Attack or Self-Defense? - Page 2 - 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 02-19-2003, 12:57 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:03 AM
If the only way to bring peace and security to the region in 1990/1991 and to complete the task of the removal of Saddam Hussein forces from Kuwait was in fact his removal from office, it would definitely have been justified under 678. Remember: "to use all means necessary" to push Iraq out of Kuwait. If Saddam had continued to fight in 1991, the US forces would have continued on in to Baghdad.

Resolutions, passed after 1991, in regards to the disarmament of Iraq are tied to Resolution 678. Members states are to use all necessary means bring Iraq into Compliance with all subsequent resolutions passed under chapter VII rules.

Any move into Iraq will be to disarm it in compliance, with UN security council resolutions. If removal from power of Saddam Hussein is the only way to achieve disarmament, then it is justified by passed UN security council resolutions. Just as if Saddam had continued to actively resist in March 1991, the coalition would have been justified to remove him from power.

678 obligates Saddam to comply with all Subsequent UN Security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules and Authorizes member states to use all means necessary to enforce those resolutions.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 01:03 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Subsequant resolutions are not irrelevant in regards to the current possiblity of the use of force against Iraq.

678 states that member states are authorized to use all necessary means to bring Iraq into compliance with all Subsequant resolutions.

The UN Security Council already laid down conditions for breaking the ceacefire which Iraq has broken several times.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 01:14 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:03 AM
In section 33 and 34 it does not actually say, "678 is fullfilled" or everything contained in 678 in regards to Subsequent Resolutions (meaning resolutions passed after 678) are no longer valid.

The Authorization for member states to use all necessary means against Iraq, applies to all UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, after 678.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 01:16 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Keep repeating the same thing. It does not change the facts:

#1 Past history including US Positions are that Un Cease Fire agreements can only be determined in breach by the Security Council.
#2 The Cease-Fire Agreement declared 678 accomplished and gave the Security Council the power to determine any future actions.
#3 That the President of the United States and his Administration stopped actions in 1990 because 678 and all of the other resolutions did not give them the authority to REMOVE SADDAM or Take over the Country of Iraq.
#4 No resolution since 1990 gives any authority to do so, as 678 was designed, specifically for the liberation of Kuwait as mentioned in paragraph #1.
#5 THe Security Council has yet to rule that the Cease Fire has been violated.

Now, further evidence that 678 is not the governing authority.

1993...France Britain and Germany asked for permission from the Security Council to begin operations against Iraq. Iraq was in violation of resolution 687 (CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT) not 678. The UN approved action, yet again, did not approve the removal of Saddam, nor an occupation of Iraq.

1996 - Present Great Britain and the US have tried a number of times to have the council declare Iraq in violation without any success.

1998 The United States speciafically in resolution 1154 requested the use of force if Iraq violated an agreement made with Kofi Annan. It was again reaffirmed at this time that the Security Council alone had the authority to determine what action was necessary. The use of force was resoundingly defeated.

Why would the United States request this from the security council? Two solid concrete examples above clearly demonstrate that our country BELIEVED that we did not have the authority to act without approval of the council. ARTICLE 678 clearly is not the governing resolution. ARTICLE 687 (CEASE FIRE) is and that is clearly evident in the actions of the US over the past 10 years.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 01:28 AM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In section 33 and 34 it does not actually say, "678 is fullfilled" or everything contained in 678 in regards to Subsequent Resolutions (meaning resolutions passed after 678) are no longer valid.

The Authorization for member states to use all necessary means against Iraq, applies to all UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, after 678.
I guess that is your interpretation. We can go back and forth as to what 33 means if you want.


It does not change the fact that it did not give the AUTHORITY to REMOVe Saddam in 1990 nor did it give permission to occupy Iraq. You and I both know that was the official position of the coalition.

If it did not give the authority in 1990 there must be a SUBSEQUENT resolution giving the authority for the up and coming invasion since it clearly did not give the authority in 1990 based on the coalitions actions.

As to paragraph 34...that is not debatable....it gives the Security Council the future authority for actions.

AS to the behavior of the United States over the past 10 years in 1993 they sought and received permission to act. Since 1993, there have been no approvals. Why have we sought approval if we had the authority? Makes no sense.

Heading to bed.


I am interested to see what others think since we clearly have reached the end of this argument.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 02:13 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Again,

678 gives the Authorization to use force in all Subsequent resolutions in regards to Iraq.

Paragraph 2

Authorizes Member States Co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660(1990) and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international peace and security in the area.

That refers to resolutions passed in the future, whether its in 1995, 1999, or 2003! It authorizes member states to USE ALL MEANS necessary to bring compliance with these future resolutions.

It has already been stated many times that the USA returns to the Security Council, despite its clear Authorization under 678 to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance, for political reasons and the desire to gain political support for military action, BUT not because it felt it was legally required to do so!

Bush set out a new resolution in October of last year, not because he felt he needed it legally to invade Iraq, but because he wanted to gain the support of allies to do that. From a strictly legal stand point, 678 has been all the legal authorization we have needed. We seek approval for political reasons, not because we feel it is legally required.

Take a careful look at page 369 and 370 of the THREATENING STORM by Keneth Pollack. Again, he lays down a similar case that I have.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 06:39 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Great, interesting discussion, guys

STING2: No way out. Iraq is NOT at war with the international community at the moment. You should simply admit that the US wants to attack Iraq. Its not self defense.

Its not the most difficult thing in the world to admit that. You really sound more like a politician than like a proud member of the US Army.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 08:08 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Again,

678 gives the Authorization to use force in all Subsequent resolutions in regards to Iraq.

Paragraph 2

Authorizes Member States Co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660(1990) and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international peace and security in the area.

That refers to resolutions passed in the future, whether its in 1995, 1999, or 2003! It authorizes member states to USE ALL MEANS necessary to bring compliance with these future resolutions.
We have debated this to death. I have listed points above on this. Pollack himself states on page 369 indicates that there is a split among the nations over the interpretation of this part of the resolution. Don't make out like all of the nations at the UN believe as you do. You cannot escape history.

The US has always, in the past, supported the position that the security council holds the power. Article 678 did not give the power in 1990 to invade and remove Saddam. The US actions clearly demonstrated that fact, and you are ignoring the fact that our own President Bush (DAD) has made statements of the same nature. There have been no Subsequent resolutions authorizing the United States the use of force. SO even if I agree with your interpretation, there is no further legality to go to war without the UN.



Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

It has already been stated many times that the USA returns to the Security Council, despite its clear Authorization under 678 to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance, for political reasons and the desire to gain political support for military action, BUT not because it felt it was legally required to do so!

Bush set out a new resolution in October of last year, not because he felt he needed it legally to invade Iraq, but because he wanted to gain the support of allies to do that. From a strictly legal stand point, 678 has been all the legal authorization we have needed. We seek approval for political reasons, not because we feel it is legally required.
Sting, it may be stated by the United States Governement. Pollack clearly points out that not all have the same interpretation of 678 as the US does. Pollack himself starts this chapter saying:

"I am not a lawyer......I cannot offer a definitive answer on the legality of a US invasion of Iraq." (p. 367)

I am not a lawyer either. All I can say is that we have used force in 1993 with permission. We have actively sought permission for all of our actions since ARTICLE 687 (CEASE_FIRE) and you have also pointed out that we have sought permission in article 1441. There have also been numerous reports over the past week that indicate the Administration is looking for another resolution to authorize the use of force. History and actions speak louder than Pollack's interpretation of UN Resolutions. The US clearly has not held the belief that 678 authorises and invasion/use of force/or removal of Saddam.

You have failed to provide any evidence that Article 678 gives any more authority than it had in 1990 when President Bush stopped the assault on Iraq claiming that the United Nations did not give them the authority to remove Saddam.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Take a careful look at page 369 and 370 of the THREATENING STORM by Keneth Pollack. Again, he lays down a similar case that I have.

See above...Pollack himself indicates he cannot speak to the LEGALITY of an INVASION. He lays out the case very nicely. Unfortunately, he too is ignoring past history in regaurds to Cease-Fire Agreements.

The past history of Cease-Fire Agreements clearly demonstrates that only the Security Council can declare them voided. If Iraq invades Kuwait again, the Chapter VII rules apply. Since Material Breech has not been declared and Iraq has not yet invaded another country, the UN CHARTER rules apply. Not Chapter VII.



PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 08:10 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Oops...double post.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 08:34 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Pollack also points out that:

There is no country on earth that benefits more from the system of international legal agreements than the United States...It would make the support of the American people firmer and the participation of our allies more likely. Consequently, it is important that the US actions conform to international law (p 368).

Pollack himself clearly indicates that this is a VERY important issue. Clinging to article 678 saying that it gives us the authority, despite past history and actions, is not GOOD. It undermines the security council. It gives other individual nations the right to interpret Security Council decisions on their own. It encourages other nations to decide when a cease fire agreement is nullified.

You are looking at potentially the end of the UN and the Security Council as we know it if the US does not support the Security Council as it has in the past.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 11:58 AM   #26
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Pollack also points out that:

There is no country on earth that benefits more from the system of international legal agreements than the United States...It would make the support of the American people firmer and the participation of our allies more likely. Consequently, it is important that the US actions conform to international law (p 368).

Pollack himself clearly indicates that this is a VERY important issue. Clinging to article 678 saying that it gives us the authority, despite past history and actions, is not GOOD. It undermines the security council. It gives other individual nations the right to interpret Security Council decisions on their own. It encourages other nations to decide when a cease fire agreement is nullified.

You are looking at potentially the end of the UN and the Security Council as we know it if the US does not support the Security Council as it has in the past.
Thanks for the great research and debate.
You've stated my exact fears if Bush goes it alone. He needs to abide by the UN decisions. I think if people were more informed about the result of any attack without the UN, the polls would show a different result. As it is, they are still trending to a majority only with support of the UN.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 12:14 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:03 AM
In fact the number 57% is only if there will be an UN Resolution for the attack. If there is no resolution, support drops to 37%.

Thanks for the disinformation, STING2.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 12:20 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Well, I have done some more reading Sting. Pollack is NOT sure himself if 678 still gives the authority for the use of force now.

He states that one of the mistakes of the original sanctions is that:

As everyone has known but few would admit, military force was always going to be needed to beat back Iraq's challenges to the UN-based containment regime from time to time.

Key Part coming up:

However, a mistake of the original sanctions was not to have stipulated this up front. This mistake would need to be corrected, ideally in a new resolution authorizing member states to enforce the new sanctions by all necessary means-the original language of UNSC Resolution 678, which authorized the use of force before the Gulf War.

Very clearly here....he breaks down the major problem, which is that 678 authorized the use of force before the GULF WAR. Not after.

He continues:

Although the United States has long maintained that UNSCR 678 provides adequate justification for all military action against Iraq since then (and this MAY be correct from a legal standpoint), politically, few countries agree with us.

This does not sound like a ringing endorsement that 678 gives the authority. He says 'MAY BE CORRECT". He is also quick to point out that not many members of the UN disagree with the US on this.


Pollack continues to ride the fence on this in his next sentence:

Thus, for political and not necessarily legal reasons, if we are going to return to a multilaterala effort to contain Iraq, it would behove us to have a new resolution making such authorization plain in order to restore the international concensus on the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance with new sanctions.


STING, clearly the man you have based your arguments on in this thread and others, is not himself certain that 678 gives the UNITED STATES the authority to use force against Iraq.

For those of you listening at home....Kenneth Pollack wrote a book called "THE THREATENING STORM: The Case for INvading Iraq". The author Kenneth Pollack, has been on CNN quite a bit over the past few weeks as an analyst. The information I quoted above comes from page 225.


PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 01:51 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Here is an interesting letter from the New York Bar association dealing specifically with the UN Resolutions that Sting and I have been debating here.

http://www.abcny.org/currentarticle/..._Military.html


If you want to read the whole letter click on the link above.

Here is the part that contains the point I have been making:

Nevertheless, existing Security Council resolutions with regard to Iraq do not authorize the use of force by nations to enforce those resolutions. In November 1990, the Security Council adopted Resolution 678 to authorize the use of force against Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678 expressly authorized member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." After the coalition forces and Iraq entered into a provisional cease-fire, the Security Council by Resolution 687 declared a formal cease-fire to be effective upon acceptance of the terms of such Resolution by Iraq. The Security Council affirmed prior resolutions, including Resolution 678, subject to this significant limitation: "except as expressly changed below [in this Resolution] to achieve the goals of this Resolution, including a formal cease-fire."

It remains the province of the Security Council to determine what enforcement action is necessary. Under Resolution 687, the Security Council "remain[s] seized of the matter" and may determine "such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." Subsequent resolutions have condemned Iraq's non-compliance and have imposed additional enforcement measures, but the Security Council has not reauthorized the use of military force under Chapter VII.



Peace to ALL
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 04:05 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Dreadsox,

First of all, I did not base any arguement I have made on the United Nations Resolutions solely on what Kenneth Pollack had to say. I made the same arguements months ago before I even knew who Kenneth Pollack was. There are many people who have been apart of 4 different presidential administrations who agree that Resolution 678 gives member states the legal right to use all means necessary to enforce any subsequent resolutions after 678. WHAT do you think Subsequent means?

More importantly, I have read all of resolution 687, the one you say makes 678 null and void, or irrelevant. It in fact does the exact OPPOSITE! Look at Paragraph #1 of Resolution 687!

1. AFFIRMS ALL THIRTEEN RESOLUTIONS NOTED ABOVE, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY CHANGED BELOW TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT RESOLUTION, INCLUDING A FORMAL CEACE-FIRE;

Having read all of 687, there is nothing in 687 that definitively changes anything in 678. There is not one Quote that says, "678 and its contents no longer apply to any resolutions". Because no changes were made to 678 in 687, and it is definitively AFFIRMED again, paragraph two of 678 continues to stand:

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660(1990) and ALL SUBSEQUENT relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

#1 If 678 had said: All Subsequent relevant resolutions up to but not after 678, I'd agree that 678 could not be sited as a legal basis for further military action in Iraq.

#2 In addition if there is another UN resolution or document that undisputably states that "everything in 678 is no longer valid and does not apply to any resolutions passed after 678" I would agree that 678 cannot be used to legally justify military action in Iraq after 1991.

I have for years been well aware that there is disagreement among other UN members about what is legal and lawful in regards to this issue. I have acknowledge this often before as well. It does not change the fact that 678 as stated, gives members states the legal right to use all means necessary to enforce subsequent resolutions against Iraq. I have yet to see a UN document or resolution that comes after 678 that undisputedly states that 678 has no effect beyond 687. In fact, unlike what you had previously said, 687 actually affirms 678.

I'm not an international lawyer or even a student of international law. The point I have made mutiple times is not some original idea of mine or something that I created or pulled out of my ass. I've seen what I have been saying, stated often by many professionals in international law over the past few years. If 678 was never seen as a compelling legal basis for further military action against Iraq, we would not be having this debate.

The USA often does things for political reasons rather than legal necessity. That is why it has gone back to the UN on multiple occasions for approval. That is why it may go back to the UN in the next couple of weeks for a new resolution. For political reasons, not because it felt it needed such a resolution from a purely legal standpoint. Any international law expert in the administration will tell you that.

To the question of the possible overthrow of Iraq 1991, it is true that it was never the stated purpose of the Coalition to march into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussien. But Authorization was given to Coalition forces to use all means necessary to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. IF expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait required the overthrow of Saddam Hussien, such action would be justified. Remember, all means were justified to push the Iraqi Military out of Kuwait.

US forces fired hundreds of Cruise Missiles and other munitions at targets where they thought Saddam would be, which according to your interpretation was illegal. Also according to your interpretation, US invasion and occupation of 1/3 of Iraq was illegal. But these actions were legal because they were a means to an end. That end was the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. US tanks that were within 150 Kilometers of Baghdad were ready to go there if Saddam had not agreed to the ceacefire. If the coalition had discovered that full and complete expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait required capturing or destroying their leadership by moving into Baghdad, it had the clear legal basis to do so in order to accomplish its ultimate goal.

Any new military action in the coming weeks with Iraq will have the stated goal of disarming Iraq, not overthrowing the regime. UN resolutions with the backing of 678 justify all means to accomplish the goal of disarming Iraq. If to disarm Iraq and accomplish the goal of past UN resolutions, the overthrow of Saddam is required, then it is justified.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

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 10:03 PM.


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