Pakistan out

[Czar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2469821,00.html

Pakistan Will Not Back Iraq Resolution

Monday March 10, 2003 6:20 PM


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan will not support the U.S.-backed resolution approving war with Iraq, Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said Monday.

He did not say if the country would vote no or abstain when the U.N. Security Council takes up the U.S.-backed resolution that gives Saddam Hussein a March 17 deadline to fully disarm.

``We will do what is best for our country,'' Jamali said after a session of Parliament. ``It is not best for my country to support war against Iraq.''

Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the Security Council and has been a strong supporter of the U.S. war on terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan.

5 left

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Czar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2469821,00.html

Pakistan Will Not Back Iraq Resolution

Monday March 10, 2003 6:20 PM


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan will not support the U.S.-backed resolution approving war with Iraq, Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said Monday.

He did not say if the country would vote no or abstain when the U.N. Security Council takes up the U.S.-backed resolution that gives Saddam Hussein a March 17 deadline to fully disarm.

``We will do what is best for our country,'' Jamali said after a session of Parliament. ``It is not best for my country to support war against Iraq.''

Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the Security Council and has been a strong supporter of the U.S. war on terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan.

5 left

Like it really matters. We are going to invade Iraq no matter what the final outcome of this vote will be.

 

[Moonbeam]

It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

No it doesn't matter. He can still continue to say International Community with a straight face.

 

[Nitemare]

The same country where the mastermind of 9-11 was holding up..why is Nitemare not surprised

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

No it doesn't matter. He can still continue to say International Community with a straight face.

Yeah he can. Because removing this threat protects them down the road, whether or not they realize it now.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

In the end, it won't matter. The United States will attack Iraq because they are a threat. The U.N. Security Council is icing on the cake.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought the people of denial were in Egypt.
---------------------------
"No it doesn't matter. He can still continue to say International Community with a straight face." justint
-----------------------------------

In the first place he can't say anything without that silly smirk on his face.
-----------------------------

"It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?" ThePresence
----------------
F'em, that's a great theme for a great nation. It may sum up Bush rather well, but it's not what we have been for 60 years, a nation of compassion and understanding that has struggled to bring the concept of just laws to the entire world. You may have a rather immaturely developed ego, but that was not our history. What a pity we produce the kinds of people we do now. Terrible self centered little brats who want their oil and security at any price. 😀

Saddam is a threat. Saddam is a threat. Saddam is a threat. RRRRRIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT. Keep saying that over and over to yourselves. You will begin to believe it. Every time you change your underware and see the skid marks, you can say to yourself, Saddam made me do that, that dirty bastard. The first time Saddam attacks the US his country turns to green glass. What a threat. That's why all the neighbors were agressively arming against him too. Their laundry bills were killing them.

 

[Moonbeam]

I forgot to comment on the dunce caps that think the UN should go, but hey.

 

[StageLeft]

Hmm that's somewhat surprising but oh well.

I really hope that when the US kicks saddamn's ass the UN has agreed to it. It just looks better.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

 

[Moonbeam]

It's only illegal when they do it Czar. We are taking preemptive action against a KNOWN threat. God told George so.

 

[exp]

Not surprising at all. Pakistan has a history of abstaining on Iraq resolutions.

 

[Moonbeam]

exp, I wonder why. 😀

Boy are they lucky they don't have oil.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

it's kind of hard to lend legitimacy to the UN -- 17 resolutions later and the last one that they passed was pretty explicit that if Iraq failed to disarm they'd have military action taken against them. What did France think serious consequences meant? Withholding Saddams Oil allowance for a month? So if the UN is not credible, then whats the point?

 

[Ameesh]

are you guys surprised? pakistan is the home of all these terriorists groups including al queda.

we should invade them and not iraq.

 

[Gaard]

Can I expect to be bombarded with Pakistan jokes now? Or does the do what's right for our country reason apply to everybody except the French?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

it's kind of hard to lend legitimacy to the UN -- 17 resolutions later and the last one that they passed was pretty explicit that if Iraq failed to disarm they'd have military action taken against them. What did France think serious consequences meant? Withholding Saddams Oil allowance for a month? So if the UN is not credible, then whats the point?

The UN is the meeting place for over 191 nations and is concidered the place to make international laws and rule on those laws, these laws signed by all member states allow only two ways to war, be attacked and respond (was used in Afghanistan) and war approved by the security council. If the US wages war on Iraq without UN approval then it cant in no way use the previous UN resolutions on Iraq as a reason for war. Its that simple.

 

[jjones]

It may sum up Bush rather well, but it's not what we have been for 60 years, a nation of compassion and understanding that has struggled to bring the concept of just laws to the entire world.

I'm not sure I agree about the need to go into Iraq so urgently, so I'm probably at least a bit like-minded with you there, but I was just wondering what country you are referring to when you made the above statement. If you're talking about the US, I think you're exaggerating just a tad bit, at least in how foreign affairs policy has been carried out over the past 60 years.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

it's kind of hard to lend legitimacy to the UN -- 17 resolutions later and the last one that they passed was pretty explicit that if Iraq failed to disarm they'd have military action taken against them. What did France think serious consequences meant? Withholding Saddams Oil allowance for a month? So if the UN is not credible, then whats the point?

The UN is the meeting place for over 191 nations and is concidered the place to make international laws and rule on those laws, these laws signed by all member states allow only two ways to war, be attacked and respond (was used in Afghanistan) and war approved by the security council. If the US wages war on Iraq without UN approval then it cant in no way use the previous UN resolutions on Iraq as a reason for war. Its that simple.

I think it has been well demonstrated that UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

it's kind of hard to lend legitimacy to the UN -- 17 resolutions later and the last one that they passed was pretty explicit that if Iraq failed to disarm they'd have military action taken against them. What did France think serious consequences meant? Withholding Saddams Oil allowance for a month? So if the UN is not credible, then whats the point?

Don't mind these folks, they still think that it's right for the UN to announce Libya is chairing the human rights conference, and Iraq is chairing the disarmenant conference. What a damn credible group, all we need now is for Hitler to be alive to chair the Isreali Peace Conference, or David Duke to host the NAACP conference. Do you get the picture, guys? I doubt you will, you are following what all your cronnies preach to you therefore the reality is not in your grasp.

KK

 

[exp]

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war?

If by "illegal" you mean waged without UN approval then the U.S. has plenty of company in its criminality (including France, China, and Russia, the current self-styled champions of the UN).

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

it's kind of hard to lend legitimacy to the UN -- 17 resolutions later and the last one that they passed was pretty explicit that if Iraq failed to disarm they'd have military action taken against them. What did France think serious consequences meant? Withholding Saddams Oil allowance for a month? So if the UN is not credible, then whats the point?

The UN is the meeting place for over 191 nations and is concidered the place to make international laws and rule on those laws, these laws signed by all member states allow only two ways to war, be attacked and respond (was used in Afghanistan) and war approved by the security council. If the US wages war on Iraq without UN approval then it cant in no way use the previous UN resolutions on Iraq as a reason for war. Its that simple.

I think it has been well demonstrated that UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

I'm talking about international laws here, not UN resolutions

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It matters. Bush may not have the comfort of pretending he's doing the bidding of the world.

It only matters as far as the UN is concerned. Will they delegitimize the Security Council or not. As the Pakistanies said, we do what's best for our country. So do we. If the rest of the world doesn't think we should, F 'em. You think they give a shite about us?

so does the US want to join countries like Iraq and others who have waged an illegal war? sure seems so

it's kind of hard to lend legitimacy to the UN -- 17 resolutions later and the last one that they passed was pretty explicit that if Iraq failed to disarm they'd have military action taken against them. What did France think serious consequences meant? Withholding Saddams Oil allowance for a month? So if the UN is not credible, then whats the point?

The UN is the meeting place for over 191 nations and is concidered the place to make international laws and rule on those laws, these laws signed by all member states allow only two ways to war, be attacked and respond (was used in Afghanistan) and war approved by the security council. If the US wages war on Iraq without UN approval then it cant in no way use the previous UN resolutions on Iraq as a reason for war. Its that simple.

I think it has been well demonstrated that UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

I'm talking about international laws here, not UN resolutions

well, then you're off talking about something I wasn't. I was talking about the UN backing up their resolutions. If they cannot do that, then they are not a legitimate organization. So why should anyone follow their example?