Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
In what way do the disagree with what I wrote?
The inspectors are there to verify and supervise the destruction of WMD and the disarming of Iraq. The SC disagrees with this? Funny, I thought they said it first. (1441)
Quote:
"UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof"
The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. Again, the UN said (1441) :
Quote:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
Since Blix did not report on March 9, 2003 that Iraq was in full compliance and was in fact stated that Iraq cooperation was neither immediate or unconditional, they are in obvious breach.
You are right, that in the forum of the UN, it is up to the council to decide, and not you or I. However, in an informal debate, such as this, is it perfectly acceptable to demonstrate certain obvious situations, such as Iraq not being in compliance, the actual role of inspections and hence their appearant success/failure.
You are right, that in the forum of the UN, it is up to the council to decide, and not you or I. However, in an informal debate, such as this, is it perfectly acceptable to demonstrate certain obvious situations, such as Iraq not being in compliance, the actual role of inspections and hence their appearant success/failure.
Of coures we can hypothesize about this stuff, I'm in favor of that. And in my own opinion resolution 1441 was breached.
But, we can't hypothesize that resolution 1441 was breached, therefore Bush taking action based on that supposition is legitimate. Once we cross into the real world, such as the imminent attack on Iraq, we have to account for the real world definitions.
So you were implying that the upcoming war is legit because Saddam breached resolution 1441. I'm saying that although in our opinion resolution 1441 was breached, that cannot be used for a precursor to war. Only the Security Council can make a decision to instigate a war or military action based on a U.N. Security Council resolution.
That's pure rhetoric. A person in power who can supply money and/or deadly weapons to others is not necessarily a tough opponent.
And Israel is a tangent. That's akin to the "everybody's doing it" mentality.
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime. The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
The implications are not clear. Israel is not Iraq. The two situations cannot easily be compared.
-
If bombs are what it takes to remove you from that position, then yes. And sure, you could include the US in that category, but that doesn't make Cook's statement less absurd. A regime doesn't have to be stable or powerful to be dangerous.
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
Actually it is you who are wrong. The U.S. and other countries retain their soveignty aside from the U.N. The U.N. is not the sole entity on the planet that can validly decide if military action is not necessary. In fact with the U.S. and Soviet Union on opposite sides in the past, there were dozens of valid instances where the U.S. had to take action and could not do so with the backing of the U.N. thanks to the ability of the Soviet Union (now Russia) to veto.
I suppose if the Soviet Union had vetoed the resolution calling for the removal of missles from Cuba, you would have condemned JFK and praised the Soviets. There never was a U.N. Security Council resolution on Cuba for just this reason. Yet the U.S. undertook a blockade under threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets.
The U.S. always right to determine whether they have the right to protect themselves from a clear threat. The president sought the approval of Congress and got a more ambiguios resolution passed by the U.N. He has sought to make his coalition as broad as possible and sought stronger resolutions from the U.N. However the fact that the U.N. and members in it at times cannot agree and pass resolutions does not mean the U.S. is misguided in destroying a clear threat.
So you were implying that the upcoming war is legit because Saddam breached resolution 1441. I'm saying that although in our opinion resolution 1441 was breached, that cannot be used for a precursor to war. Only the Security Council can make a decision to instigate a war or military action based on a U.N. Security Council resolution.
Correct...assuming the military action taken was a UN action.
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime.
You really, honestly beleive that Iraq is complying with the resolution? By the way, can you find for me the resolution calling for 'serious consequences' against Israel? Or a cease fire agreement that binds Israel to certain condition?
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
They are in the process of a hodge-podge half-assed disarmament. that itself puts the in violation. Israel is in a unique position, struggling for the life of every Jew in Israel against many nations that hate it. Yes, they will probably be treated differently..though it is still entirely unrelated to this issue...no matter how much Saddam, Osama, Cooke and you want to tie it it.
Oh come on, it was a pretty clean joke. By the community standards that was hardly notable and both of the parties mentioned have and ought to have thick enough skin to take a little prodding.
[BI suppose if the Soviet Union had vetoed the resolution calling for the removal of missles from Cuba, you would have condemned JFK and praised the Soviets. There never was a U.N. Security Council resolution on Cuba for just this reason. Yet the U.S. undertook a blockade under threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets.[/B]
The difference between that situation and the Iraq situation is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an imminent threat on the United States. Iraq simply isn't.
The U.S. always right to determine whether they have the right to protect themselves from a clear threat.
You know, I don't think anyone can take a post seriously that equates the threat during the Cuban Missile crisis with the threat from Iraq. That's just outrageous.
EDIT: Spelling & to say that I didn't see that BR had alread addressed the issue.
Why don't you just go ahead and remove that one too since there's as much proof that the majority of Americans are against the war as proof the majority of Macedonians are against it too?
You know, I don't think anyone can take a post seriously that equates the threat during the Cuban Missile crisis with the threat from Iraq. That's just outrageous.
EDIT: Spelling & to say that I didn't see that BR had alread addressed the issue.
That wasn't the question, and you are intentionally throwing dirt in the air to get others to ignore your flawed statement.
You claimed that the U.N. security council would be the ones who could legitimately determine if Iraq constituted a threat and if the inspections were working.
I cited an example (Cuba) where regardless of overwhelming evidence (photos of the actual missles) the council could not pass a resolution authorizing military force or even a blockade because of the Soviet veto threat.
If anything you have substanciated my point. The Cuban Missle crisis was probably the most serious threat the United States has faced. We were all standing on the brink of annihilation and even with those threats on the line we could not get the full support of the U.N.
If we couldn't get it for Cuba with the charismatic and intelligent JFK leading the way. How could we possible get it with Iraq and George W. Bush? I am sure you opinion of Bush is much lower than JFK.
The difference between that situation and the Iraq situation is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an imminent threat on the United States. Iraq simply isn't.
Thanks, and now as you said with a clearly imminent threat on the United States how did the U.N. perform with regard to resolutions, inspections and support?
We couldn't get a resolution passed because of the Soviet veto. We couldn't even get support for the blockade where all we were doing is inspecting ships for weapons.
If anything Bush has accomplished more in this regard than JFK did. Bush got support for disarmament and inspections with "consequences." Whereas JFK simply had to act unilaterally with no support or multinational troops.
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime. The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
Your right Shawn Israel should be held to the same standard. Those nice resolutions that said they shouldn't exist and that Zionism is racism should be enforced. I mean thanks for showing how elevated and intelligent the resolutions of the U.N. are with regard to the world.
Why don't you just go ahead and remove that one too since there's as much proof that the majority of Americans are against the war as proof the majority of Macedonians are against it too?
Oh believe me: the cable news networks have convinced every couch-potato that "war is good.?" (Cue fast paced, look at me graphics and sound effects)
Your right Shawn Israel should be held to the same standard. Those nice resolutions that said they shouldn't exist and that Zionism is racism should be enforced. I mean thanks for showing how elevated and intelligent the resolutions of the U.N. are with regard to the world.
You really are building my support for the U.N.
Nick
Well, you're right trumptman. I mean why even have a multinational organization at all anymore? The US should just force its weight around, enforcing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. All in the name of democracy. *sigh*
The Cuban Missle crisis was probably the most serious threat the United States has faced. We were all standing on the brink of annihilation and even with those threats on the line we could not get the full support of the U.N.
You don't need the support of the U.N. under these circumstances. The U.N. Charter already supports a response, like Israel in 1967.
Comments
And Israel is a tangent. That's akin to the "everybody's doing it" mentality.
But yes, it's brilliant.
Originally posted by bunge
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
In what way do the disagree with what I wrote?
The inspectors are there to verify and supervise the destruction of WMD and the disarming of Iraq. The SC disagrees with this? Funny, I thought they said it first. (1441)
"UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof"
The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. Again, the UN said (1441) :
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
Since Blix did not report on March 9, 2003 that Iraq was in full compliance and was in fact stated that Iraq cooperation was neither immediate or unconditional, they are in obvious breach.
You are right, that in the forum of the UN, it is up to the council to decide, and not you or I. However, in an informal debate, such as this, is it perfectly acceptable to demonstrate certain obvious situations, such as Iraq not being in compliance, the actual role of inspections and hence their appearant success/failure.
Originally posted by Tulkas
You are right, that in the forum of the UN, it is up to the council to decide, and not you or I. However, in an informal debate, such as this, is it perfectly acceptable to demonstrate certain obvious situations, such as Iraq not being in compliance, the actual role of inspections and hence their appearant success/failure.
Of coures we can hypothesize about this stuff, I'm in favor of that. And in my own opinion resolution 1441 was breached.
But, we can't hypothesize that resolution 1441 was breached, therefore Bush taking action based on that supposition is legitimate. Once we cross into the real world, such as the imminent attack on Iraq, we have to account for the real world definitions.
So you were implying that the upcoming war is legit because Saddam breached resolution 1441. I'm saying that although in our opinion resolution 1441 was breached, that cannot be used for a precursor to war. Only the Security Council can make a decision to instigate a war or military action based on a U.N. Security Council resolution.
Originally posted by Eugene
That's pure rhetoric. A person in power who can supply money and/or deadly weapons to others is not necessarily a tough opponent.
And Israel is a tangent. That's akin to the "everybody's doing it" mentality.
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime. The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
The implications are not clear. Israel is not Iraq. The two situations cannot easily be compared.
-
If bombs are what it takes to remove you from that position, then yes. And sure, you could include the US in that category, but that doesn't make Cook's statement less absurd. A regime doesn't have to be stable or powerful to be dangerous.
Originally posted by bunge
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
Actually it is you who are wrong. The U.S. and other countries retain their soveignty aside from the U.N. The U.N. is not the sole entity on the planet that can validly decide if military action is not necessary. In fact with the U.S. and Soviet Union on opposite sides in the past, there were dozens of valid instances where the U.S. had to take action and could not do so with the backing of the U.N. thanks to the ability of the Soviet Union (now Russia) to veto.
I suppose if the Soviet Union had vetoed the resolution calling for the removal of missles from Cuba, you would have condemned JFK and praised the Soviets. There never was a U.N. Security Council resolution on Cuba for just this reason. Yet the U.S. undertook a blockade under threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets.
The U.S. always right to determine whether they have the right to protect themselves from a clear threat. The president sought the approval of Congress and got a more ambiguios resolution passed by the U.N. He has sought to make his coalition as broad as possible and sought stronger resolutions from the U.N. However the fact that the U.N. and members in it at times cannot agree and pass resolutions does not mean the U.S. is misguided in destroying a clear threat.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
So you were implying that the upcoming war is legit because Saddam breached resolution 1441. I'm saying that although in our opinion resolution 1441 was breached, that cannot be used for a precursor to war. Only the Security Council can make a decision to instigate a war or military action based on a U.N. Security Council resolution.
Correct...assuming the military action taken was a UN action.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime.
You really, honestly beleive that Iraq is complying with the resolution?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
They are in the process of a hodge-podge half-assed disarmament. that itself puts the in violation. Israel is in a unique position, struggling for the life of every Jew in Israel against many nations that hate it. Yes, they will probably be treated differently..though it is still entirely unrelated to this issue...no matter how much Saddam, Osama, Cooke and you want to tie it it.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Oh come on, it was a pretty clean joke. By the community standards that was hardly notable and both of the parties mentioned have and ought to have thick enough skin to take a little prodding.
Are you sure that isn't just a phalluscy?
Originally posted by groverat
unilateral:
US
UK
Albania
Portugal
Spain
Italy
Poland
Australia
Denmark
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Croatia
Bosnia
Montenegro
You should have put Australia right behind the UK. Australia is sending troops. Also you forgot Japan.
Originally posted by trumptman
[BI suppose if the Soviet Union had vetoed the resolution calling for the removal of missles from Cuba, you would have condemned JFK and praised the Soviets. There never was a U.N. Security Council resolution on Cuba for just this reason. Yet the U.S. undertook a blockade under threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets.[/B]
The difference between that situation and the Iraq situation is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an imminent threat on the United States. Iraq simply isn't.
Originally posted by trumptman
The U.S. always right to determine whether they have the right to protect themselves from a clear threat.
You know, I don't think anyone can take a post seriously that equates the threat during the Cuban Missile crisis with the threat from Iraq. That's just outrageous.
EDIT: Spelling & to say that I didn't see that BR had alread addressed the issue.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Correct...assuming the military action taken was a UN action.
Good. But a military action taken in the name of a UN resolution, with UN support is illegitimate.
Originally posted by tonton
Surprise. There's only one left.
UNILATERAL.
Why don't you just go ahead and remove that one too since there's as much proof that the majority of Americans are against the war as proof the majority of Macedonians are against it too?
Originally posted by bunge
You know, I don't think anyone can take a post seriously that equates the threat during the Cuban Missile crisis with the threat from Iraq. That's just outrageous.
EDIT: Spelling & to say that I didn't see that BR had alread addressed the issue.
That wasn't the question, and you are intentionally throwing dirt in the air to get others to ignore your flawed statement.
You claimed that the U.N. security council would be the ones who could legitimately determine if Iraq constituted a threat and if the inspections were working.
I cited an example (Cuba) where regardless of overwhelming evidence (photos of the actual missles) the council could not pass a resolution authorizing military force or even a blockade because of the Soviet veto threat.
If anything you have substanciated my point. The Cuban Missle crisis was probably the most serious threat the United States has faced. We were all standing on the brink of annihilation and even with those threats on the line we could not get the full support of the U.N.
If we couldn't get it for Cuba with the charismatic and intelligent JFK leading the way. How could we possible get it with Iraq and George W. Bush? I am sure you opinion of Bush is much lower than JFK.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
The difference between that situation and the Iraq situation is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an imminent threat on the United States. Iraq simply isn't.
Thanks, and now as you said with a clearly imminent threat on the United States how did the U.N. perform with regard to resolutions, inspections and support?
We couldn't get a resolution passed because of the Soviet veto. We couldn't even get support for the blockade where all we were doing is inspecting ships for weapons.
If anything Bush has accomplished more in this regard than JFK did. Bush got support for disarmament and inspections with "consequences." Whereas JFK simply had to act unilaterally with no support or multinational troops.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime. The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.
But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
Your right Shawn Israel should be held to the same standard. Those nice resolutions that said they shouldn't exist and that Zionism is racism should be enforced. I mean thanks for showing how elevated and intelligent the resolutions of the U.N. are with regard to the world.
You really are building my support for the U.N.
Nick
Originally posted by Eugene
Why don't you just go ahead and remove that one too since there's as much proof that the majority of Americans are against the war as proof the majority of Macedonians are against it too?
Oh believe me: the cable news networks have convinced every couch-potato that "war is good.?" (Cue fast paced, look at me graphics and sound effects)
SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ
Originally posted by trumptman
Your right Shawn Israel should be held to the same standard. Those nice resolutions that said they shouldn't exist and that Zionism is racism should be enforced. I mean thanks for showing how elevated and intelligent the resolutions of the U.N. are with regard to the world.
You really are building my support for the U.N.
Nick
Well, you're right trumptman. I mean why even have a multinational organization at all anymore? The US should just force its weight around, enforcing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. All in the name of democracy. *sigh*
Originally posted by trumptman
The Cuban Missle crisis was probably the most serious threat the United States has faced. We were all standing on the brink of annihilation and even with those threats on the line we could not get the full support of the U.N.
You don't need the support of the U.N. under these circumstances. The U.N. Charter already supports a response, like Israel in 1967.