Jump to content

Are you anti USA or anti Bush?


Recommended Posts

In other words your aformentiond bills all becoem null, as 1441 was basically a condemnation of iraq for not sumbitting itself to previous resulutions however it complied with resolution 1441

Were does it say the aformentioned bills become null?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest eureka

Yes. I have read them all before. Now, how do they act as a justification for the American Attack?

I am sure that you have not ignored the opinions of the United Nations and almost all its members that there was no legal sanction for that. I am sure that you will have seen the myriad reports from legal experts the world over that there was no justification.

I am sure that you are aware that Bush and the "Devil's disciples" who surround him no longer try to make the feeble case. They restrict themselves now to claiming the spurious high moral ground of removing a despot and, for Cheney, still lying about WMD.

The world has moved on from those resolutions since the UN itself has said without equivocation that they did not give America the right to attack a virtually defenceless Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words your aformentiond bills all becoem null, as 1441 was basically a condemnation of iraq for not sumbitting itself to previous resulutions however it complied with resolution 1441

Were does it say the aformentioned bills become null?

  Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

In other words resolution 1441, was a bill concerning iraq's previous breaches, and not some new breach. To get Iraq to comply with resolution 1441, would cause Iraq to comply with the listed resolutions above, and I belive 686 and 688 are listed above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq was complying; They were allowing the weapons inspectors to check wherever they wanted. There were no illegal WMD. It is a simple task to prove that a country does have WMD; just reveal them. It is another task to prove that a country does not have any WMD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 1441, the Security Council would declare Iraq was in a "new breach" if it made "false statements or omissions" in it's declaration to the Security Council.......So how is not providing proof that they destroyed their WMD, not an omission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Iraq did provide the proofs: tons of paper work that was not even thouroughly examined before the attack. The proofs were not believed.

The war went ahead because the cabal around Bush wanted a war. Did the vision for a new American century not say that it was wanted? America just needed an excuse.

One fortunate consequence of Iraq is that there are unlikely to more such adventures. Iraq was a costly lesson that made America aware that its power does have limits and that it cannot fight as and where it wishes ro impose hegemony.

Somebody once said that a Great Power should always be ready to fight a major war but that, if it wanted to remain a great power, it should avoid major war. I think America may have learned that lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a feeling that the trial of Saddam Hussien will take place close to the end of the presidential campaign and that this will give the Repugs the boost they need to win again. I say this even though it looks like the trial may find that Hussien cannot be proved to be guilty of all the things he was accused. Fox news won't differentiate.

I think I am almost afraid of four more years of a stupid and unstable man running the US and taking it farther towards a corporatist police state trying to expand it's empire across the earth. But what can you do, the Repugs are portraying Bush as a war president though no one bothered to declare war on Iraq and Iraq was not considered a friend but an enemy of Bin Laden. The common people will believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resolution 687

Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990), 665 (1990), 666 (1990), 667 (1990), 669 (1990), 670 (1990), 674 (1990), 677 (1990), and 678 (1990),

1. Affirms that all twelve resolutions noted above continue to have full force and effect;

2 (d) Immediately begin to return all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, to be completed in the shortest possible period;

Not carried out

3 © Arrange for immediate access to and release of all prisoners of war under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross and return the remains of any deceased personnel of the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990); and

Not carried out

Resolution 688

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

Changes?  What changes?

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

Resolution 678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Iraq did provide the proofs: tons of paper work that was not even thouroughly examined before the attack. The proofs were not believed.

they went through it alright. Renumbered pages and missing ones as well. Here is what Blix thought of it:

The declaration of Dec 7

They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of Unscom. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

Chemical weapons

Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Unmovic, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.

The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.

This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions..

Biological weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.

As part of its Dec 7 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

Missiles

The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of Unscom directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm.

The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles. In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under Unscom supervision.

They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km. Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

What part of those resolutions do you consider justification for the invasion of Iraq? You seem not to have noted that the UN itself declared that they were not. Nowhere do they give America any right to act in defiance of the United Nations. The UN made this clear and, since the first blustering attempts by some administration supporters, noone seriously makes the claim. There have been many opinions published by international lawyers that say the Resolutions were not a sanction for America to act.

Blix did say that compliance was inadequate. He also said that the inspections were all that was needed and, after the invasion, he publicly condemned the American action. He, and his co-chief inspector, said openly that the inspections were, at the later stages. finding cooperation and compliance. What they were not finding was the non-existent WMD.

Blix said publicly, and there were many reports of this, that the invasion was made when it was made, because Bush et al wanted war. He also was emphatic in that there would have been nothing found and no justification for UN action let alone the unilateral act of aggression by America and Britain.

It is always amusing to hear that Iraq ignored a UN resolution without putting ino the context the examples of the powers. Israel has been ignoring resolutions for decades longer than Iraq but it is backed by the US.

Also, the biggest single vetoer of resolutions on the Security Council is the USA. It has vetoed more than 50 UN resolutions in the past twenty or thirty years (I forget which) mostly, of course, to do with Israel. It is a little far-fetched to evoke moral indignation when the outraged is the worst offender by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of those resolutions do you consider justification for the invasion of Iraq?

Res 678 para 2.

You seem not to have noted that the UN itself declared that they were not.

Please cite the resolution and para that says that.

He also was emphatic in that there would have been nothing found and no justification for UN action let alone the unilateral act of aggression by America and Britain.

No he wasn't. He was pretty sure but not 'emphatic.' Also note that he thinks there were reasons other than WMD involved. I know there were reasons other than WMD involved, even legal ones that justified the invasion under UN law. Read the above resolutions on human rights, return of Kuwaiti property and POWs, war repatriations and such. Other than that, there was the strategic value of an Iraq not under Saddam in the war on terror.

Blix: 'No surprise' if WMD found

LONDON, England -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

"I don't exclude that they can find things. ... I don't think I'd be surprised if they found it."

In Friday's interview, Blix acknowledged that Iraq had not provided full cooperation, although he said he believed more could have been achieved if inspectors had stayed longer.

It is always amusing to hear that Iraq ignored a UN resolution without putting ino the context the examples of the powers. Israel has been ignoring resolutions for decades longer than Iraq but it is backed by the US.

Yes. Also equally amusing is that this non related argument is thrown out in a legal argument as if it changes anything. Now you wish the US to attack Israel? Show me the resolution that gives authority to the US to carry out this action and then it may have some relevence here. If there is none then let's leave this one for a discussin on morality or whatever as it is LEGALITY we are discussing here.

It is a little far-fetched to evoke moral indignation when the outraged is the worst offender by far.

Morality? Thought you had a legal point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

STATEMENT BY RUSSIA, CHINA AND FRANCE

Joint statement issued by Russia, China and France outlining their interpretation of UN of the resolution:

Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom confirming this understanding in their explanations of vote, and assuring that the goal of the resolution is the full implementation of the existing Security Council resolutions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction disarmament. All Security Council members share this goal.

In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the Security Council by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or the Director General of the IAEA. It will be then for the Council to take position on the basis of that report.

Therefore, this resolution fully respects the competences of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is the statement of Russia, China & France appended to Resolution 1441. It represents the position of the United Nations.

You will note that it requires failure to comply by Iraq to be reported to the UN - not to America. It emphasises that it is for the UN to decide on action.

The resolution is the governing document and to refer to a section of an earlier resolution without referring to its controlling resolution is specious.

I have not posted the entire Resolution since, I assume, you have it already. However, you may also note that nowhere does it authorise the USA to take any action without the UN.

The earlier reso;utions were also not authorisations for the US. They authorised a force approved and representing the UN in the Gulf War - not America - and resolution 1441 is for the purposes of the UN.

In the Resolution, it also says that the UN remains "SEIZED" of the matter. That means, in legal terms, that the UN cannot delegate to another authority the conduct of the affair. It means that it must be brought back to the UN for prosecution.

If you care to do a news report search, you will find that Blix was far more outsoken than the piece you report. After the invasion was concluded he very forcefully expressed his views on the illegal actions of the US. I hardly thought anyone would deny that since it has been the subjest of many reports and ammunition for many of the critics of the US.

Your last comment rather surprises me. If the false outrage of the US as the worst violator of UN wishes does not strike you as relevant, then, I suppose you would say that setting a thief to catch a thief makes the first no longer a thief.

Morality matters. The record of an accuser or an accused is taken into account in criminal trials. Credibility is highly relevant and the USA lost all credibility when it invoked breach of Resolutions that, no longer held the force of law when it was the worst offender.

It also was directly in breach of Resolution 1441 when it usurped the prerogative of the UN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force.

Where? Lemon juice between the lines so that only those with secret encoder rings can see the hidden laws?

The above is the statement of Russia, China & France appended to Resolution 1441. It represents the position of the United Nations.

They might want to make a resolution next time in order to rescind previous resolutions that are confirmed to be in force with each subsequent resolution. Otherwise, people and governments might think it is only their opinion and not law. Kind of like what the comment is.

It emphasises that it is for the UN to decide on action.

Really? Where does it say anything to the contrary that ...

authorized Member States co-operating with the government of of Kuwait to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)?
The resolution is the governing document and to refer to a section of an earlier resolution without referring to its controlling resolution is specious.

You will note that they all say the same thing in saying that para 2 of resolution 678 is still in force. It never says that they retain control over who and when action will be taken. Never, not once, nadda, nil, zip.

I have not posted the entire Resolution since, I assume, you have it already. However, you may also note that nowhere does it authorise the USA to take any action without the UN.

What does this mean?

Resolution 1441 reaffirming the following:

Resolution 678 para 2

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Also recalls the following:

Resolution 1284 which states

Concerned at the humanitarian situation in Iraq, and determined to improve that situation,

Recalling with concern that the repatriation and return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains, present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990, pursuant to paragraph 2 © of resolution 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991 and paragraph 30 of resolution 687 (1991), have not yet been fully carried out by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolutions 686 (1991) and 687 (1991) the Council demanded that Iraq return in the shortest possible time all Kuwaiti property it had seized, and noting with regret that Iraq has still not complied fully with this demand,

27. Calls upon the Government of Iraq:

(i) to take all steps to ensure the timely and equitable distribution of all humanitarian goods, in particular medical supplies, and to remove and avoid delays at its warehouses;

(ii) to address effectively the needs of vulnerable groups, including children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly and the mentally ill among others, and to allow freer access, without any discrimination, including on the basis of religion or nationality, by United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations to all areas and sections of the population for evaluation of their nutritional and humanitarian condition;

Not done

The earlier reso;utions were also not authorisations for the US. They authorised a force approved and representing the UN in the Gulf War - not America - and resolution 1441 is for the purposes of the UN.

When did the ceasefire from the Gulf War end? What was the date of the armistice? Who was there to sign the Iraq/Kuwaiti peace agreement after the ceasefire was over and peace became reality? You don't because it is stil a ceasefire from the Gulf War, hence the Gulf War is still happening except it is in the phase of a ceasefire. If there was none of that then how do you guage when a war ends? And where is it written who, how many and in what combination ‘member states assisting the government of Kuwait’ could use all necessary means to enforce the previous and SUBSEQUENT resolutions? I mean, this stuff is not meant to be conveyed through mind reading but rather what is put on paper.

In the Resolution, it also says that the UN remains "SEIZED" of the matter. That means, in legal terms, that the UN cannot delegate to another authority the conduct of the affair. It means that it must be brought back to the UN for prosecution.

Well done! You are the closest anybody has ever got to a possible weak point in the legality argument. Most simply gloss over the documents without reasding them, I congratulate you. However, does it mean that? How do you know? Wouldn’t something that important be given more than a comment and be made clearer? I would still interpret, though, that the UN rulings meant that their resolutions were binding but that they retain the right to overrule them with further resolves. However, in the absence of further UN resolutions (and absence there was) the existing resolutions stand, do they not? Or do they? Or are these things written so cryptically that nobody understands them and can say for certain. As far as I take it, they are saying that they will be paying attention and not forgettign to look in on progress from time to time, not rescinding all previous resolutions, especially the one that gives authority to member states assisting the government of Kuwait to take whatever action necessare to ensure Iraq comp[lies with the ceasefire.

If you care to do a news report search, you will find that Blix was far more outsoken than the piece you report.

Of course I know he was. Remember though, we are talking legality here, not what he thought or suspected. You bring up his name and he has said that he could not confirm that Iraq had no WMDs. And would not be surprised if they were found there. His testimony as it stands does nothing to prove the US was illegal or legal. You also forget the humanitarian, repatriation and reparation issues that were all part and parcel of the ceasefire as laid out in numerous resolutions. All not adhered to and just as incriminating for action as WMDs.

Your last comment rather surprises me. If the false outrage of the US as the worst violator of UN wishes does not strike you as relevant, then, I suppose you would say that setting a thief to catch a thief makes the first no longer a thief.

Right on, in a legal argument you talk about morality and such. Wrong argument, the 'Bush is a sack of shit' thread is down the hall. This current thread with you and I is centered on legality, not right and wrong. I can tell you right now that the US may be stretching the bounds of legality in this but nowhere is it illegal.

Morality matters. The record of an accuser or an accused is taken into account in criminal trials. Credibility is highly relevant and the USA lost all credibility when it invoked breach of Resolutions that, no longer held the force of law when it was the worst offender.

Yes it does.

Resolution 1441

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the USA did not believe that they needed another resolution to legally invade Iraq; why did they waste so much time and money trying to bribe and threaten other nations to back the invasion of Iraq???????

They decided that since they couldn't buy support; they would try to find some loopholes to interpret rsolution 1441 to suit their purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

You still skate over the obvious. The Gulf War was not fought by the United States but by a United Nations Force. Nothing empowered the USA to act unilaterally then or now.

Resolution 1441 suspends the operation of any previous resolution. It very specifically says that there must be reports back to the UN for consideration of action. There is no ambiguity about it. The addendum of the three powers has legal force and puts the US on notice that any attempt to "railroad" through an approval of the Security Council will not be countenanced: it required no resolution since it affirmed only what is contained in 1441.

The US had nowhere to go but to take unilateral, and illegal, action.

The Gulf War, if such it was, was indeed over. The Resolutions adopted are the mandates of the victor. They are to be enforced by the victor - using American and other parties to that action if required. The attack on Iraq was not an action by the parties but a deliberate act of aggression in the face of the opposition of the parties.

Being seized of the affair is avery clear legal concept. It needs no more than the simple comment. It is what a judge will say when a trial has to be adjourned to some future date and s/he has heard enough of the action to be compelled to reserve the future trial. It means that that judge and that judge alone will hear the completion. As with this, the UN said, by means of the legal term, that it and it alone would decide on future action.

Credibility is also an important of any legal affair. The US has no credibility in the eyes of the International Legal Community when it claims outrage because some party breaches a UN Resolution. The US has vetoed more than half of UN resolutions inwhatever the number of years was - the information is available but I do not think you require a link: it would be time wasted. Many of those resolutions were unaminous by the Security Council except for the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the USA did not believe that they needed another resolution to legally invade Iraq; why did they waste so much time and money trying to bribe and threaten other nations to back the invasion of Iraq???????

They decided that since they couldn't buy support; they would try to find some loopholes to interpret rsolution 1441 to suit their purposes.

Why not get more people on your side? I would have too if I was them. Even if you arre right, this has little to do with the legality so, prove it was illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still skate over the obvious. The Gulf War was not fought by the United States but by a United Nations Force. Nothing empowered the USA to act unilaterally then or now.

The Unfinished War

The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The UN authorizes the use of force to uphold the previous and subsequent resolutions against Iraq. Yet it does not state which individual countries may do so and simply refers to them or any of them as member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait. Just wondering, how did the UN decide that Shwartzkoff was going to be the General in charge? I mean, what if they had placed an Egyptian in charge and the US didn't like it? Easy answer, they didn't simply because they never had any control over anything but making the resolutuion which authorized force, the one that has been standing and reiterated time and time aain. there never was a UN force.

As well, when did they stop this resolution as it has been mentioned in pretty much every subsequent resoltion? What about member states that are or were not co-operating with the government of Kuwait? According to you they must be the entire UN membership even if they never went to Iraq. Were the Iraqis (being members of the UN) also included in this membership? Why not? They are part of the UN as well.

Resolution 1441 suspends the operation of any previous resolution. It very specifically says that there must be reports back to the UN for consideration of action. There is no ambiguity about it.

Give me the ‘very specific’ quotes please, the one(s) where it says that nobody can do anything until they, the UN decide what to do. And the other one that says that resolution 678 (para 2) is no longer in effect as they have decided that they don't need member nations etc doing things on the battlefeild on their ow because they, the UN have everythng in hand. .

The Gulf War, if such it was, was indeed over.

Date, time, terms and signatories as well as the name of this treaty please.

Being seized of the affair is avery clear legal concept. It needs no more than the simple comment. It is what a judge will say when a trial has to be adjourned to some future date and s/he has heard enough of the action to be compelled to reserve the future trial. It means that that judge and that judge alone will hear the completion.

Provide examples and text of law please.

Credibility is also an important of any legal affair. The US has no credibility in the eyes of the International Legal Community when it claims outrage because some party breaches a UN Resolution. The US has vetoed more than half of UN resolutions inwhatever the number of years was - the information is available but I do not think you require a link: it would be time wasted. Many of those resolutions were unaminous by the Security Council except for the US.

Oh well, so they may do underhanded things. To counter this (if it had any bearing whatsoever) I could go on about how Iraq USED to have hordes of chemical weapons, threatened inspectors, invaded Kuwait and yadda yadda yadda. Prove that this was illegal. Provide the information requested to refute the legal argument. We have the rest of the forum to bash the US and it being unfair but legal..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

You seem to believe that convo;ution trumps simplicity. The issue is quite straightforward.

The Gulf "War" was a military intervention with the authorization of the UN. It needed no treaties to end it. It ended when the invading force, Iraq, fled the field. Will a treaty be needed to bring closure to Ruanda or Darfur, if a UN force does go into the Sudan? Of course not; so why try to make of Iraq something more glorious than it was.

Resolution 1441 is the current, and governing, UN resolution on Iraq. Of course it referes to earlier resolutions: of course it is sets out new procedures. It states, unequivocally, that the situation as it is must be reported back to the UN for consideration of action. Nothing is to be done without that.

Your request for support of the meaning of "seized" is beneath the intelligence you have shown in attempting to support an untenable position. It needs no support: it as common in understanding as is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ask any lawyer or any who has had any connection with law.

The UN does not authorize force and any reading of the resolution will show that. Referring to member countries does not give any member any rights of action. Action can only be after the UN has considered the reporting back and decided on a course of action. As you know, the USA in its own way, did report back and lied. Or did you miss Powell's ham performance. Fortunately, most of the Members did not believe the lies and did not authorize action.

How you can keep referring to a Resolution that has been put on hold until the terms of a subsequent resolution have been met, is beyond me. The Reso;utions you keep referencing have no currency until the UN says they may be enforced. 1441 is clear on what must be done.

There is absolutely no need to quote specific parts of 1441 to show that the others are suspended. Your demands are not rational in that. 1441 exists and that is enough. There would be no such Resolution if your argument had any validity. There would simply be a resolution demanding that the previous Reso;utions be immediately enforced as the US requested and wished for.

You seem to not have heard of the document that did set the US on its course. It was the group around Bush and written a few years before his "election." It wasa blueprint for America's century - the 21st. centurr and it called for the establishment of American hegemony in the region.

It was nothing of the United Nations and the American attack was in defiance of that body and world opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were the one that said 'specific' and such yet cannot show the specifics. As for the war ending when Iraq fled the field, I think that the numerous resolutions demanding ceasefire terms be ahered to makes short work of that fantasy.

  Referring to member countries does not give any member any rights of action. 

Ah I see, they simply draft up and vote on stuff just to fill file cabinets.

Action can only be after the UN has considered the reporting back and decided on a course of action. As you know, the USA in its own way, did report back and lied. Or did you miss Powell's ham performance. Fortunately, most of the Members did not believe the lies and did not authorize action.   

No, they simly left the resolution authorizing member states to do whatever it took to get Iraq to comply in place. I guess you never heard, it was never voted on.

You seem to not have heard of the document that did set the US on its course. It was the group around Bush and written a few years before his "election." It wasa blueprint for America's century - the 21st. centurr and it called for the establishment of American hegemony in the region.

For the purpose of this legal arguement I don't care if they went to get free ice cream. We are talking legality here, not ulterior reasons and under the table incentives.

It was nothing of the United Nations and the American attack was in defiance of that body and world opinion.

Then show it. It must be written somewher that para 2 of resolution 678 was rescinded then. As for world opinion, it means little to this legal argument until it is set in UN law through security council resolutions. Like we all know OJ is guilty right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

I don't know who aid that Resolution 678 was rescinded. I did not. It was however, suspended pending the operation of 1441. That is clear and even the US no longer tries to argue that it can be operated on without the authorizarion of the UN. There have been so many opinions in the news from international legal exoerts, including American, that the argument seems just a little redundant.

You constantly assert that Memeber states can do as they think fit about out of date Resolutions. If you believe that the UN supports international anarchy, then possibly it would be so.

You don't need specific quotes from 1441. You have read it and so have I. It is replete with phrases stating that 1441 governs. It says that there must be reports back to the UN before the UN decides. It says that the UN is "seized" of the affair. That means that no Member can make any decision on its own and that no decision will be made except by the UN. That is not arguable. All you have to do is to look at the legal definition.

The Gulf War was not a war, if that makes it clearer. It was an intervention by a United Nations force. It needs no treaty to end it. The Resolutions have not been fully adhered to by Iraq though some parts have and Resolution 1441 makes it clear that the enforcement procedures will be taken if, after the reports have been received by the UN, it was shown that action would need to be taken. That may not have included military action. Those reports include the reports of the Inspectors whose inspections were cut short by the US - not by Iraq.

Legality is very simple so don't keep accusing me of ignoring legality. Legality is 1441 and adherence to that resolution by Iraq and by the Members of the UN. I have very clearly shown that and there is nothing more to it.

The requirement for reports beforea decision on what action should be taken and the emphatic statement that the UN is seized of the affair are unarguable. Those two mean that the UN will decide and not the USA and that the UN will not allow its authority to be assumed by another party. Really, nothing else matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UN Security Council Resolution 1154 involved the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, imposed a deadline, and sanctioned military force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait if the deadline for self-removal was not met.

Do a Google search, there are more sources for this than I can list. I used the CBC news Flashback site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...