Saddam, resolution 1441, and weapons inspections

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

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.

Actually, Saddam complied (or was in the process of) with the resolution by allowing full inspections, and Blix's report indicates that the UNMOVIC team was not allowed to finish the job. They were told to get out of the way, because the US was invading, and afterward Blix came to the realization that the resolution was really a sham, it was just to buy time to prepare for the invasion.

The only thing that was missing on Saddam's part was the paperwork documenting the destruction of the WMD's, which they claimed was destroyed as well. Well, that and the WMD's.

[bradco]

. 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.

"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."

-I wouldnt say he adhered to it. Im just saying that the need for an invasion was not imminent, and especially an invasion that was so drastic.

"And, it was legal as per the wording of resolution 1441 and"

-If you interpret it without good faith as to the actual intentions of the majority of SC members.

-Paragraph 12 of the SC followed by the decision to remain seized of the matter and taking into account the verbal contract entered by members that it does not allow for any automaticity creates a good legal case against the invasion. No judicial system and no motives to put forth a legal case means there is no conviction. No conviction is not necessarily the same as saying an act was legal, especially in international law. The fact that the US/UK coalition is getting no support in Iraq can be seen as a conviction of sorts....a state practise conviction of their illegal invasion.

[KrustyKidd]

I wouldnt say he adhered to it. Im just saying that the need for an invasion was not imminent, and especially an invasion that was so drastic.

Well really. Why even make resolutions then? No need for them, just let Saddam do whatever he wanted.

Paragraph 12 of the SC followed by the decision to remain seized of the matter and taking into account the verbal contract entered by members that it does not allow for any automaticity creates a good legal case against the invasion.

Of course they are going to be seized of the matter as it's something to be watched however, when they are engaged n the matter taking an active part you will note they are 'actively seized.'

and taking into account the verbal contract entered by members that it does not allow for any automaticity creates a good legal case against the invasion.

No resolution condeming the invasion speaks volumes.

No judicial system and no motives to put forth a legal case means there is no conviction.

Not one case in the UNSC tabled by any member. When the US invaded Pnama it was imediately tabled condeming it as was the Russian invasion of Afganistan.

No conviction is not necessarily the same as saying an act was legal, especially in international law. The fact that the US/UK coalition is getting no support in Iraq can be seen as a conviction of sorts....a state practise conviction of their illegal invasion.

Ya? Oh ya? Well, getting Saddam is proof it was legal. Like hey man lol.

[myata]

One more time: four years and counting (time and lives I don't care about american money) and still no WMD. Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of H.Blix's inspections? As supported by majority of the SC and Blix himself?

That's what proportionality means. Most people understand that.

[bradco]

One more time: four years and counting (time and lives I don't care about american money) and still no WMD. Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of H.Blix's inspections? As supported by majority of the SC and Blix himself?

That's what proportionality means. Most people understand that.

Haven't you heard Myata, it had nothing to do with WMD. Benevolent George only wanted to help the poor Iraqis by freeing them from brutal oppression.

[KrustyKidd]

The only thing that was missing on Saddam's part was the paperwork documenting the destruction of the WMD's, which they claimed was destroyed as well. Well, that and the WMD's.

Wrong. Blix said that cooperation was not immediate and unconditional. Two things which Iraq had to be in order to be in complience with their last and final opportunity as per the wording of 1441.

One more time: four years and counting (time and lives I don't care about american money) and still no WMD. Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of H.Blix's inspections? As supported by majority of the SC and Blix himself?

That's what proportionality means. Most people understand that.

Majority of the UNSC? Sorry, 1441 was unanomously passed and the second resolution was shown to be approved by eight of the members but, lacked the ninth. It also was going to be vetoed by France certainly which was why it was never tabled. So, therefore, it certainly wasn't a majority opposed but rather a minority. Maybe it could have and maybe Saddam would have done what he did so many times before and stall, inhibit and offer conditions. In any case, he was in violation of his last and final opportunity.

Haven't you heard Myata, it had nothing to do with WMD. Benevolent George only wanted to help the poor Iraqis by freeing them from brutal oppression.

So having lost your legal arguments, you now move into a moral one I take it?

[bradco]

The only thing that was missing on Saddam's part was the paperwork documenting the destruction of the WMD's, which they claimed was destroyed as well. Well, that and the WMD's.

Wrong. Blix said that cooperation was not immediate and unconditional. Two things which Iraq had to be in order to be in complience with their last and final opportunity as per the wording of 1441.

One more time: four years and counting (time and lives I don't care about american money) and still no WMD. Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of H.Blix's inspections? As supported by majority of the SC and Blix himself?

That's what proportionality means. Most people understand that.

Maybe it could have and maybe Saddam would have done what he did so many times before and stall, inhibit and offer conditions. In any case, he was in violation of his last and final opportunity.

Haven't you heard Myata, it had nothing to do with WMD. Benevolent George only wanted to help the poor Iraqis by freeing them from brutal oppression.

So having lost your legal arguments, you now move into a moral one I take it?

I dont believe the legal argument to be lost. Throughout this thread I have argued that there are legal arguements on both sides because 1441 was such a political compromise. If there was an international court like there was domestically the legal case against intervention would probably win....especially when you have ambassdors on record as stating that resolution 1441 does not rpovide for automaticity. Your legal argument is based on the unwillingness and lack of ability to prosecute which has nothing to do with the actual "legaility" of the actions.

[KrustyKidd]

Your legal argument is based on the unwillingness and lack of ability to prosecute which has nothing to do with the actual "legaility" of the actions.

The US was given the responsibility and authorization to ensure that they used any means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 1441 which was Iraq's last chance. Iraq dropped the ball and the US acted. Glad you have a case for as we all know, the UNSC is not afraid to condem an action when they feel it illegal but did not in this case. And,. why you might hypothicize that it was illegal, the people who can actually bring this case forward and make a ruling have not even bothered, leaving it legal by default. So, I observe that you and Myata quickly shift gear into a moral argument as you know you have no basis with which to make a meaningful legal one as in this case, it remains legal until proven not. Then once again, it has to be ruled illegal from that position.

[myata]

Oh come on ... You have to understand this finally: there cannot be a winning legal argument when there's no court to hear it (from both sides). It's really simple, very simple.

The "moral" argument is very simple too: the same result could very likely have been achieved at a fraction of human cost and in much less time. It was (and is being) done to satisfy Bushes' domestic policies and grand visions of victorious democracy marching across the globe. As all grand visions, probably doomed to fail.

[KrustyKidd]

Oh come on ... You have to understand this finally: there cannot be a winning legal argument when there's no court to hear it (from both sides). It's really simple, very simple.

Well then, for once you understand then. It was not illegal as there has been no argument by a qualified body.

The "moral" argument is very simple too: the same result could very likely have been achieved at a fraction of human cost and in much less time. It was (and is being) done to satisfy Bushes' domestic policies and grand visions of victorious democracy marching across the globe. As all grand visions, probably doomed to fail.

Well, maybe. This has merit, the legal or should I say the illegal argument has none whatsoever.

[myata]

Well then, for once you understand then. It was not illegal as there has been no argument by a qualified body.

Let me put it this way: in the absence of a qualified body (an authorised and legitimate court) there's no point in trading the "legal - illegal" argument, no matter which side one'd take. I cannot agree that it was legal but without legal reference (law) and a court to make final judgement, there's no realistic possibility to prove otherwise. The argument would simply go on forever.

[bradco]

Well then, for once you understand then. It was not illegal as there has been no argument by a qualified body.

Let me put it this way: in the absence of a qualified body (an authorised and legitimate court) there's no point in trading the "legal - illegal" argument, no matter which side one'd take. I cannot agree that it was legal but without legal reference (law) and a court to make final judgement, there's no realistic possibility to prove otherwise. The argument would simply go on forever.

There is still a difference between someone's actions being illegal and someones actions being convicted. Krusty wants to confuse the two. His argument is since there is no court and the US can veto any SC resolution then the action is by default legal. This is not true. The action is by default unconvicted. There is a difference no matter how badly you dont want to see it. If a murderer walks away from a conviction on a techincality (say unlawful confession attained) did he still not commit an illegal act? Murder is still an illegal act unless in self-defense which is not why he was not convicted. Commiting an illegal act and being convicted of an illegal act are diferent.

The legal argument against intervention is strong. Even the US/UK ambassdors admitted the resolution did not allow for automaticity. The ability to never prosecute and get a conviction is zero. They could table a resolution and have it vetoed and you'd still argue it was legal because they didnt get a conviction. So whats the point? The risk would be having the US throw a hissy fit and pull out of the UN, effectively destroying the one institution that attempts to put legal contraints on war.

[KrustyKidd]

His argument is since there is no court and the US can veto any SC resolution then the action is by default legal. This is not true. The action is by default unconvicted.

No, I never said that so please stop putting words into my mouth. What I said was that the only body able to rule on this matter has not. That being the USNC.

As for the US vetoing it, that is meaningless up to the point that we are at as you think that it would be illegal if the US could not veto it but, nobody has even brought it forward to let their feelings or beliefs be known. Whether the US will veto it or not has nothing to do with whether it is tabled or not. For example, the USNC condemened the US invasion of Panama, the Israeli Invasion of Lebannon and the USSR's invasion of Afganistan - all of which were vetoed. So, why is the USNC not condeming the invasion of Iraq? It certainly has nothing to do with it possibly being vetoed. More than likely they feel that the wording in 1441 is not as ambiguous as you seem to think it is.

And yes, the action by default is legal until proven illegal. Unless of course, the justice system that the free world adopts has changed overnight to suit this case (innocent until PROVEN guilty). You want to make this illegal, as Myata says, bring it to court and prove it. Until then, you won't get a conviction or prove that it is illegal so therefore, under innocent until proven guilty, it is legal or, at least argueably legal. However, definitely not even close to being illegal rather, hypotheticlly illegal (if certain things fell into place and certain bodies conveened etc. and backtracked saying that is not what they meant when they put 'this' 'that' way when they said that, this and so on) Even if the US did not veto this hypothetical resolution, they would more then likely be able to prove that the wording was so permissive that it could easily be contrued to be a mandate for any means necessary. Hmm, there is that phrase again. Any means necessary. Not later, not after we conveene, not when the moon begins the next cycle but by whatever means necessary, get Iraq to comply.

If a murderer walks away from a conviction on a techincality (say unlawful confession attained) did he still not commit an illegal act? Murder is still an illegal act unless in self-defense which is not why he was not convicted. Commiting an illegal act and being convicted of an illegal act are diferent.

And how do you know that it was murder or accidental unless you bring it to court?

The legal argument against intervention is strong. Even the US/UK ambassdors admitted the resolution did not allow for automaticity.

Link please.

The argument for invasion is at least equally strong. You can bet that lawyers for every head of state involved made damm sure their bosses would not end up sharing a docket beside the late Milosivik.

The ability to never prosecute and get a conviction is zero. They could table a resolution and have it vetoed and you'd still argue it was legal because they didnt get a conviction. So whats the point? The risk would be having the US throw a hissy fit and pull out of the UN, effectively destroying the one institution that attempts to put legal contraints on war.

The point? To show the US that they believe the US is wrong and, be on record saying it. When the US is condemned for actions like any other nation, they don't throw a hissy fit and leave. Surely you are not suggesting that the entire UN is terrified of the USA are you? If so, why did the US not simply force the resolution they dreamed of instead of going through these hoops and hurdles?

[bradco]

-If you read my previous posts you will see why I argued the Bush adminstration bothered with the SC (it has to do with domestic politics). I think it is entirely possible that the US would withdraw from the UN if a resolution was brought against them. Bush has showed his distatse for multilateralism and the UN in general. I wouldnt be surprised is the French were threatened behind closed doors about bringing a motion to the SC to declare the invasion illegal.

-A true court of law (not a political body with one superpower throwing its wait around) I believe would determine the invasion illegal. Especially when the ambassodors to the UN are on record as saying the very resolution they say authorizes force does not allow for any "automaticity". I dont have a link for this. My source is Dr. Michael Byers (Canadian Research chair in Global Politics and International Law, Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues).

-The resolution recognizes that the relevant resolutions from the first iraq war authorized any necessary means. They do not expressly authorize any necessary means in 1441. It is a recognition that the SC has the right to decide, upon notification of violations, to reinstate the rate to use all necessary means. When Blair came back to the SC he did not get that resolution.

[KrustyKidd]

-If you read my previous posts you will see why I argued the Bush adminstration bothered with the SC (it has to do with domestic politics). Bush has showed his distatse for multilateralism and the UN in general. I wouldnt be surprised is the French were threatened behind closed doors about bringing a motion to the SC to declare the invasion illegal.

Stumbling Into War

They did it so they could have a world consensus in the War On Terror. If it is just them and the UK of course Jihadists will think they have an isolated foe rather than a world wide movement opposing them. As for the French feeling threatened, I think not, as it was they who opposed the US after they promised to support them. Simply so they could turn their EU posture into a political unit with them at the helm on pure anti Americanism.

About the same time, the French also reversed their position. After insisting from the beginning that war would require a second vote to authorize it, suddenly Paris began scrambling to avoid a showdown with the United States. France's ambassador in Washington, Jean-David Levitte, told Cheney in February that Washington and Paris should simply "agree to disagree." Through other diplomatic channels, the French advised the Americans to bypass the council entirely. "Your interpretation [of 1441] is sufficient [to justify war]," they counseled Washington, and "you should rely on your interpretation."

Despite this turnaround, however, Washington and London decided to seek another resolution. British diplomats insist that domestic politics was not the only reason for this decision; they also wanted to avert a UN resolution condemning military action, which British government lawyers feared might make their participation in the campaign illegal.

-The resolution recognizes that the relevant resolutions from the first iraq war authorized any necessary means. They do not expressly authorize any necessary means in 1441.

It refers to them then actually spells out the terms 'any means necessary' recalling it so that everybody reading the resolution knows that they still are iauthorized to do just that if Iraq does not comply with this particuklar resolution which, to any person would mean that it is intended to mean that it is still in effect, then uses terms such as 'final opportunity' 'serious counsequences' and all.

Tell me, what terms do you think they would have used had they meant to give the members the authority to use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 1441 and all previous as well as all subsequent resolutions? 'We're gonna let the the US kick your ass or else?'

It is a recognition that the SC has the right to decide, upon notification of violations, to reinstate the rate to use all necessary means. When Blair came back to the SC he did not get that resolution.

You are aware of course that that resolution was never tabled right?

I think it is entirely possible that the US would withdraw from the UN if a resolution was brought against them.

Gee, they never did before. No offense intended whatsoever but you seem to be seriouly lacking in facts on this particular thread relying instead on heresay and speculation.

70 resolutions vetoed by the USA

1989Condemns USA invasion of Panama.

1989Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.

1989 Condemns USA for shooting down 2 Libyan aircraft.

1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.

1989Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.

1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.

2003 To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba.

2004 Production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control.

A true court of law (not a political body with one superpower throwing its wait around) I believe would determine the invasion illegal. Especially when the ambassodors to the UN are on record as saying the very resolution they say authorizes force does not allow for any "automaticity". I dont have a link for this. My source is Dr. Michael Byers (Canadian Research chair in Global Politics and International Law, Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues).

My cleaning lady doesn't think so, either does the town drunk and that, dear friend, is about as much as what any court other than the UNSC (with or without the US throwing their weight around) is worth to decide that argument. If those ambassadors intended for the resolution to be what they said it was supposed to be, then I'm sure, they would have written it that way instead of crying about it later how they meant 'this' and 'that.'

[jbg]

As I've said elsewhere, this entire debate demonstrate's the UN's uselesness. Any resolution aimed at the permanent SC members has zero chance of passage. No resolution with any real teeth, i.e. automaticity, will pass unless aimed at some festering backwater such as Burundi. My country does not need to pay 22% of the budget of a debating society occupying choice New York City real estate.

The UN must die. The sooner the better.

[myata]

Bradco, you raise important quesions but I think these concept would only apply in a normal legal environment i.e. in the presence of appropriate legal framework (the law) and legitimate independent and impartial judicial body (a court). Without those two elements the whole issue becomes muddled. The SC cannot perform judicial function because it isn't independent nor impartial. It is rather an executive body. KK has a point in what in the absence of a better procedure one may think that anything that isn't deemed illegal by such a body should be considered to be legal. I do not agree with such interpretation because in my understanding "legal" means standing the judicial challenge in a reasonably fair legal environment. Such an environment simply does not exist internationally. Therefore it's probably impossible to formally decide on any such action as being either legal or otherwise.

That of course in no way removes any doubts about the manner in which these actions were executed, nor challenges such as necessity and proportionality of it. It's just that the judgment will be carried out not by the formal court, but the people of the planet and not necessarily here and today.

[KrustyKidd]

The SC cannot perform judicial function because it isn't independent nor impartial.

Bullshit. You yourself said not two posts ago that "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)." So, it seems to me that the US has enough enemies on the USNC who could've easily tabled a motion or resolution simply condeming the US invasion of iraq. And, found it in violation of the UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq 660 - 1441 and, after it gets vetoed by the US with a majority against the legal proceedings can take place. All the way from Cindy Shithead to Michael Fatzoid suing Bush for everything from the sacking of Rome to poor dead Jihadists who die from firefights in Falujiah so don't fall back on that crap to mold your new erroonious argument. Condemnations have been done before in the above mentioned rersolutions pertaining to US actions so what stopped it in this particular case? Fear? France, Russia and Germany tied the US's hands at the UN while reaping billions off Saddam in the process. All the while France attempting to graft a political unit out of an economic EU with them at the helm while Germany was gaining votes for reelection on a wave of anti US sentiment. So fear is not a factor there. Legality is. They know it''s so damm ambiguious they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

That of course in no way removes any doubts about the manner in which these actions were executed, nor challenges such as necessity and proportionality of it. It's just that the judgment will be carried out not by the formal court, but the people of the planet and not necessarily here and today.

(sniff)

That was so ..so .. beautiful. Will the trial be held on a day when Bush's numbers are up ... or down and, will biased people be disqualified from being jury or just anti war types in general allowed to conveene?

[myata]

You can spend many words but still won't be any closer to persuading anyone that a body in which the alledged perpetrator sits in the jury, is a part time judge and has the right of veto for the decision can be, in any rational way, qualified as a court of justice.

And, do save your sensitivity it for the next batch of civilians killed in Iraq, or soldiers coming back home in caskets or victims of terror attacks triggered by this meaningless aventure. They're the ones who will need all the sympaties the Bushes and Co (yourelf included) have to offer.

[KrustyKidd]

You can spend many words but still won't be any closer to persuading anyone that a body in which the alledged perpetrator sits in the jury, is a part time judge and has the right of veto for the decision can be, in any rational way, qualified as a court of justice.

What is somewhat comical is that just this has occured, eight times in the last fifteen years proving you wrong in very few words.

And, do save your sensitivity it for the next batch of civilians killed in Iraq, or soldiers coming back home in caskets or victims of terror attacks triggered by this meaningless aventure. They're the ones who will need all the sympaties the Bushes and Co (yourelf included) have to offer.

Perhaps if Saddam knew the UNSC resolutions had teeth in them he would have peacefully complied. However, his preying on other's weaknesses and addiction to Anti War demonstrations on CNN gave him the surity the US would once again cow to the spinlessness of people who would give him opportunity after opportunity to wiggle more time. It is this inconsistancy that makes for very dangerous politics as we have seen. Had the UNSC been harsher, then war would have been a certainty and the paradox being, ultimitely not necessary.

[myata]

What is somewhat comical is that just this has occured, eight times in the last fifteen years proving you wrong in very few words.

What is even more comical is that apparently you cannot grasp the meaning of what was said here multiple times: mock condemnation in a controlled highly influenced political body cannot amount to fair and impartial justice from any rational point of view.

[KrustyKidd]

What is even more comical is that apparently you cannot grasp the meaning of what was said here multiple times: mock condemnation in a controlled highly influenced political body cannot amount to fair and impartial justice from any rational point of view.

No, that is not comical at all as I have proof whereas you have suspicion and hypothetical rational. The first step in making the invasion illegal is for that body to condemn it. As we know, that body is not beyond condeming US actions as they did multiple times before. Also, were there to be a court that could decide this particular matter, the UNSC would empower that body. And last, if there were a body, the USNC would become a witness and testify for, or against the USA. In any case, the UNSC like it or not, is the key to making this action illegal.

Now, as for highly controlled, please explain how they are controlled by the US. You never give proof. Here is mine; I know the US could not push through the last resolution they wanted, that France, Germany and Russia were working against them and that the US has had eight resolutions put forth against them so please, tell us all how the US controls that body.

So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?

[bradco]

"So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?"

as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution. In this manner it has the same power as every other member on the SC. However, as the lone superpower (until China decides to assert itself) it has more power because it could single handidly bring the SC to an end by withdrawing. Anyone who denies this and believes the SC can fulfill its mandate without the US is holding an idealistic world view that completely ignores the ridiculous hardpower that the US has. The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests. For weaker powers such as France who cling to their veto as their last gasp they must back down to the US if the US threatens to say theyve had enough of the whole UN thing. It may not be complete domination of the SC (failure to get second resolution) but they do have the upper hand. If they absolutly needed the second resolution they probably could have forced it out. They didnt though, they had a strong enough legal argument to satisfy domestic interests and without any world court to hear the case and their veto they were safe.

[KrustyKidd]

"So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?"

as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution. In this manner it has the same power as every other member on the SC. However, as the lone superpower (until China decides to assert itself) it has more power because it could single handidly bring the SC to an end by withdrawing. Anyone who denies this and believes the SC can fulfill its mandate without the US is holding an idealistic world view that completely ignores the ridiculous hardpower that the US has. The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests. For weaker powers such as France who cling to their veto as their last gasp they must back down to the US if the US threatens to say theyve had enough of the whole UN thing. It may not be complete domination of the SC (failure to get second resolution) but they do have the upper hand. If they absolutly needed the second resolution they probably could have forced it out. They didnt though, they had a strong enough legal argument to satisfy domestic interests and without any world court to hear the case and their veto they were safe.

I only ask for relevent facts for you to back up your arguments. Instead, you come up with hypothises and theory in a mini opinion column form. So, if they are that scared of the US then why did they make eight resolutions against it? You dance around that fact and still maintain that the UNSC would never condemn the Iraq Invasion out of fear. You do your argument no justice by repeatedly saying the UN is afraid of the US all the while they actively work against it when it suits them.

So, if the only body able to determine if the invasion was illegal does not even show formal displeasure when we know it does to the USA on other matters all the time, , why would you, as a poster on a forum feel you have a point when you can't even back up your argument with fact?

[bradco]

"So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?"

as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution. In this manner it has the same power as every other member on the SC. However, as the lone superpower (until China decides to assert itself) it has more power because it could single handidly bring the SC to an end by withdrawing. Anyone who denies this and believes the SC can fulfill its mandate without the US is holding an idealistic world view that completely ignores the ridiculous hardpower that the US has. The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests. For weaker powers such as France who cling to their veto as their last gasp they must back down to the US if the US threatens to say theyve had enough of the whole UN thing. It may not be complete domination of the SC (failure to get second resolution) but they do have the upper hand. If they absolutly needed the second resolution they probably could have forced it out. They didnt though, they had a strong enough legal argument to satisfy domestic interests and without any world court to hear the case and their veto they were safe.

I only ask for relevent facts for you to back up your arguments. Instead, you come up with hypothises and theory in a mini opinion column form. So, if they are that scared of the US then why did they make eight resolutions against it? You dance around that fact and still maintain that the UNSC would never condemn the Iraq Invasion out of fear. You do your argument no justice by repeatedly saying the UN is afraid of the US all the while they actively work against it when it suits them.

So, if the only body able to determine if the invasion was illegal does not even show formal displeasure when we know it does to the USA on other matters all the time, , why would you, as a poster on a forum feel you have a point when you can't even back up your argument with fact?

Yes my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis. Your argument is not immune from weaknesses. You cite historical examples where the US has been condemned for its actions completely ignoring the context of the current situation. Historical examples dont automatically prove anything. Have to pay attention to context. Has anyone ever attempted to condemn George Bush's action at the SC? Are there reasons to suspect he may respond differently then other past US leaders? Have opinions about the UN and its usefulness changed among US leadership and population? Has American power changed, has the power of other members changed? There all sorts of variables that have to be considered as far as context goes. Citing what happened in the past doesn't prove all that much other than in the past they were able to table resolutions condemning the US without consequences. That doesnt necessarily mean there wouldnt be consequences in this context. The failure of those resolutions to do anything or amount for anything could be used as "proof" of the uselessness of bothering to table anything.

facts I used in developing my hypothesis:

"as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution"

"The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests"

-I would argue it is fact the US has the hard power to withdraw and end the SC's ability to fulfill its mandate

"You do your argument no justice by repeatedly saying the UN is afraid of the US all the while they actively work against it when it suits them."

-I didnt say the UN in general...I specificlly mentioned France as an example simply cause they have alot to lose.

-They work against them to a degree they can get away with...without completely pissing the US off. The US gains from the UN as well so they wont leave over minor things. France would have loved to give no ambiguity in 1441 but couldn't. Please explain why, if there was no fear of US withdrawal or other consequences, they did this?