besides the catch-22 is a brilliant recognition there Grover</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been trying to explain it for months. Glad someone else can see it. You win the <a href="http://www.platinumgrit.com/poke.html"; target="_blank">prize</a> for putting it all so eloquently!
"If the U.N. cannot enforce what it is set up to enforce then the U.N. is irrelevant." I would love for Bush to say this in front of the U.N. Security Council.
If this U.N. is going to threaten the sovreignty of the member states then the U.N. needs to go away. In many ways it is good, but in many ways it is a failed experiment.
OK, this whole notion of "unapproved, unprovoked attack on Iraq" that would leave us in violation of the UN charter is just baloney. You have to ignore the last 12 years of history, right up until the moment the US invades, to buy into it.
Everyone can agree that the 1991 attack on Iaqi forces was well within the bounds of the UN charter, right? Well, the destruction of all WMD and long-range delivery systems was a requirement of the cease-fire that halted that war, and was enshrined in Sec Council Resolution 687. 688 added the requirement that the Iraqi government end its repression of minorities in the north and south and allow humanitarian groups access to verify compliance.
UNSCRs 707 and 949 specifically condmened Iraqi interference with inspections, and ordered Iraq to not move or hide banned materials, and to not threaten inspectors.
UNSCR 1205 condemned Iraq for failing to comply with previous resolutions and booting out the inspectors, and UNSCR 1284 set out the requirements for a new inspection regime (which never materialized).
Finally, UNSCR 1441 in November "demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA" and "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
Iraq has violated every single one of these resolutions, and each subsequent resolution has affirmed those violations! Right up and including 1441, which "decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions". Yet Iraq is STILL in material breach, most obviously, perhaps, through its refusal to allow reconnaisance flights by UN inspectors. Even if you had your hands over your ears when Powell gave his talk Tuesday, you surely must agree to that.
And yet now we have certain French-speaking nations demanding ANOTHER resolution demanding immediate unconditional cooperation (isn't that what 1441 did?) and, if Iraq fails to comply (again) threating....yet another resolution??
If the US attacks to uphold these repeated UN resolutions, it will be operating within both their letter and spirit. Moreover, it is within the letter and spirit of the cease-fire agreement that Iraq has repeatedly violated. The US needs no further justification than that. Hell, the constant harrasment of US jets patrolling the no-fly zones is legal justification for war, too. Those jets are enforcing a UN resolution (giving them the right to be there), and attacking them gives the US the right to respond in self-defence. There, three legal justifications. Take your pick. Withdraw from the UN? Are you nuts? You stretch my liberal tolerance of alternative views to the very breaking point.
But Towel, the UN hasn't explicitly authorized "all necessary means"! If it doesn't it's an illegal war!
Answer #1: They don't have to. The 1990 resolution authorizing all necessary means is still applicable, since Iraq is in material breach (see 1441) of the resolution which "ended" that war.
Answer #2: They don't have to. The US does not require an "all necessary means" resolution to undertake justifiable military action alone or in a coalition when it feels a national interest is at stake. There was no such resolution prior to US intervention in Somalia, Hati, Bosnia, or Kosovo - only retrospective authorization, sometimes with "all necessary means" to ensure deployment of UN observers and peacekeepers. "National interest" was stretched pretty far to cover these "humanitarian wars"; Iraq cuts much, much closer to the bone.
You guys are like kids sometimes. "Bill Clinton did it first so that means I can do it too!"
or
"Iraq is mean so I want to punish them!!!"
I don't care if the sweet Virgin Mary were to come down from the heavens and cast the entire country to hell, that wouldn't mean it was legal or fell within the limits of the U.N. Charter.
Attacks on planes in the no-fly zones are NOT motive for going to war. Breaching Resolution 1441 is NOT motive for going to war.
Should they be? Yes. But that doesn't matter if they're not.
And some of us, myself included, have repeated agreed that the US CAN attack unilaterally, but it can not use U.N. Sanctions as a reason. Only the U.N. can authorize actions in its own name.
If the reason is "National Security" then drop out of the U.N. and cite "National Security" reasons. Quit with the BS "I'm a nice guy trying to free all of the oppressed Iraqi peoples" routine. Don't hijack the U.N.'s morals. Have some balls.
<strong>You guys are like kids sometimes. "Bill Clinton did it first so that means I can do it too!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Nobody made that argument. I brought up Kosovo because so many people were insisting that a war in Iraq would mean we were breaking a treaty. By that logic the treaty is already broken. It's been how many years now? Nobody has seemed to notice.
[quote]<strong>"Iraq is mean so I want to punish them!!!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real easy to win an argument when you misrepresent the other side's position.
[quote]<strong>I don't care if the sweet Virgin Mary were to come down from the heavens and cast the entire country to hell, that wouldn't mean it was legal or fell within the limits of the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I don't care how hyperventilated you get over the U.N. Charter. The U.S. doesn't need the U.N. to legitimatize it's actions.
[quote]<strong>Attacks on planes in the no-fly zones are NOT motive for going to war. Breaching Resolution 1441 is NOT motive for going to war.
Should they be? Yes. But that doesn't matter if they're not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean they should be?
[quote]<strong>And some of us, myself included, have repeated agreed that the US CAN attack unilaterally, but it can not use U.N. Sanctions as a reason. Only the U.N. can authorize actions in its own name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Big deal. This isn't some kind of revelation. President Bush has been saying roughly the same thing for a long time now. He's been willing to play ball with the U.N. but only to a point. If the U.N. won't act, he's prepared to lead a coalition of the willing.
[quote]<strong>If the reason is "National Security" then drop out of the U.N. and cite "National Security" reasons. Quit with the BS "I'm a nice guy trying to free all of the oppressed Iraqi peoples" routine. Don't hijack the U.N.'s morals. Have some balls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Well, in order to hijack the U.N.'s morals it would have to have some morals in the first place.
Comments
<strong>
besides the catch-22 is a brilliant recognition there Grover</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been trying to explain it for months. Glad someone else can see it. You win the <a href="http://www.platinumgrit.com/poke.html"; target="_blank">prize</a> for putting it all so eloquently!
If this U.N. is going to threaten the sovreignty of the member states then the U.N. needs to go away. In many ways it is good, but in many ways it is a failed experiment.
<strong>
If this U.N. is going to threaten the sovreignty of the member states then the U.N. needs to go away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't that exactly what it would be doing if it supported an unprovoked attack against Iraq?
<strong>
Isn't that exactly what it would be doing if it supported an unprovoked attack against Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
um.... oh yeah...
Everyone can agree that the 1991 attack on Iaqi forces was well within the bounds of the UN charter, right? Well, the destruction of all WMD and long-range delivery systems was a requirement of the cease-fire that halted that war, and was enshrined in Sec Council Resolution 687. 688 added the requirement that the Iraqi government end its repression of minorities in the north and south and allow humanitarian groups access to verify compliance.
UNSCRs 707 and 949 specifically condmened Iraqi interference with inspections, and ordered Iraq to not move or hide banned materials, and to not threaten inspectors.
UNSCR 1205 condemned Iraq for failing to comply with previous resolutions and booting out the inspectors, and UNSCR 1284 set out the requirements for a new inspection regime (which never materialized).
Finally, UNSCR 1441 in November "demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA" and "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
Iraq has violated every single one of these resolutions, and each subsequent resolution has affirmed those violations! Right up and including 1441, which "decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions". Yet Iraq is STILL in material breach, most obviously, perhaps, through its refusal to allow reconnaisance flights by UN inspectors. Even if you had your hands over your ears when Powell gave his talk Tuesday, you surely must agree to that.
And yet now we have certain French-speaking nations demanding ANOTHER resolution demanding immediate unconditional cooperation (isn't that what 1441 did?) and, if Iraq fails to comply (again) threating....yet another resolution??
If the US attacks to uphold these repeated UN resolutions, it will be operating within both their letter and spirit. Moreover, it is within the letter and spirit of the cease-fire agreement that Iraq has repeatedly violated. The US needs no further justification than that. Hell, the constant harrasment of US jets patrolling the no-fly zones is legal justification for war, too. Those jets are enforcing a UN resolution (giving them the right to be there), and attacking them gives the US the right to respond in self-defence. There, three legal justifications. Take your pick. Withdraw from the UN? Are you nuts? You stretch my liberal tolerance of alternative views to the very breaking point.
But Towel, the UN hasn't explicitly authorized "all necessary means"! If it doesn't it's an illegal war!
Answer #1: They don't have to. The 1990 resolution authorizing all necessary means is still applicable, since Iraq is in material breach (see 1441) of the resolution which "ended" that war.
Answer #2: They don't have to. The US does not require an "all necessary means" resolution to undertake justifiable military action alone or in a coalition when it feels a national interest is at stake. There was no such resolution prior to US intervention in Somalia, Hati, Bosnia, or Kosovo - only retrospective authorization, sometimes with "all necessary means" to ensure deployment of UN observers and peacekeepers. "National interest" was stretched pretty far to cover these "humanitarian wars"; Iraq cuts much, much closer to the bone.
:eek:
or
"Iraq is mean so I want to punish them!!!"
I don't care if the sweet Virgin Mary were to come down from the heavens and cast the entire country to hell, that wouldn't mean it was legal or fell within the limits of the U.N. Charter.
Attacks on planes in the no-fly zones are NOT motive for going to war. Breaching Resolution 1441 is NOT motive for going to war.
Should they be? Yes. But that doesn't matter if they're not.
And some of us, myself included, have repeated agreed that the US CAN attack unilaterally, but it can not use U.N. Sanctions as a reason. Only the U.N. can authorize actions in its own name.
If the reason is "National Security" then drop out of the U.N. and cite "National Security" reasons. Quit with the BS "I'm a nice guy trying to free all of the oppressed Iraqi peoples" routine. Don't hijack the U.N.'s morals. Have some balls.
<strong>You guys are like kids sometimes. "Bill Clinton did it first so that means I can do it too!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Nobody made that argument. I brought up Kosovo because so many people were insisting that a war in Iraq would mean we were breaking a treaty. By that logic the treaty is already broken. It's been how many years now? Nobody has seemed to notice.
[quote]<strong>"Iraq is mean so I want to punish them!!!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real easy to win an argument when you misrepresent the other side's position.
[quote]<strong>I don't care if the sweet Virgin Mary were to come down from the heavens and cast the entire country to hell, that wouldn't mean it was legal or fell within the limits of the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I don't care how hyperventilated you get over the U.N. Charter. The U.S. doesn't need the U.N. to legitimatize it's actions.
[quote]<strong>Attacks on planes in the no-fly zones are NOT motive for going to war. Breaching Resolution 1441 is NOT motive for going to war.
Should they be? Yes. But that doesn't matter if they're not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean they should be?
[quote]<strong>And some of us, myself included, have repeated agreed that the US CAN attack unilaterally, but it can not use U.N. Sanctions as a reason. Only the U.N. can authorize actions in its own name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Big deal. This isn't some kind of revelation. President Bush has been saying roughly the same thing for a long time now. He's been willing to play ball with the U.N. but only to a point. If the U.N. won't act, he's prepared to lead a coalition of the willing.
[quote]<strong>If the reason is "National Security" then drop out of the U.N. and cite "National Security" reasons. Quit with the BS "I'm a nice guy trying to free all of the oppressed Iraqi peoples" routine. Don't hijack the U.N.'s morals. Have some balls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Well, in order to hijack the U.N.'s morals it would have to have some morals in the first place.
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
In case you didn't notice, there's a debate going on, you can't really nail down what exactly the U.N.'s morals are.
they're completely irrelevent now because of the way they've handled policing their own rules/resolutions.