US fails to get Iraq deadline votes

[Evanauto]

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he hoped the moves could break a bitter stalemate among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The United States and Britain are pushing for a resolution that would say Iraq has failed to disarm and would give international sanction to a war. France, Russia and China oppose such a resolution.

French President Jacques Chirac and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov made their opposition even more emphatic Monday, vowing to veto the resolution as currently written. "Whatever happens, France will vote no," Chirac said.

Britain appeared to be seeking a middle ground, which could further delay the start of a war. "What we are proposing is eminently reasonable," Straw told Parliament. "We are not expecting Saddam to have disarmed in a week or so, but to demonstrate by that time the full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation demanded of him."

President Bush maintains that the United States and its allies have the authority to wage war on Iraq regardless of how the council vote turns out. But U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his strongest warning to date, said that if the United States acts without council assent, it will violate the U.N. charter. "The legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired," Annan said.

The United Nations scheduled an open debate beginning today in which all U.N. members can express their views on how to handle the Iraq crisis.

There was no indication how far Bush was willing to go to court votes on the council. The administration has been adamant that Iraq is long past its deadline for disarming and must face the "serious consequences" called for in an earlier U.N. resolution.

But the United States is open to changes — an indication of how difficult it has been to come up with the votes needed for passage. Nine of the 15 Security Council members must vote in favor, and there can be no vetoes from permanent members. U.S. officials, in conversations with council members, are talking "about what kind of resolution they could vote for," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

As the council moved toward a likely vote later this week, the Bush administration mounted a telephone lobbying blitz that sought to persuade countries on the council to back the resolution. Bush made a round of calls to world leaders, including one to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Secretary of State Colin Powell lobbied top officials of Guinea, Angola, Mexico and Pakistan, whose votes could be crucial to the outcome.

The six undecided council members — Pakistan, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, Angola and Cameroon — were discussing a proposal that would extend the disarmament deadline until mid-April. Last month, the United States dismissed a similar measure presented by Canada.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials called attention to Iraq's program to develop unmanned drone aircraft that could be used to dispense chemical or biological agents. Powell said that program "should be of concern to everyone."

[Ted-Easton]

I want to hear EXACTLY what it will take for war to be avoided.
I want Bush to say, in no uncertain terms, EXACTLY what actions must be taken, rather than- "disarm".
That could be anything from chopping off everyone's limbs to UN inpections.

[JMHX]

I'm trying to keep up to date on this entire United Nations thing, as it's getting very interesting. Russia has been flip-flopping all week, and France has kept that sort-of...well...FRENCH way of doing things. Personally, I'd like to see Russia or France stand up and actually use their veto power. It'd be intriguing to see someone standing up against the United States and telling them that things won't always be won by bullying. Of course we'll just go to war without the resolution, but it'll serve as a keystone in history.

I still don't like that Jacques Chirac. He's a fascist, for crying out loud!

[CrustifiedOnCrass]

At 3/10/03 11:13 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I'm trying to keep up to date on this entire United Nations thing, as it's getting very interesting. Russia has been flip-flopping all week, and France has kept that sort-of...well...FRENCH way of doing things. Personally, I'd like to see Russia or France stand up and actually use their veto power. It'd be intriguing to see someone standing up against the United States and telling them that things won't always be won by bullying. Of course we'll just go to war without the resolution, but it'll serve as a keystone in history.

I still don't like that Jacques Chirac. He's a fascist, for crying out loud!

I don't like him either, he's against the war for all the wrong reasons. For fucks sake..they purify their Evian water in bovine blood!

[JMHX]

My main problem with Chirac is that, like you said, he's against war solely to protect his nation's financial interests. He's out of it for the oil stakes he made, and is too proud to confess and just back down. While I would still like to see France use a veto, they'd never live it down.

[TheEvilOne]

From what I understand, France and Russia have said they would vote against the resolution, but have not said they would veto it. If it receives a majority of votes, they may just let it be.

[Ted-Easton]

WASHINGTON, DC—Amid growing anti-war protests and polls indicating eroding public support for an invasion of Iraq, President Bush is offering U.S. taxpayers a rebate in the amount of $300 if we go to war.

Above: Bush entices war opponents with a $300 tax rebate.
"My proposed tax rebate will serve to stimulate the economy," said Bush, waving a sample check made out to John Q. Public at a White House press conference Monday. "Americans will get a generous infusion of cash that can be used however they choose—all in return for simply supporting a first strike against Iraq. Now, who wouldn't want an extra $300 in their pocket next month?"

Under the Bush plan, single taxpayers would be eligible for a $300 rebate, married filers $600, and heads of household $500. Attached to the proposal is a rider, penned by Bush himself, stating, "Plus, we also will invade Iraq right away, everyone promises."

Pending passage of the bill, titled Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2003 And We Bomb Iraq (H.R. 1936), some 91.3 million checks could be mailed as early as March 31.

"The plan is almost identical to the tax rebate offered in 2001," Bush said. "With the minor exception, of course, of the provision that Americans react favorably to the deployment of 210,000 troops to the Persian Gulf."

"Which reminds me, have you seen these new iPods?" added Bush, pulling an Apple-brand MP3 player from his pocket and holding it up to the crowd. "It costs $299 for one of these little buggers, but it holds a thousand songs. They're amazing."

Citizens are excited by the prospect of having a little extra spending money.

"Things have been pretty tight lately, so this sure would come in handy," said Ray Kilty, 48, an Akron, OH, screen-door-factory worker. "I don't know much about what's going on with Iraq, but I do know what's going on with my truck. The brakes are set to go any day now."

Bush has been pushing the rebate, part of his ambitious $1.4 trillion tax-cut agenda, in a series of TV commercials. One such ad, which made its debut last Tuesday during Fox's American Idol, features the slogan, "Free Iraq Of Hussein, Free Rent For A Month." Another upcoming spot asks the question, "War: What Is It Good For?" and answers, "$300, Is What."

In recent weeks, Bush has also met with key lawmakers in an effort to win their support.

"I get the green light from the American people, and they get 300 smackeroos," Bush told members of the Senate budget committee last Friday. "Any questions?"

"I'll tell you what," Bush added. "Just because I'm feeling generous, I'll throw in another $20 per dependent if we invade by the end of next week."

To ensure public support, the following will appear in fine print below the endorsement line on the back of each check: "By signing and cashing this check, the above is hereby indicating his or her consent to a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and will refrain from attending protest rallies or committing any other act that could reasonably be construed as an expression of disapproval of said war."

"Americans need two things right now: economic relief and the elimination of the threat of terrorism." Bush said. "These rebates take care of both. I can't think of a better way to show the citizens of this nation that war truly pays."

[CrustifiedOnCrass]

At 3/11/03 08:22 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: My main problem with Chirac is that, like you said, he's against war solely to protect his nation's financial interests. He's out of it for the oil stakes he made, and is too proud to confess and just back down. While I would still like to see France use a veto, they'd never live it down.

I think Russia however could live up to their veto.