__________________________________________________________________________________

8 October 2002

Dear General Al-Saadi,

During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraq's acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.

During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.

In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed "sensitive sites" in the past. As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.

H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi

Advisor

Presidential Office

Baghdad

Iraq

We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.

Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.

The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.

The NMD will provide free of cost: (a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed; (b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis; (c) support in terms of personnel and ground transportation within the country, as requested; and (d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at inspectors' request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.). NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.

Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.

Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.

Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.

On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation.

On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.

As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez-Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraq's national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.

Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraq's co-operation in all respect.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) (Signed)

Hans Blix Mohamed ElBaradei

Executive Chairman Director General

United Nations Monitoring, International Atomic Energy Agency

Verification and Inspection Commission



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 6:45:18 AM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 808
 
Statement by Secretary-General

Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said the Security Council resolution adopted today “has strengthened the cause of peace” and given new impetus to the search of security in an increasingly dangerous world. It set out clearly Iraq’s obligations to the United Nations in ensuring disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. He urged the Iraqi leadership –- for the sake of its own people and for the sake of world security and world order -– to seize the opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people. “If Iraq’s defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities”, he said.

The resolution was based on law, collective effort, and the unique legitimacy of the United Nations, he said. It represented an example of multilateral diplomacy serving the cause of peace and security. It reflected a renewed commitment to preventing the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the universal wish to see that goal obtained by peaceful means. He knew negotiations on the resolution had not been easy, but, he said, “whenever the Council is united, it sends a very powerful signal”. He recognized those countries, especially members of the League of Arab States, who had persuaded Iraq to change its previous position and said it was important that governments with influence on Iraq remained engaged in the effort to obtain Iraq’s compliance with its international obligations.

He said the road ahead would be difficult and dangerous. But, empowered by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stood equipped to carry out their vital task. To succeed, they would require full and unconditional cooperation on the part of Iraq, and the continued determination of the international community to pursue its common aim in a united and effective manner. He said, “This is a time of trial -– for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world. The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people.” How the crisis was resolved would affect greatly the course of peace and security in the coming years in the region, and the world, he said.

Statements

JOHN NEGROPONTE (United States) said that the resolution constituted the world community’s demand that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction. The new course in that effort would send a clear message to Iraq insisting it disarm or face the consequences. Describing the text, he said that Iraq had ignored obligations essential to peace and security.

The resolution, he said, confirmed what had been clear for years -– that Iraq had been and remained in violation of disarmament obligations. To redress that situation, the resolution gave UNMOVIC and the IAEA a new, powerful mandate. But the inspections would not work unless the regime cooperated fully with those organizations. He hoped that all Member States now would press Iraq to undertake that cooperation. Every act of Iraqi non-compliance would be a serious matter, because it would mean that Iraq had no intention of disarming.

The resolution contained, he said, no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution. And one way or another, Iraq would be disarmed. If the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violation, the resolution did not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.

The message to Iraq, he said, was that non-compliance was no longer an option. The message to the Security Council was one of partnership. He urged

Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei to make full use of the tools given them in the resolution. To the Arab world, including the people of Iraq, he said that the resolution opened the way to the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. The United States was not seeking to wage war on the Arab world. Nothing could be further from the truth. He urged those peoples to join in the common effort to assure peace and security in the region.

The resolution afforded Iraq a final opportunity, he said. He concurred with the Secretary-General’s remark that the Security Council must face its responsibilities if Iraq’s defiance continued. Members, he said, could rely on the United States to live up to its responsibilities, if the Iraq regime persisted with its refusal to disarm.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said no shadow of a doubt remained that Iraq had defied the United Nations over the last 11 years. With the adoption of the resolution, the Council had clearly stated that the United Nations would no longer tolerate that defiance. The resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. The regime in Baghdad now faced an unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in paragraph 13 of the resolution. The overwhelming support of Council members sent the most powerful signal to Iraq that it could no longer evade its obligations under United Nations resolutions.

He said a key part of the resolution was the provisions giving inspectors the “penetrating” strength needed to ensure the successful disarmament of Iraq. Those provisions would reinforce international confidence in the inspections. He hoped it would also lead Iraq away from a fatal decision to conceal its weapons of mass destruction. He had full confidence in Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei and their teams, and full respect for their integrity and independence. He said there was no “automaticity” in the resolution. If there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the Council for discussion. He expected the Council then to meet its responsibilities.

Ultimately, the choice lay with Iraq as to whether to take the peaceful route to disarmament. He hoped that Iraq would fully cooperate with the United Nations, meet its obligations, and take the path back to the lifting of sanctions, laid out in resolutions 1284 and 687. “But if Iraq chooses defiance and concealment, rejecting the final opportunity it has been given by the Council in operative paragraph 2, the United Kingdom -– together, we trust, with other members of the Council -– will ensure that the task of disarmament required by the resolutions is completed”, he said.

JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE (France) said he believed that the resolution was a good one, because it strengthened the role of the Security Council, which was the main objective of his country during the negotiations. If the inspection authorities reported to the Council Iraq had not complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately and decide on a course of action. France welcomed the lack of “automaticity” in the final resolution. Moreover, the resolution gave the IAEA and UNMOVIC better tools to do their job, and ensured impartiality. The inspectors would, however, have to rely on the full cooperation of the Iraqi authorities.

France, he said, had full confidence in Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei. Their teams must proceed quickly to Iraq. The resolution was a success for the United Nations and the Security Council. It must now become a success for peace. All of France’s efforts in the past few weeks had been directed at giving peace a chance; that was, to disarm Iraq peacefully, with the stability of the region in mind. The process set up by the resolution was demanding and required full cooperation of Iraq, which must understand that it was their last opportunity.

ADOLPHO AGUILAR ZINSER (Mexico) said the pace of negotiations had enabled the Council to devise a text that properly reflected the concerns of Member States about the fact that Iraq must comply with its international obligations. In case of failure to comply, the Council would act on determinations it would make on whether international peace and security was threatened. The Council decision preserved the legitimacy, effectiveness and relevance of the Council, in compliance with its mandate to maintain international peace and security. It strengthened the Council, the United Nations, multilateralism and an international system of norms and principles.

Those who had advocated the automatic recourse to the use of force had agreed to afford Iraq a final chance, he said. Iraq was now obliged to fully comply with its international obligations. The resolution had eliminated “automaticity” in the use of force as a result of material breach. He welcomed the acceptance of the two-stage approach, in accordance with which any failure to comply by Iraq should be taken on the basis of two prerequisites. There should be two time periods: a process of credible inspections of real Iraqi military capabilities; and the agreement of the Council on ways and means to be adopted should the inspection process detect a threat to international peace and security.

He said the resolution preserved the neutrality and impartiality of UNMOVIC and strengthened the principle that the inspectors must respond to the Council, not to individual countries. Mexico placed its trust in the integrity, professionalism and independence of Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei. He emphasized that it was important that Council decisions continue to comply with the principles of the Charter and international law, on the basis of objectively verifiable facts. The use of force was only valid as a last resort, with prior, explicit authorization of the Council.

RICHARD RYAN (Ireland) said that the unanimous adoption of the resolution was a strong statement of the Council’s unity. The resolution was about disarming Iraq without the use of force, which must always remain a last resort. Iraq must, however, understand that it must disarm. The purpose of the resolution was avoiding a military conflict and strengthening the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of peace and security.

The resolution, he said, provided for a clear, sequential process for Iraq compliance. Developments would be then examined by the Council itself, which had the primary responsibility to decide whatever action needed to be taken. He was confident that it would, in the words of the Secretary-General, face its responsibilities.

He knew that the inspection teams were fully conscious of the fact that they acted on the part of the international community. He was confident that they would be impartial, and focus on their primary responsibilities. The time had come for Iraq to resume the path of peace and economic development. The Council had given Iraq an opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. Ireland called on Iraqi authorities to choose the path of peace and comply with the provisions of all Security Council resolutions, in the interests of its own people and peace.

SERGEY LAVROV (Russian Federation) said his country’s intention had been from the beginning that the international inspectors be sent as soon as possible to Iraq. Sharing the concern of Council members to ensure the most effective inspection regime possible, his delegation had cooperated with others to ensure inspections and a comprehensive solution of the question, including lifting of sanctions. He emphasized that the resolution did not contain any provisions for the automatic use of force and underlined that the sponsors of the text had affirmed that today.

He said it was of fundamental importance that there was clear confirmation in the resolution that all members respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Noting the strengthened procedures for inspections, he said those procedures would be applied by the heads of UNMOVIC and the IAEA in a sense of professionalism and impartiality. His country had supported the resolution, guided by its special responsibility as a permanent member to maintain international peace and security. The resolution opened the road to diplomatic settlement. In case of dispute, it was UNMOVIC and the IAEA that would report it to the Council, who would then consider the situation that had developed.

He also noted the clarifications authorized by the sponsors of the draft. For example, regarding operative paragraph 3, stipulating that Iraq must also submit information on non-military programmes, he said it would not be seen as a violation if that process might take more than 30 days. He noted that operative paragraph 7 affected the status as independent international personnel. Operative paragraph 8 referred to personnel of UNMOVIC, the IAEA and additional personnel that members of the United Nations might provide to UNMOVIC and the IAEA on the latter’s request. He emphasized the need for Iraq to comply with all its disarmaments obligations on the basis of today’s resolution and Baghdad’s declared intention to do that. Implementation of the resolution would require goodwill of all involved, he said, their willingness to concentrate on moving forward and not yielding to unilateral interpretation of the resolution, and preserving the unity of the Council.

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria) said he voted for the resolution because it gave a full chance for peace; one final opportunity for Iraq to show the international community that it possessed no nuclear weapons, or was willing to disarm of any it had. He welcomed the unanimous adoption of the draft, as well as the fact that his delegation’s views had been taken into account.

The resolution did not provide a pretext for the automatic use of force, but instead a firm insistence on the accomplishment of its objective, the disarmament of Iraq. He extended his delegation’s full support for the inspection teams and its leaders and called on Member States to lend them their support, as well.

He further welcomed the fact that the resolution categorically reaffirmed the unanimity of the Council in the decision-making process, and multilateralism as a primary principle in international relations. The resolution also sent a strong message concerning consequences for failure to comply with Security Council resolutions. The Iraqi authorities had, in their hands, the future of their country, including the lifting of sanctions against it.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said Syria had voted for the resolution in order to achieve unanimity in the Council and because of its commitment to the United Nations Charter and international law -- be it in the case of Iraq, or the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the Palestinian cause. His country had voted in favour after having received from the United States and United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not be used as pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for “automaticity”. The resolution should not be interpreted in any way that any entity could use force. Permanent members of the Council had assured Syria that the resolution had strengthened the inspectors’ mandates and preserved the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and neighbouring States, and would lead to a comprehensive solution of the crisis.

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) said, bearing in mind the overall objective of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, the Council had afforded Iraq with a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. The Council had enhanced the system of inspections and committed itself to using that body to resolve a serious crisis and, thus, signal its determination to uphold the authority of the Organization and respect for international law.

He said his country wanted the conflict with Iraq to be resolved peacefully. The resolution set out very clearly that the Iraqi authorities had a choice. In case of Iraqi non-compliance, the resolution set out a procedure where the Council would convene immediately in order to secure international peace and security. He hoped Iraq would choose to fully cooperate with the United Nations.

CHRISTINE LEE (Singapore) said the resolution was consistent with positions Singapore had espoused in the Council. There was a message to Iraq from that Council; it had a full and final opportunity to comply with its obligations. The difference between successful and unsuccessful inspection may be the difference between peace and war. In that context, she hoped that Iraq proceeded wisely and complied with the resolution fully.

ALFONSO VALDIVIEZO (Colombia) said from the outset his country had stressed the need for a new resolution because of new circumstances surrounding the Iraqi question, as well as a clear message that the international community did not intend to wait any longer for Iraq’s compliance with demands of the Council. The resolution was not authorizing the use of force, but provided a final opportunity to Iraq to comply. Iraq must now show its will to rejoin the family of nations. The declaration required of Iraq in operative paragraph 3 within 30 days was absolutely essential. The resolution would make it possible to move forward in

the crisis, as it showed that the Council intended to respond to any new challenges.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) expressed appreciation for the role of the Secretary-General throughout the negotiations on Iraq of the past weeks. The text was a truly compromise text, without a victory for any side. It was a victory, instead, for peace and security. Now the ball was in Iraq’s corner. He made an appeal to that country to cooperate fully with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. In that way, Iraq could be true to itself once again -– a land of water and light.

He welcomed the clear statements made by the sponsors of the resolutions, spelling out the lack of a trap, trigger or automaticity in the resolution. He appreciated their expression of the importance of the Security Council’s core role in peace and security. He wished the inspector teams good luck; they had an enormous responsibility, having a valuable tool in their hands, along with the firm support of the Council.

MAMADY TRAORE (Guinea) said his country welcomed the adoption of the resolution by consensus. It was a clear message to Iraq. It would make possible a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and reaffirmed the key role of the Council in maintaining international peace and security. He reaffirmed his trust in the inspectors. He appealed to Iraqi authorities to comply with their international obligations.

BIJAYEDUTH GOKOOL (Mauritius) said the unanimous vote had strengthened the unity of the Council, which was a prerequisite for implementation of the resolution. He hoped Iraq would now comply with its international obligations and called on all to help in the resolution’s implementation. He also affirmed his country’s trust in the inspectors.

ZHANG YISHAN (China), the President of the Council, speaking in his national capacity, said his delegation voted in favour of the resolution, because it supported viewpoints that China had maintained during the negotiations, including a multilateral, diplomatic approach, and a way towards suspending and eventually lifting sanctions. He welcomed the efforts of international parties to break the deadlock on Iraq, and welcomed, as well, last month’s moves by Iraq to allow inspectors to return. He supported a practical inspection regime and called on all to fulfil their responsibilities in a fair and expedient manner.

He was pleased to note that the co-sponsors of the resolution had accommodated his country’s concerns. The purpose was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any “automaticity” for the use of force. The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq.

In adopting the resolution, the Council maintained its role in maintaining peace and security. He hoped that Iraq complied with its responsibilities, in order to bring the situation to an early conclusion. He suggested, in addition, that the inspection teams learn lessons from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), for a successful completion of their tasks.

* *** *



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 7:04:56 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
Germany won't insist on a 2d UN resolution

Julia Preston The New York Times Thursday, January 9, 2003

But it says inspections need more time

UNITED NATIONS, New York Germany will not insist on a second Security Council resolution to authorize war if Iraq fails to disarm through weapons inspections, but it believes the inspections are progressing so far and should be given more time, the German ambassador to the United Nations, Gunter Pleuger, said Wednesday.
.
Hewing close to the American position, Pleuger said in an interview that a second round of debate and voting in the council would be "desirable but not necessary" if Iraq commits obvious breaches of past resolutions. He acknowledged that this view differed from that of France, which contends that a second vote is required under the terms of Resolution 1441, the Nov. 8 measure that set up the inspections and warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate.
.
Pleuger maneuvered carefully through the diplomatic thicket that Germany faces after Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder antagonized the Bush administration by ruling out sending German troops to any military campaign in Iraq. On Jan. 1 Germany took a seat as a nonpermanent, nonveto member of the 15-nation Security Council for a two-year term, just as the council is confronting decisions about whether the inspections are working to eliminate illegal weapons programs in Iraq.
.
The ambassador made it clear that Germany would take an independent stance on key issues, balancing pressures from the United States, which is eager to show quickly that President Saddam Hussein is cheating the inspections, and from other members of the council that are more optimistic that the inspections can work to avoid war.
.
Germany is now one of four major European nations on the Security Council, along with Britain and France, two permanent members with veto power, and Spain, another nonpermanent nation that just came on board.
.
Even Britain, the United States' closest ally on the council, has said it wants a second resolution before going to war. American officials take the view that Resolution 1441 alone can serve as the legal basis to launch a military attack if Iraq commits new violations, and they are wary of becoming entangled in a long and debilitating debate here if the evidence is less than clear-cut.
.
On the inspections, Pleuger, echoing the view of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said they seem to be going forward unhindered by Baghdad. He added that Germany was disappointed by gaps in Iraq's declaration in December on its arms programs.
.
"Kofi has said there's no reason right now to move from inspections to military action, and right now, in this situation, we feel the same way," Pleuger said.
.
However, he said that it could take two more months for the inspections to reach full speed in Iraq. He said that a report that Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief weapons inspectors, will deliver on Jan. 27 would bring the council up to date but not be a decisive moment.
.
The inspectors "have said that they need some time to complete the inspections, and therefore, I think, it is highly unlikely that on the 27th we can draw already final conclusions about the work that has been done up to that date," Pleuger said.
.
The Bush administration is at odds with most if not all of the other council members on the pace and timing of the inspections. Anxious to have the option of launching an attack in February or March when the weather is still relatively cool in Iraq, Washington has sought to prod the inspectors along and regards the Jan. 27 report by the inspections chiefs as a potential moment of decision.
.
Germany is walking a fine line here, seeking to avoid further damage to its relations with Washington, but constrained by Schroeder's fragile political position at home, where his opposition to participating in war in Iraq is part of the glue holding his coalition together. Complicating his task are voices within his coalition, especially in the Green Party, the junior partner in the governing coalition, that adamantly oppose any German acquiescence to military action against Baghdad.
.
Pleuger reiterated a flat no to any German troops in Iraq. But he also said that how Germany would vote if there is a second round in the council would "depend on the political situation in which the decision is being taken. And nobody can foresee that now."

< < Back to Start of Article But it says inspections need more time

UNITED NATIONS, New York Germany will not insist on a second Security Council resolution to authorize war if Iraq fails to disarm through weapons inspections, but it believes the inspections are progressing so far and should be given more time, the German ambassador to the United Nations, Gunter Pleuger, said Wednesday.
.
Hewing close to the American position, Pleuger said in an interview that a second round of debate and voting in the council would be "desirable but not necessary" if Iraq commits obvious breaches of past resolutions. He acknowledged that this view differed from that of France, which contends that a second vote is required under the terms of Resolution 1441, the Nov. 8 measure that set up the inspections and warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate.
.
Pleuger maneuvered carefully through the diplomatic thicket that Germany faces after Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder antagonized the Bush administration by ruling out sending German troops to any military campaign in Iraq. On Jan. 1 Germany took a seat as a nonpermanent, nonveto member of the 15-nation Security Council for a two-year term, just as the council is confronting decisions about whether the inspections are working to eliminate illegal weapons programs in Iraq.
.
The ambassador made it clear that Germany would take an independent stance on key issues, balancing pressures from the United States, which is eager to show quickly that President Saddam Hussein is cheating the inspections, and from other members of the council that are more optimistic that the inspections can work to avoid war.
.
Germany is now one of four major European nations on the Security Council, along with Britain and France, two permanent members with veto power, and Spain, another nonpermanent nation that just came on board.
.
Even Britain, the United States' closest ally on the council, has said it wants a second resolution before going to war. American officials take the view that Resolution 1441 alone can serve as the legal basis to launch a military attack if Iraq commits new violations, and they are wary of becoming entangled in a long and debilitating debate here if the evidence is less than clear-cut.
.
On the inspections, Pleuger, echoing the view of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said they seem to be going forward unhindered by Baghdad. He added that Germany was disappointed by gaps in Iraq's declaration in December on its arms programs.
.
"Kofi has said there's no reason right now to move from inspections to military action, and right now, in this situation, we feel the same way," Pleuger said.
.
However, he said that it could take two more months for the inspections to reach full speed in Iraq. He said that a report that Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief weapons inspectors, will deliver on Jan. 27 would bring the council up to date but not be a decisive moment.
.
The inspectors "have said that they need some time to complete the inspections, and therefore, I think, it is highly unlikely that on the 27th we can draw already final conclusions about the work that has been done up to that date," Pleuger said.
.
The Bush administration is at odds with most if not all of the other council members on the pace and timing of the inspections. Anxious to have the option of launching an attack in February or March when the weather is still relatively cool in Iraq, Washington has sought to prod the inspectors along and regards the Jan. 27 report by the inspections chiefs as a potential moment of decision.
.
Germany is walking a fine line here, seeking to avoid further damage to its relations with Washington, but constrained by Schroeder's fragile political position at home, where his opposition to participating in war in Iraq is part of the glue holding his coalition together. Complicating his task are voices within his coalition, especially in the Green Party, the junior partner in the governing coalition, that adamantly oppose any German acquiescence to military action against Baghdad.
.
Pleuger reiterated a flat no to any German troops in Iraq. But he also said that how Germany would vote if there is a second round in the council would "depend on the political situation in which the decision is being taken. And nobody can foresee that now."

iht.com



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/27/2003 4:14:05 PM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (6) | Respond to of 808
 
LMT: LOCKHEED MARTIN(NYSE) Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 4:10 PM ET
Symbol Last Time Change High Low Volume
LMT 3:50 PM 45.93 +0.03 0.07% 46 1/4 45.10 2,191,200
Prev Close Open Bid Ask Last Tick Avg Volume 52-week range
45.90 45.99 0 0 Down 987,000 44.34 - 71.52



To: Vitas who wrote (20)2/28/2003 5:00:11 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
"Everyone trying to solve a problem involving serious loss of life acts in good faith.

Or exhibits the vacuousness of their prejudiced argument.

KEY WORD: PRE-JUDGE"


-------------------------------------------------------------

replies from the dumb and the vacuous thread:

To:Vitas who wrote (13694)
From: Just_Observing Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 1:56 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 13856

BOYCOTT THE DON'T START THE WAR thread
Follow your own advice, idiot

with half of this thread's participant's gone it will fall off the hot list and be forever forgotten

We had already forgotten you but like a bad penny ......

prejudiced, irrational, illegitimate voices will go unheard, as they should

Yes, if you promise never to post on this thread.

exhibits the vacuousness of their prejudiced argument.

No one does it better than you, idiot

Having made yourself a fool for this day, your work is done.
Show some mercy to this thread. And to yourself.



To:Vitas who wrote (13694)
From: Kenya AA Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 2:07 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 13856

Who cares about the HotList?? Looks like you're doing about half of the posting on the alternative thread, anyway. Now run along. Your boycott won't work if you keep posting here.


To:Vitas who wrote (13694)
From: tsigprofit Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 2:48 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 13856

<font color=red>BOYCOTT THE LET'S START THE WAR AND TELL THE REST OF THE WORLD TO GO TO HELL thread


To:Vitas who wrote (13694)
From: Kenya AA Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 3:50 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 13856

PS: BTW, the only reason your alternative thread is even on the HotList is because of the way Mr. Long categorized it. You'll notice it's under "StockTalk" instead of "CoffeeTalk" where all the other political discussion threads are.


To:Vitas who wrote (13694)
From: X the Unknown Thursday, Feb 27, 2003 5:01 PM
Respond to of 13856

How ironic
you're back


To:Vitas who wrote (13694)
From: zonder Friday, Feb 28, 2003 3:48 AM
Respond to of 13856

Bye! :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

proving, once again, the demo libber CREED is:

if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit

ROFLMAO



To: Vitas who wrote (20)3/4/2003 7:21:09 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
10 Great Things About America by Dinesh D'Souza
Thursday, July 4, 2002

Mr. D'Souza writes:

In the aftermath of last September's terrorist attack, we've heard a
great deal about "why they hate us" and about why America is so bad.
We’ve endured lengthy lectures about America’s history of slavery, about
the defects of American foreign policy, about the materialism of American
life, and about the excesses of American culture. In the view of many
critics at home and abroad, America can do no right.
This indictment, which undermines the patriotism of Americans, is based
on a narrow and distorted understanding of America. It exaggerates
America’s faults and ignores what is good and even great about America.

As an immigrant who has chosen to become a U.S. citizen, I feel
especially qualified to say what is special about this country. Having
grown up in a different society ­ in my case, Mumbai, India ­ I am not
only able to identify aspects of America that are invisible to people who
have always lived here, but also acutely conscious of the daily blessings
that I enjoy in America.

Here, then, is my list of the 10 great things about America. -- Dinesh
Related Pages

Back to the Library and Commentary Index

Page created, July 2002




1. America provides an amazingly good life for the ordinary guy.

Rich people live well everywhere. But what distinguishes America is that
it provides an incomparably high standard of living for the "common man.”
We now live in a country where construction workers regularly pay $4 for
a nonfat latte, where maids drive nice cars, and where plumbers take
their families on vacation to Europe.

Indeed, newcomers to the United States are struck by the amenities
enjoyed by "poor" people in the United States. This fact was dramatized
in the 1980s when CBS television broadcast the documentary "People Like
Us," which was intended to show the miseries of the poor during an
ongoing recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with
a view to embarrassing the Reagan administration.

But by the testimony of former Soviet leaders, it had the opposite
effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest
Americans have TV sets, microwave ovens and cars. They arrived at the
same perception that I witnessed in an acquaintance of mine from Bombay
who has been unsuccessfully trying to move to the United States.

I asked him, "Why are you so eager to come to America?" He replied, "I
really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

2. America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other
country, including the countries of Europe.

America is the only country that has created a population of "self-made
tycoons." Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose parents are Iranian
and who grew up in Paris, have started a company like eBay. Only in
America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a
leading venture capitalist, the shaper of the technology industry, and a
billionaire to boot.

Admittedly, tycoons are not typical, but no country has created a better
ladder than America for people to ascend from modest circumstances to
success.

3. Work and trade are respectable in America, which is not true
elsewhere.

Historically, most cultures have despised the merchant and the laborer,
regarding the former as vile and corrupt and the latter as degraded and
vulgar. Some cultures, such as that of ancient Greece and medieval Islam,
even held that it is better to acquire things through plunder than
through trade or contract labor.

But the American founders altered this moral hierarchy. They established
a society in which the life of the businessman, and of the people who
work for him, would be a noble calling. In the American view, there is
nothing vile or degraded about serving your customers either as a CEO or
as a waiter.

The ordinary life of production and supporting a family is more highly
valued in the United States than in any other country. Indeed, America is
the only country in the world where we call the waiter "sir," as if he
were a knight.

4. America has achieved greater social equality than any other society.

True, there are large inequalities of income and wealth in America. In
purely economic terms, Europe is more egalitarian. But Americans are
socially more equal than any other people, and this is unaffected by
economic disparities. Alexis De Tocqueville noticed this egalitarianism a
century and a half ago, but it is if anything more prevalent today.

For all his riches, Bill Gates could not approach the typical American
and say, "Here’s a $100 bill. I'll give it to you if you kiss my feet."
Most likely the person would tell Gates to go to hell! The American view
is that the rich guy may have more money, but he isn’t in any fundamental
sense better than anyone else.

5. People live longer, fuller lives in America.

Although protesters rail against the American version of technological
capitalism at trade meetings around the world, in reality the American
system has given citizens many more years of life, and the means to live
more intensely and actively.

In 1900, the life expectancy in America was around 50 years; today, it is
more than 75 years. Advances in medicine and agriculture are mainly
responsible for the change. This extension of the lifespan means more
years to enjoy life, more free time to devote to a good cause, and more
occasions to do things with the grandchildren.

In many countries, people who are old seem to have nothing to do; they
just wait to die. In America, the old are incredibly vigorous, and people
in their 70s pursue the pleasures of life, including remarriage and
sexual gratification, with a zeal that I find unnerving.

6. In America, the destiny of the young is not given to them but is
created by them.

Not long ago, I asked myself, "What would my life have been like if I had
never come to the United States?"

If I had remained in India, I would probably have lived my whole life
within a five-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have
married a woman of my identical religious and socioeconomic background. I
would almost certainly have become a medical doctor, or an engineer, or a
computer programmer. I would have socialized entirely within my ethnic
community.

I would have a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance;
indeed, they would not be very different from what my father believed, or
his father before him. In sum, my destiny would, to a large degree, have
been given to me.

In America, I have seen my life take a radically different course. In
college I became interested in literature and politics, and I resolved to
make a career as a writer. I married a woman whose ancestry is English,
French, Scotch-Irish, German and American Indian.

In my 20s I found myself working as a policy analyst in the White House,
even though I was not an American citizen. No other country, I am sure,
would have permitted a foreigner to work in its inner citadel of
government.

In most countries in the world, your fate and your identity are handed to
you; in America, you determine them for yourself. America is a country
where you get to write the script of your own life. Your life is like a
blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist.

This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly
powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America. Young
people especially find irresistible the prospect of authoring the
narrative of their own lives.

7. America has gone further than any other society in establishing
equality of rights.

There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery
has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and
discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only
civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country
expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United
States.

While racism remains a problem in America, this country has made
strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of
enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions,
jobs and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such
policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely
unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the
first place.

And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off
living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say,
Ethiopia or Somalia.

8. America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic
conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world.

Visitors to places like New York are amazed to see the way in which Serbs
and Croatians, Sikhs and Hindus, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants,
Jews and Palestinians all seem to work and live together in harmony. How
is this possible when these same groups are spearing each other and
burning each other’s homes in so many places in the world?

The American answer is twofold. First, separate the spheres of religion
and government so that no religion is given official preference but all
are free to practice their faith as they wish. Second, do not extend
rights to racial or ethnic groups but only to individuals; in this way,
all are equal in the eyes of the law, opportunity is open to anyone who
can take advantage of it, and everybody who embraces the American way of
life can "become American."

Of course there are exceptions to these core principles, even in America.
Racial preferences are one such exception, which explains why they are
controversial. But in general, America is the only country in the world
that extends full membership to outsiders.

The typical American could come to India, live for 40 years and take
Indian citizenship. But he could not "become Indian." He wouldn’t see
himself that way, nor would most Indians see him that way. In America, by
contrast, hundreds of millions have come from far-flung shores and over
time they, or at least their children, have in a profound and full sense
"become American."

9. America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in
world history.

Critics of the U.S. are likely to react to this truth with sputtering
outrage. They will point to longstanding American support for a Latin or
Middle Eastern despot, or the unjust internment of the Japanese during
World War II, or America's reluctance to impose sanctions on South
Africa’s apartheid regime. However one feels about these particular
cases, let us concede to the critics the point that America is not always
in the right.

What the critics leave out is the other side of the ledger. Twice in the
20th century, the United States saved the world: first from the Nazi
threat, then from Soviet totalitarianism. What would have been the
world's fate if America had not existed? After destroying Germany and
Japan in World War II, the U.S. proceeded to rebuild both countries, and
today they are American allies. Now we are doing the same thing with
Afghanistan.

Consider, too, how magnanimous the U.S. has been to the former Soviet
Union after the U.S. victory in the Cold War. For the most part, America
is an abstaining superpower: It shows no real interest in conquering and
subjugating the rest of the world. (Imagine how the Soviets would have
acted if they had won the Cold War.)

On occasion, America intervenes to overthrow a tyrannical regime or to
halt massive human rights abuses in another country, but it never stays
to rule that country. In Grenada, Haiti and Bosnia, the U.S. got in and
then got out.

Moreover, when America does get into a war, it is supremely careful to
avoid targeting civilians and to minimize collateral damage. Even as
America bombed the Taliban infrastructure and hideouts, its planes
dropped rations of food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan
civilians. What other country does these things?

10. America, the freest nation on earth, is also the most virtuous nation
on earth.

This point seems counterintuitive, given the amount of conspicuous
vulgarity, vice and immorality in America. Indeed, some Islamic
fundamentalists argue that their regimes are morally superior to the
United States because they seek to foster virtue among the citizens.
Virtue, these fundamentalists argue, is a higher principle than liberty.

Indeed it is. And let us admit that in a free society, freedom will
frequently be used badly. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to
do good or evil, to act nobly or basely.

But if freedom brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the
best. The millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives
desire our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when
the good is not the only available option. Even amidst the temptations of
a rich and free society, they have remained on the straight path. Their
virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.

By contrast, the societies that many Islamic fundamentalists seek would
eliminate the possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue is
insufficient in a free society like America, it is almost non-existent in
an unfree society like Iran.

The reason is that coerced virtues are not virtues at all. Consider the
woman who is required to wear a veil. There is no modesty in this,
because she is being compelled Compulsion cannot produce virtue, it can
only produce the outward semblance of virtue.

Thus, a free society like America is not merely more prosperous, more
varied, more peaceful and more tolerant ­ it is also morally superior to
the theocratic and authoritarian regimes that America’s enemies advocate.

"To make us love our country," Edmund Burke once said, "our country ought
to be lovely." Burke’s point is that we should love our country not just
because it is ours, but also because it is good.

America is far from perfect, and there is lots of room for improvement.
In spite of its flaws, however, the American life as it is lived today is
the best life that our world has to offer. Ultimately, America is worthy
of our love and sacrifice because, more than any other society, it makes
possible the good life, and the life that is good.

Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, "What's So Great About America," just hit
the New York Times best seller list. He is the Rishwain Fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

phillytalkradioonline.com



To: Vitas who wrote (20)3/7/2003 1:10:38 AM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 808
 
Bush: U.S. May Strike Iraq Without U.N.
Thu Mar 6, 9:45 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites), bracing the nation for war, said Thursday night the United States will drive Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power if it comes to military force — with or without support from France, Germany and other skeptical allies.

AP Photo

Reuters Photo
Slideshow: President Bush

Bush: Many Nations Will Join U.S.
(AP Video)



Latest news:
· Powell Works to Win Favor for Iraq Action
AP - 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
· Iraq Flattens Six More Missiles
AP - Thu Mar 6, 3:15 PM ET
· Blix Hopes It's Not Too Late to Avoid War
AP - Wed Mar 5,10:04 PM ET
Special Coverage





"I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons," Bush said at a prime-time news conference.

Bush said he had not decided whether to invade Iraq (news - web sites) but that it was only a matter of days before a U.N. Security Council vote on a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing force. He said the United States wants the Security Council to vote even if the resolution appears likely to fail.

"It's time for people to show their cards and let people know where they stand in relation to Saddam." France, Germany, Russia and China say they oppose such a resolution.

"Our mission is clear in Iraq," the president. "Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life."

Bush said it was up to Saddam to avert war. "It's his choice to make whether or not we go to war. He's the person that can make the choice of war or peace. Thus far he's made the wrong choice."

The president's news conference came on the eve of a crucial Security Council meeting. On Friday, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and his counterpart, Mohamed ElBaradei, will report on Iraq's measure of cooperation in eliminating its banned weapons. Their assessment could weigh heavily in determining the outcome of the Security Council's vote on a resolution to authorize force.

Before the news conference, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) talked about the U.N. resolution, White House aides said. They agreed to continue discussions.

Intensifying his case against Saddam, Bush is considering a major address next week to explain the justification and risks of military conflict, aides said. The speech could include a final warning to Saddam while urging journalists and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq, they said.

But officials said the president is not inclined to set an eleventh-hour deadline for Iraq's disarmament, fearing Saddam would use the grace period to further divide U.S. allies. They did not rule out the United States backing a British proposal that would give the Iraqi leader a few more days to disarm. But aides acknowledged that the British proposal was unlikely to be a galvanizing force.

Bush has privately expressed frustration with Saddam's ability to turn France and other allies against the resolution just a few months after a similar measure passed 15-0 in the Security Council, aides said.

Bush answered questions for about 40 minutes after making his case against Saddam in a 10-minute opening statement in the East Room.

Asked how his faith was guiding him through these deliberations, Bush said: "I pray daily, I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength." He added that if he decides to send troops into war, "I would pray for their safety and I would pray for the safety of innocent Iraqi lives as well."

Bush, growing teary-eyed, said it was a "humbling experience" to know that people he's never met "have lifted me and my family up in prayer. It's been a comforting feeling to know that."

Turning to another foreign policy hot spot, Bush said the best way to deal with rising tensions with North Korea (news - web sites) is to involve other nations in the region, such as China, South Korea (news - web sites), Japan and Russia.

"I think the best way to deal with this is in multilateral fashion by convincing those nations that they must stand up to their responsibilities, along with the United States to convince Kim Jong Il that development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his nation's interests," Bush said.

Bush's news conference was part of an intensifying campaign to prepare Americans for the possibility of a war that could be just days away. Military leaders say U.S. forces are now ready to strike Iraq.

More than 230,000 troops are now arrayed around Iraq and more are on the way, awaiting a final go-ahead from the president.

"If we have to use force, I think a lot of nations will be with us," Bush said. Speaking particularly about France and Germany, Bush said, "We have a disagreement over how best to deal with Saddam Hussein. I understand that. Having said that, they're still our friends."

The president said the United States will call for a Security Council vote even if it appears certain that the U.S.-backed resolution will be defeated.

Bush left no doubt that the United States would remove Saddam from power if it comes to war. "We will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change and replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a government that represents the rights of all the people."

The president said he still hopes that Saddam disarms or that he leaves Iraq on his own.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Vitas who wrote (20)3/7/2003 1:14:12 AM
From: Vitas  Respond to of 808
 
The great uniter?

Mar 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition


George Bush's policy has become one of divide and conquer. It is working—for the moment

“I'M A uniter, not a divider.” That was George Bush's boast in the 2000 presidential election. He promised to “change the tone in Washington” by bringing back civility to domestic policy. He also said his “humble but strong” foreign policy would improve America's relations with the rest of the world.

These ambitions lasted about five minutes. Mr Bush's first tax cuts passed the House of Representatives with a mere ten Democratic supporters. Things improved a little after September 11th, when the need to show a patriotic united front prevailed, but partisan warfare has since returned with a vengeance. The president is pushing for a second round of tax cuts, the appointment of anti-abortion conservatives to judgeships and the rolling back of affirmative action—all things that make Democrats seethe and weep. As for endearing his administration to foreigners through humility, well, let's just say that it did not go entirely to plan.

The great uniter presides over a transatlantic relationship that is going through one of its roughest patches for a long time. Most non-Americans are strongly opposed to a war in Iraq, hostile to the president, and increasingly critical of America itself. At home, despite an impressive Republican performance in the mid-term elections, public opinion has moved comparatively little. Although Mr Bush's own ratings remain reasonably high, they too follow the party line. Among Republican voters, he is as popular as any president has ever been at this stage, Ronald Reagan included. But only one in four Democrats looks favourably on his performance, an unusually low figure. If Mr Bush was serious about being a uniter, he has failed.

In the short run, this record of division has not hurt him that much. Of course, the president has not lived up to those promises of being a uniter. But the dreams of campaign-time often go pop. Washington politics was anyway becoming more partisan before Mr Bush became president. He has continued a trend, but has also exacerbated it.

Anyway, this divisiveness has yielded short-term benefits. Mr Bush has split not only his country but also his critics. Some Democratic presidential candidates approved the congressional resolution on the use of force against Saddam Hussein last year; others vehemently oppose military action in Iraq. Some Democrats voted for tax cuts in the Senate; the party rank-and-file dislikes them. It is the same story with the transatlantic alliance. New and old Europe have split on the merits of war against Saddam, and, as with the Democrats, this has helped Mr Bush.

So why should he worry? The answer has to do with the extraordinary ambition of his plans and the inevitable difficulties of sustaining them. At home and abroad, he is rolling the dice in the expectation of gains far off into the future.

In domestic policy, Mr Bush's justification for tax cuts has changed so often that it is easy to lose sight of his real motives. The administration makes much of the idea that the cuts will increase demand in the short run. But there are plenty of speedier ways to inflate the economy. Mr Bush's tax-cut strategy is at heart a more ideological gamble on the future: he argues that lower taxes and a simpler tax structure will make the economy more efficient in the long run—meaning eight, ten, 20 years out.

Something similar applies to Iraq. Mr Bush is on the verge of committing America to an immense enterprise. Toppling Saddam Hussein would be a big step in the campaign to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and ensure they do not fall into the hands of terrorists. And, as he made clear in last week's speech to the American Enterprise Institute, it would be an earnest of America's commitment to the democratic transformation of the Middle East, which would help to solve the Israel-Palestine problem. But this too will take years, even decades.

The vision has to be seen by the others

The fact that Mr Bush is looking so far into the future is in many ways admirable.
But it casts a shadow of doubt over his divisive tactics. For in both domestic and foreign policy, the president is committing America to a long haul without doing the work needed to prepare people for the setbacks that will be inevitable along the way.

At home, the economy is sputtering. It could even fall back into recession. At some point, criticism of the tax cuts seems likely to grow louder. Having sold the cuts with a bewildering variety of arguments—the budget surplus means we can afford them; they will give the economy a short-term fillip; budget deficits don't matter anyway—Mr Bush will find it harder to persuade the public that they are a good idea in the long run, not just a boondoggle for the rich.

Abroad, everyone hopes that a war in Iraq, if it comes, will be swift and relatively merciful. But there is no guarantee that it will. And it seems highly likely that the subsequent reconstruction of Iraq will be extremely difficult—and the political transformation of the Middle East harder still. So was it sensible of Mr Bush to wait until the last minute to start talking about long-range political transformation? And then to do so in vague, cliché-ridden terms? Was it shrewd, given that such an ambitious transformation cannot be managed by America alone, to do so little to advocate an Israeli-Palestinian peace in the meantime? Or to irritate many Europeans so casually on everything from the Kyoto protocol to jibes about “old Europe”?

Mr Bush has fallen prey to a besetting fault of his administration. Serious discussions do take place in the White House—but their seriousness often does not carry over into the realm of public persuasion. The president too easily assumes that, if the policy is right, people will come to see its wisdom. They may well do so, eventually. But in the short run doubt and suspicion continue. And that makes it harder than it need be to sustain the admirably ambitious policies Mr Bush has embarked upon.

economist.com



To: Vitas who wrote (20)3/8/2003 8:35:36 AM
From: Vitas  Read Replies (9) | Respond to of 808
 
Full Text of Revised Resolution

Following is the full text of the revised draft resolution on Iraq submitted by Spain, Britain and the U.S. to the United Nations Security Council. Provided by the Associated Press.

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations of Iraq contained therein,

Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the Council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,

Noting, in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,

Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution.

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,

Mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile poses to international and national peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with is decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);

2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;

3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Updated March 7, 2003 4:35 p.m. EST

online.wsj.com