arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

"8.Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution"

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Vandaag op CNN:

"The Pentagon said the hostile action by Baghdad was a breach of U.N. resolution 1441, Section 8, which says "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or ... any member state taking action to uphold any Council resolution."

However, military officials said, it is ultimately up to the United Nations to decide if the action was a "material breach."

At the White House, a Bush administration official said, "We consider this to be a violation of the resolution."

This official said the United States could take its complaint to the Security Council, but refused to disclose the administration's plans.

National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said, "Iraq should stop firing on U.S. and U.K. warplanes flying in the no-fly zones, not only to ensure the safety of inspectors flying into Iraq, but also to demonstrate its willingness to comply with its obligations under the U.N. Security Council resolution."

En dit komt uit een intervieuw met John Negroponte, VS-afgevaardigde bij de VN voor de VS.

"SIEGEL: Who will decide whether they're in material breach of these new...

Amb. NEGROPONTE: Well, there are a couple of ways material breach can be considered by the council. One is findings by the inspectors themselves, and the other is a member state, such as ourself, could bring to the council facts that we consider to place Iraq in material breach."

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/nov/021111.siegel.html

Ze willen al drie jaar een oorlog tegen Irak voeren en nu hebben ze iedereen achter zich. Ze hadden al iedereen achter zich maar in Europa konden de staatsleiders niet aan hun bevolking zeggen, wij steunen een oorlog tegen Irak.

Dus hebben ze samen via de V.N. Irak in een positie gedreven
dat het de inspectueurs ongehinderd hun werk moet laten doen. En als dat niet gebeurd mag men Irak aanvallen, nadat de V.N. veiligheidsraad nog eens is te samengekomen. Waardoor Frankrijk en co hun deelname aan oorlog kunnen legitimeren. Frankrijk was het eerste land achter het Verenigd Koninkrijk dat een militiar optreden tegen Irak zou steunen nadat alle diplomatieke middelen waren opgebruikt.

Hadden ze het nog mooier kunnen doen?

De V.S. ging optreden tegen zestig landen en meer en daar zijn geen Europese landen bij, ook Australië viel er niet onder.

"This official said the United States could take its complaint to the Security Council, but refused to disclose the administration's plans."

"This official said the United States could take its complaint to the Security Council, but refused to disclose the administration's plans"

Via dit bericht hebben ze het al laten weten aan de V.N. ;)

En de NAVO gaat vrij spel krijgen om landen binnen te gaan zonder toestemming van de betrokken regeringen, u weet wel, de NAVO onder leiding van het de VS:

"A US plan for an allied force capable of being deployed within five or 15 days, is expected to be agreed at next week's Nato summit in Prague where western leaders are also due to increase membership of the organisation from 19 to 26.

"Under the plan, Nato could respond quickly to a request to disrupt camps or places where it was suspected that terrorists were hiding biological or chemical weapons, the sources said.

However, they made it clear that Nato would strike even without a request from the government of the country where the target was located.

In an attempt to breathe new life into the alliance, Nato foreign ministers earlier this year agreed that Nato "must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed".

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, told his colleagues at a meeting in Warsaw in September that Nato must set up a rapid response force that would go "any time, anywhere, at very short notice", to attack the enemy.

The force would consist of some 20,000 troops, backed up by air and naval support.
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,841300,00.html

"On 6 June 2002, NATO Defence Ministers announced the preparation of a new capabilities initatiative to be adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Prague Summit."
http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2002/0211-prague/in_focus/capabilities/index.htm

Een tiental mensen hebben toen geprotesteerd aan de het hoofdkwartier van de NAVO in Evere.

Misschien toch ook meer protesteren tegen informele toppen en onder de aandacht brengen van wat er daar besproken wordt?

Guido,

Cela fait plusieurs années qu'ils ont décidé de renverser Saddam Hussein pour "démocratiser le pays". Ils cherchent n'importe quel excuse pour les bombarder (encore plus).

L'Irak a accepté la résolution (et même si çà conduisait la guerre, ils n'auraient pas du le faire, question de dignité). Le lendemain, Bush a dit qu'il les tenait à l'oeil ... Signe que le moindre "faux pas" serait sanctionné.

Et maintenant, voilà CNN qui raconte çà ... çà ne m'étonne pas. Ca les a trop fait c*** d'apprendre que l'Irak acceptait la solution.

Het zijn vuile fascisten, deze imperialisten !!!!!