Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[nebukhadhnasar@yahoo.com: Re: imperialist shell game]

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: nebukhadhnasar@yahoo.com (Abdallah Tahhan) To: thekoba@aztec.asu.edu Subject: Re: imperialist
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 28, 2002
      ================= Begin forwarded message =================

      From: nebukhadhnasar@... (Abdallah Tahhan)
      To: thekoba@...
      Subject: Re: imperialist shell game
      Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:04:46 -0700 (PDT)


      Dear Kevin,

      Here below is this morning's BBC report on the issue
      of America's effort to get UN cover. Please note the
      new procedures envisaged in the proposed UN
      resolution. They are clearly aimed at provoking some
      sort of confrontation, and thereby war. Just imagine
      a team of armed "security guards" storming up to a
      presidential palace unannounced and trying to walk
      inside. Do you think that the President's guards will
      allow it?

      Or how about armed guards storming into a mosque
      during prayer times. Do you think the masses in the
      streets won't be "upset"?

      These are virtually guaranteed not only to provoke
      "confrontations" with "Iraqi authorities" who can be
      said to be "obstructing inspections"; they are also
      likely to create street battles that would require
      immediate military intervention by the US to "rescue"
      its "beleagured team of security guards."

      Probably to get Russian support the US will have to
      rewrite parts of this resolution, toning them down,
      but still the outcome will be virtually the same,
      getting an international cover for an American war.

      Note also that the resolution begins saying that Iraq
      is in violation of its commitments. Thus, if it is
      passed, all the UN is theoretically agreeing that Iraq
      is an outlaw which is far from proven, (even if it
      were a "crime," which it isn't in my book!).

      This is how the US is approaching the "UN support"
      issue -- writing a new resolution that is much worse
      than the existing ones in order to provoke a war which
      they can claim is an "international effort." Why
      should anyone who opposes war on Iraq endorse any part
      of this gangsterism??

      Comradely,

      Eric

      ------

      Iraq rebuffs new UN draft


      Iraq has rejected a proposed new draft resolution
      which the United States and Britain want passed by the
      United Nations Security Council.

      According to diplomats at the UN, the proposed
      resolution would give Iraq seven days to accept
      unlimited weapons inspections.

      A senior US envoy has begun talks with the Russian
      foreign minister, aimed at overcoming Moscow's
      reservations about the US approach.

      The draft is set to be put to the Security Council
      next week and winning the Kremlin's support will be
      crucial to getting a vote through.

      US President George W Bush has also warned in a
      national radio address of the threat he says Iraq
      poses.

      'Harming Iraq'

      Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan has said any
      move that harmed Baghdad would not be accepted.

      "The stance from the inspectors has been decided and
      any additional procedure that aims at harming Iraq
      won't be accepted," he said.


      The proposals radically change the inspections process


      Under the terms of the draft, if Iraq failed to comply
      with any aspect of the resolution's demands, "all
      necessary means" could be used against it - a
      diplomatic term for military force.

      Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz warned the
      United States it would face a "fierce war" in which it
      would "suffer losses they have never sustained for
      decades".

      Security Council doubts

      Of the five veto-wielding permanent members on the
      Security Council, the US and UK support the draft
      resolution, but Russia, France and China remain to be
      convinced.

      US and British diplomats have mounted an intensive
      lobbying campaign to try to win the backing of the
      other three - so far, with little obvious success.

      On Saturday, the US Undersecretary of State Marc
      Grossman, accompanied by the political director of the
      British Foreign Office Peter Ricketts, began closed
      door talks with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov
      in Moscow.

      The two sides cracked jokes together as they met, but
      before the meeting, Mr Ivanov had said there was as
      yet "no clear proof" that the Iraqi president had
      weapons of mass destruction, adding it would be an
      "unforgivable error" to delay the return of
      inspectors.

      And Mr Grossman appeared to make little headway on
      Friday in Paris where President Jacques Chirac said he
      continued to support a two-step approach. China is
      said to support this stance.

      The draft is expected to undergo changes before being
      put to a vote and the most intense wrangling is likely
      to focus on the use of military force.

      The three opponents of the resolution are worried that
      the conditions set for Iraq are impossible to meet and
      that President Bush could use this as a pretext to
      mount a unilateral military attack on Iraq.

      On Saturday, Mr Bush said that the danger to the
      United States from Iraq was grave and was growing.

      In his weekly radio address, he said that the threats
      the country faced would only worsen from month to
      month, and to ignore them was to encourage them.

      He said that when the threats had fully materialised,
      it might be too late to protect the United States and
      its allies.

      Inspections rethink

      Diplomats released details of the draft resolution on
      Friday night though it has not yet officially been
      made public.

      The three-and-a-half page document opens with a
      statement that Iraq is already in "material breach" of
      UN Security Council resolutions and demands "full,
      final and complete destruction" of Iraq's weapons of
      mass destruction.

      The proposed resolution radically changes the weapons
      inspections process, which was broken off four years
      ago amid accusations that Iraq was obstructing
      inspectors' work.

      Before inspections began, Iraq would have to produce
      details of any nuclear, chemical, biological or
      ballistic arms programmes it might have.

      Iraq would have to agree to let UN weapons inspectors
      roam freely in their search for weapons of mass
      destruction, even allowing them into government
      buildings and mosques.

      The resolution would also take away the special status
      of eight presidential sites.

      In negotiations with President Saddam in 1998, UN
      Secretary General Kofi Annan agreed to restrict the
      inspection of the presidential palaces so spot-checks
      could not take place unannounced.

      And the practice of assigning an Iraqi guide to the
      inspectors would be scrapped. Instead, it is
      suggested, they would be accompanied by armed security guards.

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
      http://sbc.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.