"Aanval Irak ook zonder resolutie"

[Gatara]

Sunday Telegraph:
(je moest inloggen, dus ik kan geen andere URL geven dan de hoofdpagina van Sunday Telegraph ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ : )

Iraq destroys missiles - but Bush and Blair don't blink
By Colin Brown, Philip Sherwell in Baghdad and Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 02/03/2003)


Iraq began decommissioning its arsenal of banned al-Samoud 2 missiles last night as ministers disclosed to The Telegraph that America and Britain are prepared to launch military action immediately after the United Nations Security Council votes on a second resolution, regardless of its outcome.

Senior ministers said that Tony Blair was prepared to override the objections of his backbenchers and launch military action, irrespective of whether Britain, the United States and Spain secured a majority vote for a second resolution in the UN.

Such a move would almost certainly trigger ministerial resignations, particularly as the speed of the attack would rule out a debate in the Commons before military action. A senior minister said: "Win or lose at the UN, the Iraqi army will get flattened quickly. It will be almost immediate. We are not going to hang around."

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said that he believed the war could be over quickly. A minister said: "There is a sense of immediacy. It will be two, three weeks from now. Not longer. This is a phoney peace."

Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, told The Telegraph: "This is a matter of the whole Government being on the line. It is not a matter of the Prime Minister being on the line. I am in this just as every other member of the Cabinet. We are absolutely rock-solid behind the Prime Minister."

In an interview last night, the Prime Minister said there "no plans" to use nuclear weapons in any attack. Plans for a rapid attack received a setback when Turkey's parliament narrowly failed to approve the deployment of more than 62,000 US troops on its territory.

Washington had put increasing pressure on Turkey to approve the move, but while MPs voted 264-250 in favour of the deployment, the motion required more than half of those present in the chamber to approve it - there were 19 abstentions. The Turkish government must now decide whether to try to present a similar resolution to the assembly again and gather the few votes it needs.

Last night Pentagon officials warned that any military action could be delayed by up to 40 days if the US had to establish a new northern front from which to launch attacks.

Iraq's decision to bulldoze four al-Samouds, its most advanced surface-to-surface weapons, was called a "significant piece of real disarmament" by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector.

America condemned Saddam Hussein's concession as "propaganda wrapped in a lie inside a falsehood. Resolution 1441 called for full, immediate and complete disarmament," the White House said, "not partial disarmament."

Russia and France, however, welcomed the move, although Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said it was simply a "cynical attempt to divide the Security Council".

The four missiles - whose range exceeds the 93-mile limit set in UN resolutions - was crushed by bulldozers at a military base near Baghdad. The inspectors had asked for them to be blown up, but the Iraqis insisted on crushing them. The destruction was delayed because their bulldozer was too small.

Ari Fleischer, President Bush's spokesman, insisted, however, that disarmament would only be achieved if Saddam was ousted. "Every time Saddam is under pressure, he tries to relieve it by disarming just a touch, just a little, playing the deception game."

Colin Powell, the secretary of state, said that time was running out for Iraq. "We have not yet asked for a vote on the second resolution because we're still looking for a peaceful solution. We are giving the inspections process more time, as many have asked. In the end, one must conclude we can't go on very long like that."

More pressure was brought to bear from an unexpected quarter yesterday when the United Arab Emirates became the first Arab nation to call openly for Saddam to step down. While Washington has said that such a proposal - made during an emergency Arab summit in Egypt - could lift the threat of war, Saddam claims that he would rather die than go into exile.
------




Blair rocked by biggest revolt over war on Iraq
By George Jones, Political Editor, Toby Helm and Robin Gedye
(Filed: 27/02/2003)


Tony Blair faced the prospect last night of taking the nation to war with the most divided Parliament since Suez after almost 200 MPs from all parties opposed early military action against Iraq.

An impassioned six-hour Commons debate on the Iraq crisis ended with the biggest and most dangerous rebellion Mr Blair has faced since coming to power in 1997.


Blair: taking the biggest gamble of his career
A cross-party amendment declaring the case for military action against Saddam Hussein "as yet unproven" was supported by 199 votes - almost a third of the total strength of the Commons.

The anti-war vote was much bigger than the Government expected, with 121 Labour MPs defying a three-line whip to vote for the amendment. They were joined by 13 Tories, 52 Liberal Democrats and Nationalist MPs from Scotland and Wales.

Although the amendment was defeated by 194 votes, the opposition to what Mr Blair's critics call a "rush to war" has gained strength significantly. The last time the Commons voted on Iraq a month ago, 53 MPs opposed military action.

Senior Tories, including Kenneth Clarke and John Gummer, broke ranks with their leadership to go into the division lobby alongside former Labour Cabinet ministers Chris Smith and Frank Dobson, and Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.

It was a concerted attempt to demonstrate the strength of opposition within Parliament and the country to joining an American-led invasion of Iraq.

The Speaker, Michael Martin, took the unusual step of allowing the vote on the backbench amendment in recognition of the pressure among MPs for a substantive vote on whether Britain should go to war - despite assurances from Mr Blair that last night's vote should not be seen as authorising military action.

The Government's motion, emphasising that Iraq had a final opportunity to disarm peacefully, and stressing that Britain was working through the UN, was approved by 434 votes to 124, a majority of 310.

Fifty-nine Labour MPs went on to vote against the Government's main motion, including Tam Dalyell, Father of the House, and former ministers Glenda Jackson, Peter Kilfoyle and Mark Fisher.

The rebellion on the anti-war amendment was the biggest of Mr Blair's premiership, easily outstripping the previous total of 67 Labour MPs who opposed disability benefit cuts in May 1999.

Most Tories came to Mr Blair's aid and backed the Government. But it was a damaging blow to his authority when he could be only weeks away from sending British forces to war.

The action underlined the fact that Mr Blair is taking the biggest gamble of his career by supporting President George W Bush's stance on Iraq. Some MPs compared the split over Iraq to the Suez crisis of 1956, which divided Britain and led to the resignation of the Tory Prime Minister, Anthony Eden.

The rebellion is believed to be the biggest by members of a governing party in recent political history.

Mr Blair was left in no doubt that securing the authority of the United Nations Security Council for the use of force will be essential to keeping his party together if there is war.

Labour MPs predicted that without it there would be an even bigger rebellion.

At Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair told the Commons he was working "flat out" to secure a second UN resolution authorising military action.

He showed no sign of softening his position, telling Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, that any veto of a second resolution would be "unreasonable" if Saddam ignored a last chance to disarm.

Mr Blair remained on the Government front bench for the speech from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, opening the Iraq debate.

He left immediately after, having been in the chamber for 35 minutes of the most crucial debate since he became Prime Minister. Mr Blair returned to Downing Street to record a television debate with anti-war protesters.

The mood of the Commons yesterday was apprehensive about the prospects of the looming conflict. Mr Straw was given a rough ride by MPs who argued that the Government was "rushing" towards military action before efforts to disarm Saddam peacefully had run their course.

Mr Straw said it was close to the "crunch point" for Iraq as both inspections and containment had failed to rein in the Iraqi dictator. He accused Saddam of prevaricating for 12 years and failing to disarm his "horrific arsenal" of chemical and biological weapons.

He assured MPs the Government would put any decision on military action to a Commons vote, though this would be subject to the usual reservation about delaying it until after war had begun to protect the safety of British forces.

Mr Smith, the former Culture Secretary, who proposed the anti-war amendment, said if MPs backed the Government they would be endorsing a timetable "which leads inexorably to war within the next three to four weeks".

"We must say now is not the time, that the case has yet to be fully made and that war, with all its consequences, cannot be the present answer." Later, he said the vote exceeded his "wildest hopes."

It showed "a significant amount of concern about the speed with which the American administration seems to be dragging us towards war".

Mr Clarke, the former Tory chancellor, said the next time a terrorist bomb went off in a Western city, political leaders would have to live with the question: "How far did this policy contribute to it?"
Mr Blair and Mr Straw highlighted an admission by Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, that he was still uncertain whether Iraq really wanted to co-operate.

[Liesje2]

Ik kan niet zo goed engels sorry

[Gatara]

Liesje2 schreef:
Ik kan niet zo goed engels sorry

Het staat ook in het kort in het Nederlands erboven (rtl tekst)

[Liesje2]

oké sorry

Ik vind het zo dom dat ze een oorlog willen verklaren waarbij meer dan de helft van de wereld daar niet mee akkoord gaan. Ik ben zelf tegen de oorlog. Kunnen ze niet gewoon praten en onderhandelen???

Liesje2 schreef:
oké sorry

Ik vind het zo dom dat ze een oorlog willen verklaren waarbij meer dan de helft van de wereld daar niet mee akkoord gaan. Ik ben zelf tegen de oorlog. Kunnen ze niet gewoon praten en onderhandelen???

kunnen ze wel, maar dat zal nog minder opschieten dan nu.
Ik vraag me af of Iraq zich wel zou ontwapenen en of Iraq wel wapeninspecteurs van de VN binnen zou laten, wanneer er geen oorlogsdreiging was.

[Atje85]

de ballonnenman schreef:
wanneer er geen oorlogsdreiging was.

dat is wat anders dan echt oorlog

Dat klopt ook ja. Maar wanneer je alleen maar onderhandelt (zonder dreiging in wat voor soort dan ook), dan schiet het waarschijnlijk ook niet op.

Ik ben het verder trouwens ook helemaal niet eens met de beslissing vna de US en UK. Voor hun staat er geloof ik al vast dat er een oorlog komt, wat er ook gebeurt.
Oke, Iraq werkt niet heel goed mee. Maar ze doen wel dingen, zoals nu het vernietigen van die Al-Samoud-2 raketten. En dat Iraq ff snel ontwapent moet je ook niet verwachten. Ik denk dat Iraq daar niet bepaald blij mee zal zijn, dus ze zullen niet zeggen tegen de VS: oke jullie willen dit, dan doen wij het gelijk.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Als er een eenzijdige aanval van de VS en GB komt dan kan de veiligheidsraad net zo goed opgeheven worden. Wat heeft die dan nog voor nut.
De VS en GB mogen dan wel schuldig zijn aan schending van soevereiniteit waarop economische sancties kunnen staan, maar die moeten bepaald worden door de v-raad. En wie hebben daarin een vetorecht?? Precies! VS en GB, die kunnen alle sancties tegen zichzelf veto-en. Het systeem werkt gewoon niet.
Hoewel de motieven van de oorlog mij nog steeds niet helemaal duidelijk zijn denkik dat de VS meer baat hebben bij een oorlog zonder VN mandaat, het zou kunnen dat ze daar bewust op afstevenen.

[aldi - PUNK]

Spreiding van kennis, inkomen en macht betekent afwijzen van de neoliberale globalisering, door schuldkwijtschelding aan de Derde Wereld en een betere machtsverdeling binnen de Verenigde Naties, het Internationaal Monetair Fonds en de Wereldbank. Nederland kiest voor steun aan vreedzame oplossingen van conflicten, gaat uit de overleefde NAVO en verkleint haar leger.

stem sp(!)
sor off-toppic

[NN]

Ik ben in principe tegen oorlog, maar vind wel dat als de veiligheidsraad van de VN vindt dat er echt geen ander middel meer mogelijk is, Nederland als VN-lid aan haar verplichtingen moet voldoen.

De stelling is hier dat de VN-VR geen resolutie geeft, dan ben ik dus tegen een aanval op Irak.

[waaromniet?]

NN schreef:
Ik ben in principe tegen oorlog, maar vind wel dat als de veiligheidsraad van de VN vindt dat er echt geen ander middel meer mogelijk is, Nederland als VN-lid aan haar verplichtingen moet voldoen.

De stelling is hier dat de VN-VR geen resolutie geeft, dan ben ik dus tegen een aanval op Irak.

Couldn't agree more.

aanvallen, geen gezeik

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

waaromniet? schreef:
Couldn't agree more.

ik ook niet, maar daar gaat deze discussie dus niet over.
Wat vind je ervan als de VS en GBR een eenzijdige aanval ondernemen? Minachting van de veiligheids raad dus! Die kan net zo goed opgeheven worden (zie mijn vorige post)

[waaromniet?]

duyvel schreef:
ik ook niet, maar daar gaat deze discussie dus niet over.
Wat vind je ervan als de VS en GBR een eenzijdige aanval ondernemen? Minachting van de veiligheids raad dus! Die kan net zo goed opgeheven worden (zie mijn vorige post)

Ik lette niet op, zou het carnaval zijn, zou het m'n ziekte van de afgelopen dagen zijn, of zat ik gewoon te slapen?

Maar, ook verder heb ik er weinig aan toe te voegen, dan weliswaar aan jouw post. Zowel het veto recht, als het aanvallen zonder dit mandaat is in triest.