Saddam, resolution 1441, and weapons inspections

[KrustyKidd]

So you're admitting they were never found?

It matters not if they were found or there on the day the invsion started. Saddam's responsibility was to first, destroy them and second, to document their destruction for verification to the UNSC. As Blix said, 'it is not a game of catch and catch can.'

Whatever it takes. Still not the reason to blow apart entire country.

No. After twoelve years, Saddam was offered a 'final opportunity.' He did not take that seriously and, rather than carry out the continual game for eternity, the US as one of the 'member states' used an action that they were authorized to do in order to 'ensure that Iraq complied' with all the applicable resolutions. Iraq has been confirmed as not inviolation of the resolutions now.

Of course this is irrelevant in this case. There were many many nasty people US were more than happy to deal with. Just being nasty doesn't seem to be and is not a legal reason for prosecution.

You seemed to think it relevent to include in your rant and I felt it just as relevent to tell you that the US invaison has saved hundreds of thousands of live. Not to mention of course, their future offspring from tyranny and murder by Uday and his brother Quasay.

Again, you're quoting the original declaration which led to the inspections which, according to the report you yourself have referenced were making certain progress and most importantly did not produce any evidence of WMD nor immediate danger of Saddam hanging to some. I'll have to ask my question again: in this particular situation, with no immediate danger and inspections making slow progress, were the actions of the coalition within the limits of reasonable legal action, either enforcement of the resolution or self-defence? That is the question I'd like to be examined in the court of law because bouncing around yes it is - no it's not here in this thread would hardly mean much.

It (1441 which is the one I posted) is not the origional Resolution but rather the final one in which Iraq is offered one last chance to come clean or face the consequenses. BTW, they did not come clean as Blix has testified hence the action taken by the member states as they were authorized to do. You know, 'whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complies' and all.

As per your origional question, the legality has noting at all to do with immediate danger and inspections making slow or fast progress rather the one simple fact that Iraq did not comply immediately and uncomditionally period to the final opportunity afforded. Hans Blix verifies this in his March 2002 report. The actions of the Coalition would have been legal had they invaded five years earlier.

To examine this in a court of law there would have to be a convining of the UNSC which is the only body able to determine anything to do with this and, to date, not one nation has borught forward a resolution to make this illegal. The US was condemned for the invasion of Panama BTW so to bring forth a motion such as this is normal providing it has merit.

[jbg]

valid argument...

But was his ego sufficiently big enough to risk so much? 1441 clearly states that any failure to comply will result in "serious consequences". 1441 although offering him one last chance is in my opinion an attempt to set him up for failure. The US/UK negotiated 1441 very well and although the French secured the weapons inspections they were looking for the resolution clearly is meant to lead to an authorization for force (since Saddam would not meet the requirements). Did he not read it in such a way? Because if one reads it in this way it is clear there will not be any face safing gestures coming for the SC (and definetly not the US/UK who were itching to go and would go regardless of a clear authorization anyways). Or was his ego large enough to ignore this?

I suspect he had the WMD's but moved them, likely to the other Ba'ath republic, Syria, on the even of the invasion. Full compliance would have led to the same invasion he ultimately faced.

[bradco]

just some replies to a few comments...

"I'm no lawyer, just explaining why the US is not on trial for illeagaly invading Iraq. When and if the UNSC meets and sombody tables the matter then it can be decided. Until then, it is not ileagal and can be considered legal unless of course, you are Michael Moore or somebody who wishes it to be without proof"

Something is not illegal only if the SC tables a motion and argues that it is. Any violation of international treaties/customary law would be "illegal" and not dependant on the SC saying that they are. In the case of 1441 there is significant ambiguity to make any legal case against the States impossible which I have argued was the purpose of the resolution.

"It (1441 which is the one I posted) is not the origional Resolution but rather the final one in which Iraq is offered one last chance to come clean or face the consequenses"

But are those consequences automatic or is another resolution necessary? The resolution ends by saying that the "Security Council remains seized of the matter". I interpret that in the context of the rest of the resolution as the French saying after all the US/UK tough talk in the resolution that another resolution is needed. Not part of the resolution but also relevant is what happened when1441 was announced in the SC. Each member after voting annonunced that this resolution does not allow for any "automaticity". I think its pretty clear what that means but it is complicated by the fact you will not find the word automaticity in any dictionary.

"After Iraq war I'll be surprised to see the SC (if it remains in its current state) making any significant impact for a long time, its recent record (Lebanon, Iran, Darfour) confirms that."

I encourage you to read the most recent resolutions regarding Darfur. Especially the one that came out around the end of august (dont know the number off hand but its not to hard to find on UN website). It clearly authorizes use of force...explicitly stating that the SC is acting under chapter seven and authorizes the use of all necessary means. As far as SC resolutions go its about as clear a resolution you could ask for. Any state that wants to intervene in Darfur is legally able to, period. A few weeks ago Senator Dallaire wrote an aritcle in the Globe arguing that Canada had to lead the mission backed by this resolution to stop the genocide in Darfur. His arguement was that the politics and muslim populations in the area made it impossible for US or any permanent member to be invovled. A more neutral, middle power like Canada had to take the lead. I encourage people to read the resolution and write to their MP's if they strongly feel Canada needs to assert an important role in international efforts at securing peace for people who are suffering as much as those in Darfur. The SC has done its job its up to the members of the UN now to make a difference.

The SC also has some resolutions on Lebanon in the last few weeks authorizing a very robust peacekeeping mission Im told but havent read them myself.

The Iraq war hasnt ended the significance of the SC which is illustrated by its clear authorization of force in the case of Darfur. What I think we will see though are more legally tight resolutions that avoid ambiguity. The politics of the Iraq war forced an intentionally ambiguous resolution to ensure the SC would last. This proves the SC is capable of adapting to situations to ensure its existance so it can have an impact in the future.

"I suspect he had the WMD's but moved them, likely to the other Ba'ath republic, Syria, on the even of the invasion"

Ive also suspected this as a possibility. I think it is fairly clear he didnt have nuclear weapons though but likely chemical or biological. I think such transfers of weapons would have been very difficult during inspections, unless it was done before. On the eve of the invasion may have been difficult with the US probably watching eveything real close.

[Higgly]

I suspect he had the WMD's but moved them, likely to the other Ba'ath republic, Syria, on the even of the invasion. Full compliance would have led to the same invasion he ultimately faced.

If he had the weapons, it would have been pretty hard to hide or move the facilities he used to construct them. Nothing like that has been found.

[myata]

You seemed to think it relevent to include in your rant and I felt it just as relevent to tell you that the US invaison has saved hundreds of thousands of live. Not to mention of course, their future offspring from tyranny and murder by Uday and his brother Quasay.

I think you quite missed the point. "Whatever action necessary" does not necessarily means a full invasion resulting in thousands deaths. Just as in the example with police, there must be some test of what should be considered a reasonable force given the offence (i.e., proportionality of response). The other important argument is whether first resolution was in fact intended to be mandate to use force in the first place, as already was mentioned.

I still think this incident did a lot of damage to the credibility of the SC, but it's hard to tell exactly how much until something similar happens (hopefully, later than sooner). My take would be that non-aligned powers (China, Russia, maybe France and some non-permanent members) will be lot less likely to agree to giving carte-blanche mandates for use of force.

[KrustyKidd]

I think you quite missed the point. "Whatever action necessary" does not necessarily means a full invasion resulting in thousands deaths. Just as in the example with police, there must be some test of what should be considered a reasonable force given the offence (i.e., proportionality of response). The other important argument is whether first resolution was in fact intended to be mandate to use force in the first place, as already was mentioned.

'All necessary means' means anything deemed necessary to get the job done. There is no restrictin on what it means and, is understood by pretty much every human on earth to means force and violence. The action solved the problem of Saddam being in violation of the resolutions. I can also tell you that the first resolution (660) was a mandate to use force for the ceasefire. It was kept alive throughout the twelve years in each resolution and, was even worded out so in 1441 so that Iraq would understand the action could and would occur if they did not comply.

I still think this incident did a lot of damage to the credibility of the SC, but it's hard to tell exactly how much until something similar happens (hopefully, later than sooner).

Credibility? After twelve years and the same problem in front of them? Don't think htey had much to lose after 99..

My take would be that non-aligned powers (China, Russia, maybe France and some non-permanent members) will be lot less likely to agree to giving carte-blanche mandates for use of force.

Well at least now you agree that it was just that. Have a good night.

[myata]

'All necessary means' means anything deemed necessary to get the job done. There is no restrictin on what it means and, is understood by pretty much every human on earth to means force and violence. The action solved the problem of Saddam being in violation of the resolutions.

All is nice and simple in the binary world, but if it were so in the real life we wouldn't bother with triffles like reasonable defence, rules, procedures and SIU investigations. Every time the police had to make an arrest, they'd just blow the place apart and comfort those who survived with accounts of how wicked and worthy of punishment the removed criminal used to be.

I can also tell you that the first resolution (660) was a mandate to use force for the ceasefire. It was kept alive throughout the twelve years in each resolution and, was even worded out so in 1441 so that Iraq would understand the action could and would occur if they did not comply.

...

Have a good night.

Now what we have your word for it, I can indeed go to sleep in peace.

[bradco]

'All necessary means' means anything deemed necessary to get the job done. There is no restrictin on what it means and, is understood by pretty much every human on earth to means force and violence. The action solved the problem of Saddam being in violation of the resolutions.

All is nice and simple in the binary world, but if it were so in the real life we wouldn't bother with triffles like reasonable defence, rules, procedures and SIU investigations. Every time the police had to make an arrest, they'd just blow the place apart and comfort those who survived with accounts of how wicked and worthy of punishment the removed criminal used to be.

I can also tell you that the first resolution (660) was a mandate to use force for the ceasefire. It was kept alive throughout the twelve years in each resolution and, was even worded out so in 1441 so that Iraq would understand the action could and would occur if they did not comply.

...

Have a good night.

Now what we have your word for it, I can indeed go to sleep in peace.

The original resolutions obviously authorize the use of force....thats understood by everyone and is not the point. 1441 refers back to those resolutions....understood by everyone. The legal question is whether or not another resolution after 1441 was needed...whether or not authroization of force was automatic. Since the resolution said the "SC would remain seized of the matter" and that all the SC ambassodors (all 15) on adoption of the resolution publicly stated it did not allow for any "automaticity" its tough to argue that another resolution wasnt needed.

[KrustyKidd]

The original resolutions obviously authorize the use of force....thats understood by everyone and is not the point. 1441 refers back to those resolutions....understood by everyone. The legal question is whether or not another resolution after 1441 was needed...whether or not authroization of force was automatic. Since the resolution said the "SC would remain seized of the matter" and that all the SC ambassodors (all 15) on adoption of the resolution publicly stated it did not allow for any "automaticity" its tough to argue that another resolution wasnt needed.

Many believe that the 'remain seized of the matter' phrase has deep meaning and that there must be a second resolution put forth to trigger action when in fact, this is not so. Of course the UNSC is going to remain seized of the matter. It's their bloody job to be watchful of events in trouble areas. However, they have been known when they plan to act to use terms such as 'remain actively seized' which in this case they did not as they had already set forth the orders in 686 and 687 as well as 1441.

UNSC resolutions are not abstract thoughts thrown out on the floor for interpretation and theoretical discussion. Written in plain English, they are executive orders to be acted upon. If the council had to be the ones giving the orders for any of the actions to take place that they have set in motion with this order they would have said something like they would remain ‘actively seized.’

It recalls 678, and even reiterates the ‘member states’ clause. It details what Iraq has to do in order to be in compliance with the cease fire and then, ‘decides to remain seized of the matter.’

The orders given,(Iraq to comply, Member States to use whatever means necessary to ensure they comply) they are now going to keep this agenda on the hot plate like good dignitaries making six and seven figure incomes should. To file it away and forget about it while they go off on vacation would be irresponsible. Hence, they are going to keep their eye on this, or, in plain English UN speak ‘remain seized of the matter.’ You will note that when they are going to take an active part in whatever resolution they make, they use the term ‘actively seized.’ A difference.

In 1441, they were only ‘seized of the matter’ meaning they were not holding any position but giving orders. In 686 though, they show what the phrasing looks like when they are going to be in micro managing control of the resolution.

All is nice and simple in the binary world, but if it were so in the real life we wouldn't bother with triffles like reasonable defence, rules, procedures and SIU investigations. Every time the police had to make an arrest, they'd just blow the place apart and comfort those who survived with accounts of how wicked and worthy of punishment the removed criminal used to be.

Joking right? Twelve years of UN resolutions demanding, pressuring, forcing Iraq to comply and then giving them ne final chance and you are saying the UNSC needs to defend themselves? What about Saddam complying throughout those years?

Now what we have your word for it, I can indeed go to sleep in peace.

Don't take my word for it. Take the leaders and lawyers for every country that belonged to the coalition. Then, take the word of the UNSC who made the resolution giving Iraq that one final opportunity then, blame Blix for saying that the cooperation was not immediate and unconditional thus, triggering an infraction during that one last and final opportunity. Yes, blame Bush and Blair and the other countries who approved 1441 who said the coalition could use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied. Then, try to read your world view into what is defacto. You actually thinkthat Kerry wouldn't have raised the issue as illegal if he had a shred of evidence? Of course he would have as would Rokerfeller but they didn't. Other than that idiot Annan, no world leader has come out to say it was illegal and certainly no quorum of the UNSC, the only body capable to decide that matter.

[KrustyKidd]

Something is not illegal only if the SC tables a motion and argues that it is. Any violation of international treaties/customary law would be "illegal" and not dependant on the SC saying that they are. In the case of 1441 there is significant ambiguity to make any legal case against the States impossible which I have argued was the purpose of the resolution.

This is not a moral argument rather, a legal one and therefore cannot be decided by any other than those qualified to determine it. Orders of the UNSC superceede any charter as that is what it is designed to do - sort out irregularities that occur minute to minute day to day that the charter does not deal with. Basicly, the buck stops there. As for ambiguity, yes there certainly is. So, the US it seems along with their coalition are innocent until proven guilty. In other words, legal until proven illegal. I have had this argument on at least five different forums over the past three years and lost never. Reason is that I always state my position as in order to prove it illegal, first it must be proved to be not legal. Whereas all I have to do is to maintain the staus quo which by the way, only the UNSC can change in a determination. As you know, they have not even tabled the matter nor are they likely to ever. So, you can hypothisize all you want, find all sorts of pony tailed civil rights left wing lawyers who thnk it is illegal to trap off about it but, in the meantime, the matter is not illegal and, because of that, remains legal even if it might be, should be or even IS illegal unless the UNSC determines it.

But are those consequences automatic or is another resolution necessary? The resolution ends by saying that the "Security Council remains seized of the matter". I interpret that in the context of the rest of the resolution as the French saying after all the US/UK tough talk in the resolution that another resolution is needed. Not part of the resolution but also relevant is what happened when1441 was announced in the SC. Each member after voting annonunced that this resolution does not allow for any "automaticity". I think its pretty clear what that means but it is complicated by the fact you will not find the word automaticity in any dictionary.

Ya ya and then when they all went down to the bar after for Miller Time the US ambassador says he thinks Iraq is a great country and it would be illegal for them to invade without a second resolution. Needs to be in the resolution, not in a side note as a protest. So it seems, maybe they should have made a better resolution. Like making a law so people can understand it and follow it the way it was intended to do rather than allow people to get through legal loopholes and such.

[bradco]

Something is not illegal only if the SC tables a motion and argues that it is. Any violation of international treaties/customary law would be "illegal" and not dependant on the SC saying that they are. In the case of 1441 there is significant ambiguity to make any legal case against the States impossible which I have argued was the purpose of the resolution.

This is not a moral argument rather, a legal one and therefore cannot be decided by any other than those qualified to determine it. Orders of the UNSC superceede any charter as that is what it is designed to do - sort out irregularities that occur minute to minute day to day that the charter does not deal with. Basicly, the buck stops there. As for ambiguity, yes there certainly is. So, the US it seems along with their coalition are innocent until proven guilty. In other words, legal until proven illegal. I have had this argument on at least five different forums over the past three years and lost never. Reason is that I always state my position as in order to prove it illegal, first it must be proved to be not legal. Whereas all I have to do is to maintain the staus quo which by the way, only the UNSC can change in a determination. As you know, they have not even tabled the matter nor are they likely to ever. So, you can hypothisize all you want, find all sorts of pony tailed civil rights left wing lawyers who thnk it is illegal to trap off about it but, in the meantime, the matter is not illegal and, because of that, remains legal even if it might be, should be or even IS illegal unless the UNSC determines it.

[qauote]

But are those consequences automatic or is another resolution necessary? The resolution ends by saying that the "Security Council remains seized of the matter". I interpret that in the context of the rest of the resolution as the French saying after all the US/UK tough talk in the resolution that another resolution is needed. Not part of the resolution but also relevant is what happened when1441 was announced in the SC. Each member after voting annonunced that this resolution does not allow for any "automaticity". I think its pretty clear what that means but it is complicated by the fact you will not find the word automaticity in any dictionary.

Ya ya and then when they all went down to the bar after for Miller Time the US ambassador says he thinks Iraq is a great country and it would be illegal for them to invade without a second resolution. Needs to be in the resolution, not in a side note as a protest. So it seems, maybe they should have made a better resolution. Like making a law so people can understand it and follow it the way it was intended to do rather than allow people to get through legal loopholes and such.

Im not going to argue that it was illegal cause the whole resolution was a joke.....it was a document full of ridiculous political compromises between the French/Russians and UK/US. Which has been the point I have put forth this whole thread.

"So it seems, maybe they should have made a better resolution."

unfortunatly first and foremost the SC is a political body, not a legal one, and this can be incredibly difficult as 1441 illustrates. The one thing this war will result in is tighter resolutions.

again the legality of an issue doesnt rest solely on SC declarations. Legality of the issue is determined by all sorts of treaties and customary laws. SC resolutions, through their status in the UN Charter, may override other treaties. However false interpretation of a SC resolution is illegal. The problem is there is not court to plead a case to (the SC does not serve this function as much as you might want to argue it does). The defining of the legality of an SC interpretation is left to the reactions of states towards it. In this case there was no strong argument put forth by a large amount of states leaving the legal question undebated and therefore the US/UK innocent. This wasnt from a lack of evidence but more a pragmatic response by countries who interpreted US/UK actions as illegal. Pushing their legal case could have dismantled the SC altogether which would reduce their security and power.

Anyone who reads 1441 without an agenda is bound to come to the conclusion that it doesn't automatically allow for force. It can be read that it does. There is no court to decide and there is nothing to be gained for any state to push the legal issues of the Iraq War. Because of this the US/UK are "innocent" because not proven guilty.

"Needs to be in the resolution, not in a side note as a protest."

some may interpret these statements, made as part of the presentation of the resolution, as a verbal agreement/contract. Either way I will have the opportunity to meet with the British Ambassdor to the UN in february and fully intend on asking him to define "automaticity"....should be entertainging if nothing else to hear his response.

"So, you can hypothisize all you want, find all sorts of pony tailed civil rights left wing lawyers who thnk it is illegal"

for the record theres actually an incredible amount of very good international lawyers who believe it was illegal....and theres also a lot on the other side....notably ones paid by the US and British governments that would argue the other side

[myata]

The original resolutions obviously authorize the use of force....thats understood by everyone and is not the point. 1441 refers back to those resolutions....understood by everyone. The legal question is whether or not another resolution after 1441 was needed...whether or not authroization of force was automatic. Since the resolution said the "SC would remain seized of the matter" and that all the SC ambassodors (all 15) on adoption of the resolution publicly stated it did not allow for any "automaticity" its tough to argue that another resolution wasnt needed.

There's (or there should be) also a consideration of what constitutes reasonable force to achieve the goals of the resolution. This is always the case with the authorities in civilized countries and I don't see why it should be different on the internation scene. Even if one has the authority to use force, it should be in proportion to the offence and the goals. In an individual oversteps the limits of authority or reasonable defence, they can be criminally liable. The same argument logically applies to countries, and whether it's written in any paperwork or not, any reasonbly thinking human understands what's happening.

[myata]

Other than that idiot Annan, no world leader has come out to say it was illegal and certainly no quorum of the UNSC, the only body capable to decide that matter.

OK that speaks volumes in favour of your argument. Would anyone (including the leader of the organization that granted the mandate in question) who thinks that the actions of the coalition were in fact, illegal, qualify as an "idiot"?

No, kerry and the swarms of lawyers, nor what they think does not matter as long as there's no ligitimate venue to bring their arguments forward and have them weighed against the opposition and the law. And deal out punishment if needed.

[bradco]

The original resolutions obviously authorize the use of force....thats understood by everyone and is not the point. 1441 refers back to those resolutions....understood by everyone. The legal question is whether or not another resolution after 1441 was needed...whether or not authroization of force was automatic. Since the resolution said the "SC would remain seized of the matter" and that all the SC ambassodors (all 15) on adoption of the resolution publicly stated it did not allow for any "automaticity" its tough to argue that another resolution wasnt needed.

There's (or there should be) also a consideration of what constitutes reasonable force to achieve the goals of the resolution. This is always the case with the authorities in civilized countries and I don't see why it should be different on the internation scene. Even if one has the authority to use force, it should be in proportion to the offence and the goals. In an individual oversteps the limits of authority or reasonable defence, they can be criminally liable. The same argument logically applies to countries, and whether it's written in any paperwork or not, any reasonbly thinking human understands what's happening.

"All necessary means" authorizes any force needed to achieve the goals stated in the resolution. It would be very difficult for the SC to put in writing before any intervention exactly what is proportional. Doing so could handicap the troops that intervene to up hold up the SC resolution. There is no way to know exactly what sort of military opposition they will meet, how events will unfold etc. Armed conflict is dynamic, things change quickly and there is no time to consult the SC's opinion during it. That being said international laws and norms on how armed conflict ought to be conducted still apply to the force authorized by the SC

[myata]

The same argument can be used w.r.t e.g. police arresting a criminal. Things may turn out different ways. Yet, there's pretty good understanding on what constitutes reasonable force. It should also be a concept of any reasonable justice system. Resolution in question and the entire UN/SC based structure simply does not qualify as such so there's little point to argue here. There's no court, no law and no recourse to justice. The only thing what's left is a perception of great misuse of military force for political purposes that is and will be shared by many, giving it a well deserved place in the international hall of (in)fame next to Hiroshima and Vietnam.

[jbg]

The original resolutions obviously authorize the use of force....thats understood by everyone and is not the point. 1441 refers back to those resolutions....understood by everyone. The legal question is whether or not another resolution after 1441 was needed...whether or not authroization of force was automatic. Since the resolution said the "SC would remain seized of the matter" and that all the SC ambassodors (all 15) on adoption of the resolution publicly stated it did not allow for any "automaticity" its tough to argue that another resolution wasnt needed.

Many believe that the 'remain seized of the matter' phrase has deep meaning and that there must be a second resolution put forth to trigger action when in fact, this is not so. Of course the UNSC is going to remain seized of the matter. It's their bloody job to be watchful of events in trouble areas. However, they have been known when they plan to act to use terms such as 'remain actively seized' which in this case they did not as they had already set forth the orders in 686 and 687 as well as 1441.

UNSC resolutions are not abstract thoughts thrown out on the floor for interpretation and theoretical discussion. Written in plain English, they are executive orders to be acted upon. If the council had to be the ones giving the orders for any of the actions to take place that they have set in motion with this order they would have said something like they would remain ‘actively seized.’

*snip*

Other than that idiot Annan, no world leader has come out to say it was illegal and certainly no quorum of the UNSC, the only body capable to decide that matter.

The above dialogue illustrates why the UN is useless or worse than useless.

In amny civilized country, any criminal statute prescribes an outcome, on conviction, typically a range of fines and/or imprisonment. No statute says, for example, that "the State of New York takes burglary very seriously and anyone who burgles a house (or business) will face serious consequences". So it is internationally. When a nation proves itself lawless, as Saddam's Iraq did with the Kuwait invasion , the gassing of Kurds, etc. a higher law compels the dismemberment of the government, or even the society in question.

The fact that certain UN members have companies with lucrative contracts with Saddam's Iraq should be an unimportant datum, even if it means that the UN winds up being unable, as a result, to pass yet another paper resolution.

[KrustyKidd]

OK that speaks volumes in favour of your argument. Would anyone (including the leader of the organization that granted the mandate in question) who thinks that the actions of the coalition were in fact, illegal, qualify as an "idiot"?

He is not the leader of the UNSC. Rather, he is the head administrator of the UN. As such, he follows the orders of the UNSC and, while qualified to post agenda and seating arangements at dinner parties is certainly not empowedered to determine or rule if they are, in fact, right, wrong or indifferent.

That being said international laws and norms on how armed conflict ought to be conducted still apply to the force authorized by the SC

Iraq was in vioaltion of a ceasfire and was not adhering to at least five of the terms including raparation of war damages, payment for ecological damages, repatriation of foreign nationals, improving human rights within their borders and proving they had adhered to the terms reguarding WMDs. To ensure they do this, how do you do it without actually going inside that country? Saddam had been asked nicely by the US, then asked nicely by the UN. Demanded by the UN for a dozen years and then threatened but still nothing. I think that invasion was a means necessary to acheive the cooperation for those terms he neglected to be fulfiled as would any reasonable person given the cooperation he displayed.

The same argument can be used w.r.t e.g. police arresting a criminal. Things may turn out different ways. Yet, there's pretty good understanding on what constitutes reasonable force.

Yes there is. When they don't comply, you have to arrest them, even if that means going into their house to do so. And, if there is a vicious dog guarding the place, you have to use force. You sure you're not right wing?

[jbg]

Yes there is. When they don't comply, you have to arrest them, even if that means going into their house to do so. And, if there is a vicious dog guarding the place, you have to use force. You sure you're not right wing?

Who are you asking if they're right-wing? I'm an extreme leftwinger, would be NDP if I were Canadian.

[myata]

Yes there is. When they don't comply, you have to arrest them, even if that means going into their house to do so. And, if there is a vicious dog guarding the place, you have to use force. You sure you're not right wing?

Obviously you keep missing the point I've elaborated in several posts and this will be my last one. There's a big difference between shooting a dog and barging into an inhabited apartment building throwing around hand grenades and spraying the place with bullets from machine gun. If anyone other than criminal were to be hurt, there will be investigation and if it determines that reasonable force was exceeded, the responsible will be brought to the court and end up in jail. Not to say that the force applied will be measured against the offence, arresting a petty thief being held to a different standard of reasonable force than armed and dangerous criminal.

[KrustyKidd]

Obviously you keep missing the point I've elaborated in several posts and this will be my last one. There's a big difference between shooting a dog and barging into an inhabited apartment building throwing around hand grenades and spraying the place with bullets from machine gun. If anyone other than criminal were to be hurt, there will be investigation and if it determines that reasonable force was exceeded, the responsible will be brought to the court and end up in jail. Not to say that the force applied will be measured against the offence, arresting a petty thief being held to a different standard of reasonable force than armed and dangerous criminal.

Yes indeed. In your world it is simple. Guy in charge of country will simply volunteer to surrender rather than use his armed forces, propaganda machine, secret service and state terrorism to stop people from arresting him, making any force unecessary. As you think force was never necessary did you ever, just once wonder why Saddam never just simply surrendured rather than urge his people to fight to the death while he hid in a hole in the ground with packaged underwear. And, why the direct count (including military losses to Iraq) was counted as less then ten thousand?

Seems the deaths are occuring not from the US side but from the Saddam, Jihadist and Militia side rather than the US.

So much for the hand grenade and spraying the place with bullets from the US side.

BTW. What does that have to do with legalities anyhow as the US was authorized to take whatever action was necessary to ensure Saddam met the requirements of the ceasefire?

[bradco]

That being said international laws and norms on how armed conflict ought to be conducted still apply to the force authorized by the SC

Iraq was in vioaltion of a ceasfire and was not adhering to at least five of the terms including raparation of war damages, payment for ecological damages, repatriation of foreign nationals, improving human rights within their borders and proving they had adhered to the terms reguarding WMDs. To ensure they do this, how do you do it without actually going inside that country? Saddam had been asked nicely by the US, then asked nicely by the UN. Demanded by the UN for a dozen years and then threatened but still nothing. I think that invasion was a means necessary to acheive the cooperation for those terms he neglected to be fulfiled as would any reasonable person given the cooperation he displayed.

[

Confused by your use of my quote there. Im not saying there that intervention wasnt necessary. That quote just means that there are laws and norms that must be followed while intervening. Ie: taking civilians into account before mass bombings of cities.

[KrustyKidd]

Confused by your use of my quote there. Im not saying there that intervention wasnt necessary. That quote just means that there are laws and norms that must be followed while intervening. Ie: taking civilians into account before mass bombings of cities.

'Mass bombings of cities' is not exactly what happened. More like pinpoint strikes carried out within the capability of the US forces. If mass bombings then there would not be anything left of Iraq save a glass parking lot so please, stay within the realm of reality.

Now, since you are in agreement that intervention was necessary (or are you?) then what exactly does 'any means necessary' mean to not do? Considering you are attempting to stop a man who uses a country as his personal sex dungeon, personal ATM, torture chamber, ego fulfiler and, as a born survivor will do anything to retain his hold on it including stalling fourteen resolutions from the highest legal body on the planet for a dozen years. All the while, allowing hundreds of thousands of his own people to die or be killed by himself or circumstances brought on by himself?

[bradco]

Confused by your use of my quote there. Im not saying there that intervention wasnt necessary. That quote just means that there are laws and norms that must be followed while intervening. Ie: taking civilians into account before mass bombings of cities.

'Mass bombings of cities' is not exactly what happened. More like pinpoint strikes carried out within the capability of the US forces. If mass bombings then there would not be anything left of Iraq save a glass parking lot so please, stay within the realm of reality.

Now, since you are in agreement that intervention was necessary (or are you?) then what exactly does 'any means necessary' mean to not do? Considering you are attempting to stop a man who uses a country as his personal sex dungeon, personal ATM, torture chamber, ego fulfiler and, as a born survivor will do anything to retain his hold on it including stalling fourteen resolutions from the highest legal body on the planet for a dozen years. All the while, allowing hundreds of thousands of his own people to die or be killed by himself or circumstances brought on by himself?

umm did I say it was what happened? I merely provided an example of an international law/norm that must be followed while intervening.

"since you are in agreement that intervention was necessary (or are you?) then what exactly does 'any means necessary' mean to not do?"

I thought you read my first post since you quoted from it but maybe try reading it again....

"All necessary means" authorizes any force needed to achieve the goals stated in the resolution. It would be very difficult for the SC to put in writing before any intervention exactly what is proportional. Doing so could handicap the troops that intervene to up hold up the SC resolution. There is no way to know exactly what sort of military opposition they will meet, how events will unfold etc. Armed conflict is dynamic, things change quickly and there is no time to consult the SC's opinion during it. That being said international laws and norms on how armed conflict ought to be conducted still apply to the force authorized by the SC"

-I was in support of intervention as a last resort and with a clear SC resolution. The need for a clear resolution is because I believe in international law and what it attempts to do. Saddam was neutralized and could not harm anyone including his own people during the lead up to the war. Doing so would have guaranteed that second resolution asap and as you just argued Saddam wouldnt do that because he "will do anything to retain his hold on it". Therefore there was no rush to intervene and especially without a clear strategy. The mission was screwed up....unless you argue that Iraq looks today like they wanted it to. People in Iraq arent any safer now than they were under Saddam and its unclear they ever will be (who knows who is going to lead that country at this rate...might be a guy worse than Saddam)

[myata]

Exactly. Saddam is sitting put between no-fly zones in the south and protected areas in the north. Inspection teams roam around the country getting access even to his private palaces. He's afraid to move a finger and only shows his nasty temper once in a while, just to keep his buddies in check (guessing), but nothing that isn't solved by a few phone calls to the right places. Blix haven't found any prohibited weapons and presents a plan to eliminate all doubts that they may exist within short timeframe. Despite desperate hand wringing, the liberation team fails to obtain a mandate for invasion from the Security Council (or in fact even secure majority in the vote).

Not to worry. One morning Bush and Blair wake up in their (separate) beds stricken by same the message from high on (or on high?): IT IS TIME. They barge their way into the country, destroying power infrastructure, housing infrastructure, water supply infrastructure, undermining the intrinsic framework of the society that could very well result in a civil war, and killing a few thousand civilians on the way. Then, a year later, the message finally hits home: no prohibited weapons were found, still!

Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of Blix's inspections? Maybe, a year of inspections? (to remind: it's been 4 years now and counting... probably many more years counting). Was the action proportional to the objective? In the absence of internation justice, everybody will have to decide for themselves. But the facts are out there and no amount of liberation and democratization talk can change them.

[KrustyKidd]

. Saddam was neutralized and could not harm anyone including his own people during the lead up to the war. Doing so would have guaranteed that second resolution asap and as you just argued Saddam wouldnt do that because he "will do anything to retain his hold on it". Therefore there was no rush to intervene and especially without a clear strategy. The mission was screwed up....unless you argue that Iraq looks today like they wanted it to. People in Iraq arent any safer now than they were under Saddam and its unclear they ever will be (who knows who is going to lead that country at this rate...might be a guy worse than Saddam)

So, he adhered to 1441? Not according to Blix in his March report. Therefore, the member states decided to use invasion and regime change to effect the resolutions demands.

Exactly. Saddam is sitting put between no-fly zones in the south and protected areas in the north. Inspection teams roam around the country getting access even to his private palaces. He's afraid to move a finger and only shows his nasty temper once in a while, just to keep his buddies in check (guessing), but nothing that isn't solved by a few phone calls to the right places. Blix haven't found any prohibited weapons and presents a plan to eliminate all doubts that they may exist within short timeframe.

Instead, he says Iraq did not cooperate immediately and unconditionally. A thing they had to do to ensure they adhered to 1441 (which BTW was Iraq's final opportuinty)

Despite desperate hand wringing, the liberation team fails to obtain a mandate for invasion from the Security Council (or in fact even secure majority in the vote).

Actually, there was never a tabling of that resolution. If there were, they would have gotten the majority of eight but, required nine to make it defacto.

Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of Blix's inspections? Maybe, a year of inspections? (to remind: it's been 4 years now and counting... probably many more years counting). Was the action proportional to the objective? In the absence of internation justice, everybody will have to decide for themselves. But the facts are out there and no amount of liberation and democratization talk can change them.

Still killed a hundred thousand less than Saddam did on average but just to explain to you two, I understand where you are comming from but, this is a legal argument that you have brought forward. And, it was legal as per the wording of resolution 1441 and, the report Blix gave which he details the infractions. However minor you consider those infractions to be, the tolerance level was zero.