BREAKING: Iraq Resolution has just been Adopted unanimously

Breaking

From BBC
UN backs Iraq resolution

Members of the UN Security Council have voted unanimously in favour of a revised US text on Iraq setting out its political future.
The resolution needed the backing of nine of the Security Council's 15 members to pass and no veto.

More



From Reuters
UN Council Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council voted 15-0 on Thursday to adopt a contentious resolution on Iraq's future, a victory for the United States which sought approval for its occupation of the country.

More

More window dressing, designed to prop us Bush* and Tony for another week or two. Nothing to see here.

The outcome of the vote will be hailed by some as a victory for American diplomacy, says the BBC's Greg Barrow at the UN.

You bet--over and over and over and over--and no one will dare say otherwise.

The outcome of the vote will be hailed by some as a victory for American diplomacy, says the BBC's Greg Barrow at the UN.

An announcement shortly before the vote confirmed France, Germany and Russia - leading critics of the US-led war on Iraq - would back the amended text, ending speculation they might abstain altogether.

But continuing concerns about the text mean they will not contribute troops or funds to the reconstruction effort.

The resolution confirms that for the time being the Coalition Provisional Authority will remain the over-arching power in Iraq, although it stresses that the transfer of sovereignty and government back to the Iraqi people will happen as soon as practicable.

The United Nations is promised a strengthened vital role in the political and economic reconstruction process, but only as circumstances, particularly security, permit.

Still missing is a clear timetable, with dates, for a transfer of power and anything like the more dominant role that the UN had sought.

The three had raised concerns about the role the United Nations would play in the political settlement in Iraq, as well as about the mandate of a future international peacekeeping force.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3197688.stm

and validating their evil impulse to do so. :cry:

Syria? North Korea? Iran? Vermont?

Which will be somewhat ironic, since even they voted for this thing (as part of the 'show of unity').

I wish I knew someone who would take my bet.

Ask if they want to cover my $5 on Syria too.

Hey, we don't need the UN approval to attack a sovereign nation...where were you during the last invasion?

It recognizes the Governing Council as the provinsional Iraqi government, which makes a lot of things easier.

Still, the Administration was hoping for a lot more than they're ever going to get - the fact that this is only being passed now and not back in July is really reflective of the resentment we're facing.

shrub and co. get their way. we are screwed in 2004. sorry if it offends anyone but that's just how i feel right now. this misdadministration has gotten away with so much already. what's to stop them in the future?

this country died 12/12/00 when bushit co was selected the revolution was over before it started and the clintoon was part of it. to bad so sad welcome to the third world sports fans

I've only ever seen right-wing cyberwhackos use that term.

attacking "Clintoon" as a DLC hack.

of that.

Some days I am overwhelmed by dispair at the sorry situation we are all in. It almost appears to be too late. The masses don't notice or don't care about what is happening. The worst thing is that many people don't believe it.

Somehow they have devloped some kind of childlike belief that the government would never do anything really bad to it's people. The United States is the greatest country on earth they say. They flatly refuse to believe anything different. How do you combat that?

It has been said that hope springs eternal. I fear that the well is drying up.

snip

The resolution confirms that for the time being the Coalition Provisional Authority will remain the over-arching power in Iraq, although it stresses that the transfer of sovereignty and government back to the Iraqi people will happen as soon as practicable.

The United Nations is promised a strengthened vital role in the political and economic reconstruction process, but only as circumstances, particularly security, permit.

Still missing is a clear timetable, with dates, for a transfer of power and anything like the more dominant role that the UN had sought.

The three had raised concerns about the role the United Nations would play in the political settlement in Iraq, as well as about the mandate of a future international peacekeeping force.

the 51st State. Better add another star to the flag.

should have vetoed. They just gave the shrub points.

By not committing troops or funds, the UN leaves the Bushies right where they were before...isolated, with too much territory to control with too few troops. IMHO, I think that lowers the chances of additional military actions in the Middle East by the NeoCons because they can't control what they already have in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Additionally, outside of Japan, I don't think any other country has offered monetary assistance. So, the U. S. taxpayers are stuck for the bill rung up by the NeoCons.

All the articles I'm seeing don't say what the hell's IN the resolution. God DAMN.

Here's the link
Full text of the draft resolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3189270.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3271530,00.html

U.N. Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution

Thursday October 16, 2003 4:16 PM


UNITED NATIONS (AP) - In a diplomatic victory for the United States, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday aimed at attracting aid to stabilize Iraq and putting it on the road to independence. <snip>

French officials in Brussels said the European support would not translate into the funds and troops sought by the United States. Still, U.S. officials expressed hope the resolution would mean additional EU funds for Iraq's reconstruction.

``Really, the goal is to try to get something more than a piece of paper, to try to get money and troops. We hope the resolution combined with the upcoming donor conference will help,'' a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/international/middleeast/16CND-NATI.html?hp

...The agreement is a diplomatic victory for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who brought the reluctant Security Council together without directly ceding any of the American-led coalition's control over Iraq's immediate political future.The resolution papers over the fundamental differences dividing the United States from many Council members, and is unlikely to have much impact in winning new military forces and financial contributions for Iraq's reconstruction...represented a triumphant moment for the United States ...With the approval of the resolution they ... win a sort of international assent to the political and military outcome of the Iraqi war, get approval of a multinational force led by the United States, and gain endorsement for a political transition under the control of the American-led occupation authority.
<snip>

..(wanting) a quick transfer of power to an interim Iraqi authority and for United Nations control of the political transition, had submitted amendments to pin down an explicit timetable for the transition and to allow for the possibility of an earlier transfer of power to the Iraqis. On Tuesday, Washington rebuffed the core remaining demands while making other, minor concessions ....


From the AP

"...amendments would give U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan greater scope to participate in the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution and the political transition, and would state for the first time that the mandate of U.S.-led troops would expire when an Iraqi government is elected....France, Russia and Germany changed the agenda to the quick restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, forcing the United States to make clear it has no intention of remaining an occupying power. The resolution states that ``the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly.''...(while)United States...never wavered in ... assessment that sovereignty can't be relinquished until Iraq drafts a new constitution and holds elections....agreed, however, to include new provisions urging the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority ``to return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq as soon as practicable'' and calling on the Iraqi Governing Council to provide the Security Council with a timetable for drafting a new constitution and holding elections by Dec. 15."

"the mandate of U.S.-led troops would expire when an Iraqi government is elected...."

Oh boy, then we'll get to see what happens when the U.S. violates a UN resolution.

junior can clap, but to no benefit.

The UN just made Chamberlain's mistake.

There is no negotiating with the Bush administration. He should be stopped at all levels.

While this resolution doesn't provide troops or money, it provides something important to Bush right now: legitimacy. There were several countries that mentioned that they would consider sending troops IF there was a UN resolution to that effect. Will this one be enough for them?

If any American troops are freed up, you can bet they'll be put to work invading the Netherlands and Belgium...Oops, I mean Syria and Iran.

And did Bush violate the UN charter (by violating the Charter) or not? If so, will he get away with it? If Bush can violate the Charter with no consequence, what is stopping any other country from doing the same?

This is just one more step down the slippery slope to global anarchy.

Welcome back to the 18th Century...

this is a huge victory for the Bush administration...I'm scared about what it will mean to the perception (not the reality) by the US public....

This is appeasement. I thought the U.N. knew what kind of monster they were keeping in check. Apparently not.

This ***UNANIMOUS*** vote's propaganda value to the Rethug spin factory: priceless.

It says we are on our own, we screwed it up, we fix it...what change is that?
I guess that they all banded together and said You are on your own White Boy....

Wow, a diplomatic coup.

Will it enable Bush to hire enough 3rd world replacements to free up our troops for the Syria and Iran invasions?

because the finally voted for something that is totally irrelevant at this point. They are just faced the reality. Simply they voted to start a war almost a year later it started. Today the most importatn issue is money and boots. They made it very clear that are not going to give it. 6 months - 1 year from now when money and troops woulbe irrelevant because Iraq would spiral out of control and all we would care to get the hell out there, then they will approve money and boots. Bush doesn't see it that far enough.

inside of Iraq for an Islamic state, I suppose.

It may be that the UN is essentially seeing it as a choice between legitimizing a US puppet government in Iraq, or letting it turn into another Iran, completely outside of western influence.

I'd love to hear some other explanantion, because I really don't see much sense in this decision.

They don't give a rat's ass about the actual people in Iraq, and consider it a win/win scenario if they look like they're compromising with the USA while not actually having to do anything (for or against America).

If that were true we'd have thrown Chalabi out on his ass a long time ago. In fact we would have frog marched Chalabi to Jordan.

I hadn't intended to contrast the UN opinion of Iraq with America's -- simply pointing out that it's not as much of a contrast as we could hope for. :-(

This will be perceived as world wide support for Bush policies. It may give him the election and justification for the invasions of Syria and Iran after sufficent 3rd world mercenaries can be hired to free up US troops in Iraq.

driving home from work, I couldn't believe my ears.

It's a sad day when the Russia, France and Germany lend (some degree of, but imagine the SPINN already...)legitimacy to a completely illegitimate act.

Even without troop or money commitment, like others have said, it's a HUGE mistake.

So why do the "hardliners" all of a sudden get soft ?
I think this has been a "G7" decision, not a UN one. It's all about the rich helping the rich.

You know what I would like ? Be gone with the security council. Kofi calls all the shots !

or the perception of legitimacy, at least at home. He hopes this "victory" will get him his $87 billion. This resolution means nothing. No troops, no money on the table ($1.5B from Japan is not substantial) and that's what we were really looking for from the UN.
As far as the "expiration" of US occupation when Iraq finally holds its election.....yeah, right, like anyone in the UN should trust the U.S.

France, Germany and Russia aren't going to give up money or troops until Bushco is gone. Don't expect anything from them until Jan 05.

than to believe this yarn, about bringing legitmacy to our being in Iraq.

. . sad SAD day for the world to let the USA get away with what is basically what Hitler did in the 40's - Occupy with no other reason than greed

I am suprised, disgusted and fearful of this decision . .

I read and RE-read the UN thingie, and could NOT believe that the USA gets away with what is in my opinion just plain MURDER -

IF there is a god, he's either a nasty guy - or he's not paying attention to this Murderous Monarch y'all got down there in the U S of A

(sigh)

if bush wins 04, we are headed to Canada!

I don't think even Canada will be safe.

eventually it, too, will fall to US foreign policy bullying.

US OUT, UN IN!

DON'T APPEASE TOTALITARIAN DICTATORS (LIKE BUNNYPANTS*).

It only emboldens them to make more theft, fraud, and war.