posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 08:48 AM
here's some of what the story read since the link doesn't work..
ìHe (Jack Straw) did not spell out the details during a news conference. But British diplomats floated the idea of attaching a short deadline with the
resolution, either as an amendment or a statement that would accompany it. The deadline would give Saddam a brief period to prove he has no more
banned weapons, or face war.
"We are open to discussion on the wording, but the principle we are holding firm to," he said, emphasizing that Iraq has squandered its final
opportunity to disarm peacefully.
U.S. diplomats in recent days have signaled a willingness to hear suggestions on the wording so long as there were no changes to the substance of the
draft. U.S. officials said Washington had "not completely signed off" on the British ideas
British diplomats said discussions were going on among capitals at the United Nations but it was too early to talk about the amount of time Saddam
would be given. Several council diplomats expressed surprise that British hadn't approached them to discuss their ideas.
The proposal seemed similar to the one offered by Canada that would give Saddam until the end of the month to carry out a series of disarmament
My friend, it seems you are alone in you assertion that everyone wants to get rid of Saddam because of his past human rights abuses. While your
stance maybe noble-our governments are not. Mr. Blair appeared on MTV UK yesterday trying to drum up support. heís put himself in a pickle it seems
so far as public opinion. This is just the start of some back peddling on his part, imo. While no one is massing troops to stop the US no one is
jumping out of their chairs to help either. With Turkey waiting to see if the resolution passes before it decides whether to take another vote or
notÖPakistan on the fence, France and Russia threatening a veto and China nodding their head in agreement with them; this has turned out to be more
dramatic than my favorite a soap opera. Difference is no one really gets killed on the soaps; its no where near reality.
The only ones talking of regime change is the USG. Like I posted earlieróStraw said Britainís goal is only disarmament and they would prefer it be
peaceful (meaning through inspections). Albaradi will ask for more time and Blix will hint at the same thing saying ìthey are being more cooperativeî.
The longer this thing goes (date has been pushed back to early April) the further away the world community gets from regime change and now we see
Britain backing way from it completely. the new resolution pass or fail wonít save Blair. If it fails he will have to choose a side-either commit
political suicide or back out ungracefully. Either way our ìallianceî isnít healthy when you start getting into the particulars of the long haulÖwhen
Tony is gone who will support the re-building, and he will go either way.
Allies, what allies? The only reason we are even going through the auspices of a new resolution is because Tony Blair feels he needs one for his own
personal political goals. Everyone is tending to their own interest-from turkey to GB. After all of this one thing is perfectly clear; there are no
real allies and anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly mistaken. flim-flammed or as Brotha Malcolm (peace be upon him) would said hood-winked.
I saw a cartoon on a UK website where Blair was Dubyaís lap dog. (I was a little offended by some of the material on that site, but I had to chuckle
at the sight of that.) While some will disagree a real politican knows it is all about public opinion.
[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Saphronia]