1000 U.S. Specialists going to search for WMD's - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-01-2003, 06:31 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:09 PM
sorry double posting
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:04 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Klaus,

"we have discussed several times if the US was authorized by the UN (since there was no attack from Iraq it's the only legal option left) and i told you before that the decison makers in the UN security council said all the time that this resolution shouldn't be missinterpreted as a justification for a war."

Iraq invaded Kuwait and had failed to comply with the resolution. Read resolution 678 again and look at where it specifically says that member states are to use all means necessary to bring about the compliance of stated resolutions at the time and all subsequent resolutions.

1441 was written by the USA and restated 678 above and said failure to comply would mean "Serious Consequences". The USA clearly defined that as war. The other countries never offered a definition. They later tried to say it did not authorize war, but still did not say what "Serious Consequences" meant in light of the fact that everything "Serious" short of military force was already being used against Iraq. There is only one rational definition of "Serious Consequences" in light of what was already being done to Iraq. What do you think "Serious Consequences" meant?

In addition to having the legal support of UN resolutions for the invasion, the USA also could justify the invasion on the grounds of self defense. Iraq was required to disarm because the national security of the world and the region required it.

All 17 resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow the use of military force to bring about compliance. They were passed under Chapter VII rules because it was realized that if Iraq failed to disarm, military force would be required to ensure it was disarmed. If that was not the case, the resolutions would have been passed under Chapter VI rules that do not allow the use of force.

"And the UN security council has still approved that Blix should search for WMDs in Iraq. There was no new decision in the council that this is search has become obsolete.
The Inspecions were just paused because UN inspecors had to safe their own life because of an US invasion.
Today US stops the UN to continue their inspections."

When the council authorized "Serious Consequences" if Iraq failed to disarm, they were approving a military disarmament of Iraq. Peaceful UN inspections are OVER! It is the military's job to disarm Iraq now. Any military action against Iraq was to disarm it of WMD. That is what is currently taking place!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:22 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:09 PM
STING2:

it can only be self defense if Iraq would have been a imminent threat to the US, come on you don't really beleave that they were.

The mayority of the members who fought out this compromise in the UN security council said all the time that this resolution shouldn't be missinterpreted as a justification for a war.

There was a good reason why the USA wanted another resolution, because now a mayority of all international rights specialists agree that the US violated the international laws by invading Iraq.

but it's really unnecessary to repeat this discussion as long as you have no new arguments, because i can remember your other postings.

disarment is over when there is proof that the weapons are destroyed, since neither Iraq did that nor US can deliver a proof for it now, disarment isn't over and the job of the UN weapon inspectors isn't done.

and
Quote:
And the UN security council has still approved that Blix should search for WMDs in Iraq. There was no new decision in the council that this is search has become obsolete.
Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:40 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Klaus,

"it can only be self defense if Iraq would have been a imminent threat to the US, come on you don't really beleave that they were."

That is your definition of "Self Defense", not mine or the US governments or most American people. There is nothing that requires the USA to follow your interpretation of what "Self Defense" is.

Iraq indeed was an imminent threat to any country in the region including a NATO member. Iraq at any time could have attacked Kuwait with prohibited WMD if it had chosen to. Any Attack on Kuwait is an attack on the USA.

Do you know what Chapter VII rules are? Why do you think resolutions against Iraq were passed under chapter VII rules?

"The mayority of the members who fought out this compromise in the UN security council said all the time that this resolution shouldn't be missinterpreted as a justification for a war."

Every single country that saw the word "Serious Consequences" knew what it meant. They could have voted against the resolution but did not. They can claim all they want to. How is their claim superior to anyone elses. In addition, Resolution 678 clearly spells out that member states have every right to use all means necessary to ensure compliance with the resolutions.

What was their interpretation of "Serious Consequences". What is yours in light of the fact that Iraq was already under a weapons embargo and sanctions? What is more serious than sanctions and a weapons embargo?

"There was a good reason why the USA wanted another resolution, because now a mayority of all international rights specialists agree that the US violated the international laws by invading Iraq."

What the suposed "majority" of international law experts think is not what the US government thinks when looking at the law. These so called international law experts were not elected by the American people and cannot dictate where and when the USA defends itself.

The Job of the UN inspectors ended when the operation became a military one. The military operation was launched to disarm IRAQ!

Resolution 1441 which required Iraq to disarm or face a military disarmament is what has made the peaceful inspections obsolete. It is the military's job now to ensure that Iraq is disarmed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:50 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:09 PM
STING2:

my definition of self defense is that what i rember is written in the UN charta.

Being a member of the UN takes away some of the souvereignity of a country and therefore you have to listen to other countries.

The statement that it's unlawful is for example from several law-experts of the UN and one from the ICC. The one from the ICC said that there was a good reason to keep this resolution fuzzy, (he spoke a few days after this resolution) because if future resoulutions fail all politicians can tell their people that they will not violate internaitonal law.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 09:48 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Klaus,

"my definition of self defense is that what i rember is written in the UN charta."

"Being a member of the UN takes away some of the souvereignity of a country and therefore you have to listen to other countries."

Being a member of the UN does not infringe upon the sovereignty of a member state. It certainly does not take away the right of "self defense" as defined by the democratically elected government of the USA.

I'd have to look back at it, but I believe the narrow definition of "self Defense" in the UN charter would not of allowed the operations in Bosnia and Kosovo where people were being slaughtered until the US military intervened. Any document that would essentially prevent stopping what happened in Kosovo is a document that approves the slaughter that happened there.

"The statement that it's unlawful is for example from several law-experts of the UN and one from the ICC. The one from the ICC said that there was a good reason to keep this resolution fuzzy, (he spoke a few days after this resolution) because if future resoulutions fail all politicians can tell their people that they will not violate internaitonal law."

Great! That is their opinion and interpretation of international law. It is not how the USA defines it. It is not how many law experts in the USA define it. These law experts were never elected by American people for any position. They have no power to decide when and where the USA intervenes with its military. The elected representives of the USA are the ones that decide that.

But no matter, just read the UN document as it is written for resolution 678. Looking at what is literally written, its impossible to conclude that it does not legitamize the current US action. The above law experts have infer things not present in that resolution to come to the conclusion that it does not legitamize the US action. Many lawyers failure to understand the word "Subsequent" is why they seem to fail to understand why that resolution authorizes US military action against Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 11:17 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:09 AM


This thread appears to have been derailed. It has like many other innocent threads, deteriorated into a debate on if the US was acting under the authority of the UN Resolutions or not.





#1 IF we are to believe that 1441 clearly authorized the use of force.......Then we are still working with the UN.

The Fact is, the United States cannot have it both ways. If we indeed we are within our legitimate rights, based on 1441 there should be a UN Presence in Iraq providing more than a humanitarian effort.

#2 IF we are still working with the UN and our actions were justified through 1441, there should be no problem allowing UN Inspectors to work with us in the search for WMD. Since we so clearly have worked through the UN Resolutions on this.

#3 The longer we do not work with the UN on finding the WMD's the more valid the arguments are that we are not working through the UN.

#4 Without the UN involvement, anything we find is suspect to world opinion. Given the fact that some of the things that Powell presented to the UN in the first place are suspect, it would be nice to have some validity to what we find.

#5 This is my OPINION.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 05:19 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Dreadsox,

The UN inspectors were withdrawn because the inspections program ended when the military phase of the campaign started. The military campaign's purpose is to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of any WMD's. The military now has the job that the civilians inspectors once had. Saddam failed to cooperate with the civilian inspectors and now its the military's job to ensure that he is disarmed.

The USA, UK and Australia are members of the UN. They are the UN forces that have committed to the military operation to disarm Iraq. The French, Germans and others decided that despite the fact the UN resolutions called for this operation, not to send troops. Because Saddam did not comply with 1441, it is the Military's job and the military alone to ensure that Saddam is disarmed. Again, UN civilian inspections of Iraq are OVER! That inspections process required the cooperation of the Iraqi government which currently does not exist. The US military is still involved in combat operations to track down key leaders of the regime.

"The longer we do not work with the UN on finding the WMD's the more valid the arguments are that we are not working through the UN."

I understand thats the opinion of many other countries in the world. But the American, British and Australian forces in Iraq are the UN.

If your worried about validity, don't send Hans Blix to Iraq. I trust Powell, the USA Military and my friends currently serving there more than I trust Mr. Blix.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 05:21 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
I forget to say, just my opinion.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 05:35 PM   #40
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:09 PM
Dreadsox:

i agree with Dreadsox view

so, anything new about the WMDs?

Sems like blairs job is in danger if he dosn't find the WMDs, his party lost lots of supporters during the election, most said it's because of his Iraq politics

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 06:07 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
A majority of British citizens supported the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 10:06 AM   #42
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 01:09 PM
I agree with dread on this too.


I think Not only if we find WMD's are we suspect. But the entire rebuilding of iraq will be suspect without UN involvement
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 10:32 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Thanks for your support. I guess from the posts I have read in this thread, I can sympathize with other nations feelings that America is arrogant. Based on the logic in here, the UN is whatever the US believes it to be and the rest of the world be damned. Nice, Austrailia, Britain, and the UNITED STATES are the UN? What is this?

So if Russia and France take action in Country Z, because they are members of the UN, the are actually acting as the UN?

I have no doubt that the members of the armed forces are doing what they are trained to do. I was a member of the armed forces and have tremendous respect for the job they do. I have family and friends serving too, but that does not mean it is legitimate to the rest of the world. No where did I say turn the process over to UN Instectors. My point was, if we can imbed reporters to travel with our troops, why wouldn't we welcome UN Inspectors, trained to do this job, and imbed them with our forces. It has nothing to do with the dangers of military operations in Iraq. It has everything to do with the continued arrogance of this administration. This is an opportunity to begin fixing problems internationally. More goodwill can be created by the manner in which we handle victory and once again, we are blowing it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 04:03 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Dreadsox,

Just because the world feels that America is arrogant does not mean that is so. I find the administration position to be logical considering that there seems to be certain countries in the United Nations who don't want the USA to find WMD or perhaps documents or material that may implicate their country.

Are you opposed to the small number of countries that have done the majority of the fighting and peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo? The UN essentially failed to solve that problem and the USA came in and solved it in both area's. Where is all the talk of US "Arrogance" when it comes to those operations?

You have refused to tell what "real" coalition would be, so I see nothing wrong with the fact that there are 3 countries on the ground conducting the legitimate military operation as called for by the UN resolutions. This operation is not over. The French and Germans and anyone else had an oportunity to participate, but instead did their best diplomatically to prevent disarmament of Iraq and the end of the Saddam regime.

I don't want countries that have different motives to compromise what my friends and others have accomplished and sacrificed to achieve. It is not arrogance but a matter of national security.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 04:59 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Just because the world feels that America is arrogant does not mean that is so. I find the administration position to be logical considering that there seems to be certain countries in the United Nations who don't want the USA to find WMD or perhaps documents or material that may implicate their country.
This can be an interesting debate as to what exactly is the truth. Is it what you do, or is it what others think what you're doing? Just because the USA feels that other countries want to obstruct them does not mean that it is so. However, since there is a difference in opinion both sides will think they represent the truth. The only way to overcome the differences is when both parties will interact with each other and work with each other.
Your comment about countries not wanting to find WMD is baseless. The current situation proves it as the USA also hasn't found any WMD. In the '90s the inspectors did find some WMD and destroyed them. They may not have found everything, but they have at least found something. Every member of the Security Council wants to know if all WMD are accounted for, so that they cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. (Yes, my comment about every member of the Security Council wanting this is just as baseless your comment I singled out. We both don't know the exact situation)

Quote:
You have refused to tell what "real" coalition would be, so I see nothing wrong with the fact that there are 3 countries on the ground conducting the legitimate military operation as called for by the UN resolutions. This operation is not over. The French and Germans and anyone else had an oportunity to participate, but instead did their best diplomatically to prevent disarmament of Iraq and the end of the Saddam regime.
IIRC, Dreadsox has repeatedly stated what he considers a real coalition. Three English-speaking countries does not represent a credible coalition for this kind of operation.
The French and Germans did participate in the operation of disarming Iraq. However, they did not consider a war a necessary option at that moment. But with their commitment to disarmament they should not be suddenly sidelined by a government who might do everything to prove the world that there were WMD.

Quote:
I don't want countries that have different motives to compromise what my friends and others have accomplished and sacrificed to achieve. It is not arrogance but a matter of national security.
And I don't want countries that think that their will is the will of the world compromise the security in a region and the viability of an organisation that tries to keep the world together peacefully. That's not arrogance, but a matter of national security, the security of MY country.
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com