Attack or Self-Defense?

[Dreadsox]

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?

STING do not insult me with a question like that. The definition is irrelevant and we can argue about the intent of 678 when it was passed and what it means. What is important is the past treatment of Cease-Fire Agreements and the fact that the United States based on past history defer to the security council.

You fail to recognize that past history that only the UN Security Council can Declare a country in material breech of a Cease-Fire.

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
?

Thank you for posting this. I too have read the entire resolution. As have the lawyers that I mentioned in my post above. Their quote speaks for itself as to the interpretation of the LAW.

Now EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY CHANGED BELOW. You posted a KEY point. Part 34 of ARTICLE 687(CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT) gives the SECURITY COUNCIL the power to determine what steps are to be taken from the time the Cease-Fire Was formalized. That specific statement, takes any athority away from the coalition forces and gives it to the security council. I believe I pointed this out last night.

Originally posted by STING2 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:?[/B]

See the above statement by the lawyers. See section 34 of Article 687. Very clearly the burden is removed from the Coalition forces and taken upon the Security Council.

Originally posted by STING2 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.[/B]

I can agree with this. Politically it would be wise to get permission from the Security Council. It makes total sense to follow the law and the rules that have been in place surrounding cease-fire agreements. The rules and laws that the United States backed surrounding North Korea and the Middle East.

Originally posted by STING2 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.[/B]

Originally posted by STING2 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. [/B]

Take a deep breath already. You are border line insulting my intelligence. The coalition had every right to do everything it needed to do to remove Iraq from Kuwait including going into Iraq. The question was did they have the authority to procede once he was removed from Kuwait. I have no problems with that. It does not violate what you are calling "MY INTERPRETATION" of 678. it was President Bush, Collin Powell, and other members of the Coalition that believed that to be the facts.


So basically,

#1 Security Council is the governing Authority based on Resolution 687 and is the only body that can declare Iraq in material breech based on past history.
#2 Resolution 687 (Cease Fire) did change Resolution 678 because part 34, places the Security Council in charge.
#3 The Security Council has not found them in material breech.
#4 There have been no resolutions that extend the power of 678.

 

[Dreadsox]

You are right....678 will be mentioned in any resolution authorizing the use of force...I am not debating that.

However, until Iraq is found in material breech, and 687 is determined to be violated, and the security council authorizes force, no nation can at it's discretion decide to use force.

 

[hiphop]

Great posts. Thank you for all the work

 

[Scarletwine]

Great posts. Thank you for all the work

My thanks also. I spent my day off reading these posts and listening to CSPAN. First the WEF panel that was very informative with Columbian President, Malaysia Prime Minister, Ashcroft, and others on International Terror. The most telling thing I got from that was Malaysia, who has had an iron fist dealing with terrorist in their home, was very concerned about the Iraq issue increasing international terrorism and the prevention of the growth of terror and why we can find 200B to go to war but only 2B for Africa and prevention.

Ok I'm rambling but to the point the next was the UN Security Counsel Proceedings. Every country that spoke to the Counsel said - more time - then act within the UN.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

Please take a deep breath. I'm not trying to insult you or anyone here. You infer way to much from my thoughts and questions.

678 is not irrelevant. It was SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION to use all necessary means to bring Iraq into compliance with all subsequent resolutions. The Security Council approved that resolution. There has not been anything that defenitively revoked what was stated in 678.

"See the above statement by the lawyers. See section 34 of Article 687. Very clearly the burden is removed from the Coalition forces and taken upon the Security Council."

It was the SECURITY COUNCIL that passed 678! It was the SECURITY COUNCIL that REAFFIRMED 678 in Resolution 687 and did not change the language or intent of 678 in anyway. Read Section 1 of 687. Any reference back to 687 refers to 678, which provides the legal basis for future military action against Iraq.

I don't except the lawyers interpretation. The lawyers never refered to a single UN resolution or document that literally said that "678 and no effect on resolutions passed after it".

Until you, myself, or anyone else finds a UN document or resolution that literally states that 678 does not effect other resolutions after it, it will continue to be the strictly legal bases for military action against Iraq in the future. 678 is Affirmed in 687. It is apart of the Ceacefire agreement. That means that paragraph 2 of 678 is apart of 687. That paragraph has already stated that the Security Council has authorized the use of force against Iraq in regards to future Iraqi violations of UN resolutions.

"I can agree with this. Politically it would be wise to get permission from the Security Council. It makes total sense to follow the law and the rules that have been in place surrounding cease-fire agreements. The rules and laws that the United States backed surrounding North Korea and the Middle East."

One of the laws you or rule you refer to in 687 is paragraph two of 678 which is reaffirmed in Resolution 687. The Security Council has given their approval already.

"Take a deep breath already. You are border line insulting my intelligence. The coalition had every right to do everything it needed to do to remove Iraq from Kuwait including going into Iraq. The question was did they have the authority to procede once he was removed from Kuwait. I have no problems with that. It does not violate what you are calling "MY INTERPRETATION" of 678. it was President Bush, Collin Powell, and other members of the Coalition that believed that to be the facts."

I'm sorry, but it does not change the fact the Coalition was authorized to use all means necessary to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Coalition did have the legal basis to march into Baghdad and capture or kill Saddam Hussein, if that is what was needed to accomplish the stated goal of removing the Iraqi military from Kuwait. The goal was to remove the Iraqi military from Kuwait, by all means necessary. There was NO restriction on this means, and it is technically possible that temporarily taking control of Baghdad may have been needed to accomplish the stated Objective. There is no wording that says under no circumstance are US forces not to kill or capture Iraqi military units in Baghdad in order to achieve the objective. Doing so of course was ultimately found to not be needed to achieve the objective so it was not done. But if it was needed to expel Iraq from Kuwait or restore peace and security to the area, they had the legal basis to do so.

The same applies in the current situation. If disarming Iraq requires the removal of Saddam Hussien, the current coalition is legally justified in doing so.

"#1 Security Council is the governing Authority based on Resolution 687 and is the only body that can declare Iraq in material breech based on past history."

Security Council Resolution 678 is Affirmed in 687. In 678, the Security Council Authorizes member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with all subsequent resolutions.

"#2 Resolution 687 (Cease Fire) did change Resolution 678 because part 34, places the Security Council in charge."

Incorrect because the Security Council was still in charge of 678. No change at all.

#3 "The Security Council has not found them in material breech"
You might have a point here, but if this was in fact the case, sanctions would have been lifted long ago. If throwing at the inspectors in 1998 was not a material breech of Iraq's obligations, there is not possiblity that Iraq could ever be in material breech.

#4#4 There have been no resolutions that extend the power of 678.
First, there does not need to be. 2nd What we should be looking for is a resolution that specifically prevents any further extention of the power of 678. I have yet to find one but I'm still looking.

Furthermore, if 678 as you say is no longer relevant, take a look at this excert from the first page of Resolution 1441 adopted by the Security Council on November 8, 2002.

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660(1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"

Looks important and relevant to me.

 

[hiphop]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

Article 678 did not and still does not authorize a country to act independantly of the United Nations security council. Further prrof that the only objective of 678 was the liberation of Kuwaitt.

JIM BAKERS WORDS:

Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker: The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. [/COLOR] That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved....All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. ...How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? .... A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes.But it was never something that was authorised that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today.


We cannot have it both ways. Our own Secretary of State stated that there was nothing in any of the resolutions that permitted them to continue with the war. This includes all of the articles that I listed last night. We are operating under a Cease-Fire. Period. There have been no resolutions that empower the United States to do anything. Baker clearly points this out.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"However, until Iraq is found in material breech, and 687 is determined to be violated, and the security council authorizes force, no nation can at it's discretion decide to use force."

I half way agree with you on this. If Iraq is in material breech, then the Security Council has already authorized the use of force through 678. Until it is agreed that Iraq is in material breech, 678 cannot be used. Unless of course it was already predetermined what constituted material breech.

It is obvious that Iraq is in material breech of its obligations but other countries can be blind to that fact if they choose to, and Security Council members with a veto can prevent Iraq from ever being in material breech.

These resolutions were passed against Iraq because it was felt that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction was a grave threat to the rest of the region because of its past behavior. Because of its past behavior in regards to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel, an attack from Iraq could always be considered imminent.

Therefore if material breech can never be agreed or defined because some UN members are in my opinion blind or for whatever the reason, refuse to see material breech. The use of force can be justified as an act of self defense.

I stand by the relevance of 678 as a legal basis for military action currently. But, if Iraq is not found in violation of any resolutions or material breech, then technically 678 will not apply.

I don't think there has ever been a country with more Gross violations than Iraq in regards to UN resolutions passed under the rules of Chapter VII. But if Chirac and Putin, refuse to see obvious, then consider UN authority for any military action blocked.

 

[Dreadsox]

OMG...We agree on something.



This is my problem with Resolution 678. There is clearly enough of the members of the UN Security Council that feel the opposite of the US. Pollack in his book, really gives credit to the fact that it would be in the best interests of the United States, to have a definitive vote by the Security Council to authorize force. It would help with the building of a coalition.

Without debating who is right or wrong in their interpretation of 678, I personally, do not want to risk losing allies and hurting the UN over a debatable resolution. I think that if we use this to justify War without the Security Council, we in the long run will be making more enemies down the road. I think that means more terrorism and more pain and suffering for us in the long run.

Ideally, we need the Security Council to find Iraq in material breech of the Cease-Fire first. Then the use of force for 678 takes priority again. If you read 1441, I believe 678 is mentioned once and the Cease Fire (687) extensively throughout it.

Thank God we are not dyslexic with this 678 876 687 crap

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Article 678 did not and still does not authorize a country to act independantly of the United Nations security council. Further prrof that the only objective of 678 was the liberation of Kuwaitt."

Article 678 did authorize military force for Iraqi non compliance of resolutions passed after 678. I refer you again to the second paragraph. IF 678 only objective was the liberation of Kuwait, it would not have included the words all subsequent resolutions. In addition, it what not be relevant to site it in 1441 as a reason for military action today. Again, 678, does provide a legal basis for military action against Iraq if it is not in compliance with any of the resolutions.

In regards to BAKER, he never stated that US forces did not have the right to use all means necessary to expel Iraq from Kuwait! Nothing I have said contradicts anything Baker has said. I never stated that we had the right to overthrow Saddam. What I said was that if expelling Iraq from Kuwait required the removal of Saddam, we had the legal basis to do so. It would not change the mission of the fact that the objective was the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Samething today. Were asking to disarm Iraq, not overthrow Saddam. But if to achieve disarmament you have to overthrow Saddam, then you are legally justified in doing so.

 

[Dreadsox]

Can we try and define what we agree on? I do not know what to debate anymore.

Do we agree that no coalition nation may invade Iraq without the Security Council finding them in breech of either 1441 or 687? And that once the Security Council decrees that they are in breech 678 is in effect again?

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

Yep, but remember that everytime 687 is brought up, it affirms 678.

I honestly think that the UN Security Council will never find(if it has not already) Iraq in material breech. It only takes one of the permanent members to say no regardless of their reasons, and Saddam gets off the hook.

I look at the threat a Nuclear Armed Iraq poses to the region in the future. I look at Saddam's past behavior and shudder at the thought of him having Nuclear Weapons. Think of how many people would be killed by 100 Kiloton Ground Burst or Airburst in Tel Aviv, or Kuwait City. If the world does not act before Saddam gets a Nuclear weapon, then the world will be at the mercy of Saddam. Why should we entrust the safety and security of millions of people to a person with the past behavior of Saddam? What is the point of any further UN resolutions, if the UN will not enforce those resolutions? Compliance was not suppoed to take 12 or more years.

I have heard the increased terrorism arguement before. It was widely made back in 1990/1991 and it did not happen. The Egyptian government did not fall. In fact, I have read reports that state that terrorism was higher in the 5 years before the 1991 Gulf War than the 5 years after the Gulf War.

The ultimate question is are the risk of continuing with just containment(largely gone now) greater than the risk from invasion. From what I have read and analyzed, I think that the risk of containment is greater. It will not take forever for Saddam to get Nuclear Weapons, and several intelligence agencies speculate he could have one by early next year. The IAEA supposedly confirmed that Iraq had no Nuclear program in the late 1980s. Then UN inspectors after the Gulf War found this to be totally false and that Saddam was only a year away from having a Nuclear Weapon in 1991. We were lucky then because of Saddam's stupidity in launching an invasion before his Nuclear weapon was ready. We should not rely on Saddam and Luck in the future. Its time to try an approach that has not been tried before and that is guaranteed to solve the problem of Saddam.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

I can agree that the Security Council cannot authorize an invasion of Iraq under 678 until the Security Council has found Iraq in material breech of any of its obligations.

That does not mean I disargree with the Bush Adminstration accomplishing what the UN has failed to do for 12 years with a coalition of the willing. If one believes that the potential harm done by not acting is greater than the potential harm done by acting, then one must act.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox,

Yep, but remember that everytime 687 is brought up, it affirms 678.

I honestly think that the UN Security Council will never find(if it has not already) Iraq in material breech. It only takes one of the permanent members to say no regardless of their reasons, and Saddam gets off the hook.

Actually....1441 is now in charge of things..LOL Here we go again!

The Security Council will not ever find them in breech. Re-reading Pollack today, he outlined how and why further inspections would fail to do anything. Containment has failed and this round of inspections will fail. I am not going to be happy if the President goes it without the UN we are heading down a dangerous road.

I look at the threat a Nuclear Armed Iraq poses to the region in the future. I look at Saddam's past behavior and shudder at the thought of him having Nuclear Weapons. Think of how many people would be killed by 100 Kiloton Ground Burst or Airburst in Tel Aviv, or Kuwait City. If the world does not act before Saddam gets a Nuclear weapon, then the world will be at the mercy of Saddam. Why should we entrust the safety and security of millions of people to a person with the past behavior of Saddam? What is the point of any further UN resolutions, if the UN will not enforce those resolutions? Compliance was not suppoed to take 12 or more years.

I agree with everything you said above. However, we signed the UN CHarter and agreed to play by the UN rules. I do not think Article 51(DEFENCE?) will fly either. The President needs to make a more compelling case that we are in immediate danger in my opinion.

I have heard the increased terrorism arguement before. It was widely made back in 1990/1991 and it did not happen. The Egyptian government did not fall. In fact, I have read reports that state that terrorism was higher in the 5 years before the 1991 Gulf War than the 5 years after the Gulf War.

I think this time around is different. I remember 10 years ago as well. I remember providing security at ports as the equiptment was being loaded to go over there. This is slightly different. We are contemplating action without the UN. September 11, was in a large part caused by Desert Storm no?

The ultimate question is are the risk of continuing with just containment(largely gone now) greater than the risk from invasion. From what I have read and analyzed, I think that the risk of containment is greater. It will not take forever for Saddam to get Nuclear Weapons, and several intelligence agencies speculate he could have one by early next year. The IAEA supposedly confirmed that Iraq had no Nuclear program in the late 1980s. Then UN inspectors after the Gulf War found this to be totally false and that Saddam was only a year away from having a Nuclear Weapon in 1991. We were lucky then because of Saddam's stupidity in launching an invasion before his Nuclear weapon was ready. We should not rely on Saddam and Luck in the future. Its time to try an approach that has not been tried before and that is guaranteed to solve the problem of Saddam.

Containment will not work without greater cooperation from many of our Arab allies and the UN Sending in people to monitor humanitarian aid distribution. I am convinced we will be in the I told you so postition within the next 10 years over this problem.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox,

I can agree that the Security Council cannot authorize an invasion of Iraq under 678 until the Security Council has found Iraq in material breech of any of its obligations.

That does not mean I disargree with the Bush Adminstration accomplishing what the UN has failed to do for 12 years with a coalition of the willing. If one believes that the potential harm done by not acting is greater than the potential harm done by acting, then one must act.

We agree on this as well. We risk many things acting alone.

I need a break.....we are starting to agree to much.



I have a question for HIP HOP.....

If the UN Security Council finds Iraq in Material Breech of the UN Resolutions and gives the go ahead for war, would you support it?

 

[Scarletwine]

LOL - I'm wondering if you are both Taurus's.
Not that I'm not taking both of you seriously. I'd like to hear an answer from Sting whether he would sanction agression without the UN. I think most of the world admits Saddam needs to be curtailed, but under the UN umbrella only. I give up.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'd like to know what you think Scarlet o' LOL at us!

HEHEHEHE!!!

 

[hiphop]

I have a question for HIP HOP.....

If the UN Security Council finds Iraq in Material Breech of the UN Resolutions and gives the go ahead for war, would you support it?

I don?t know exactly what you mean by saying Material Breach (my english skills are limited, sorry), but I figure you mean if they found a nuclear bomb there.

Support? Difficult to say. I would never support a war. I would support the disarming of Iraq, though, if UN inspections found a nuclear bomb in Iraq thats ready to be fired off, like a nuke. I would think the disarming of at least that part of Iraqi military power is very important.

This is my opinion because

1) I think that Saddam is more dangerous with a nuke in his hands than many other states who possess nuclear weapons.

2) Because it would be a violation of international law. We can still discuss whether its right for, say, Russia, to own hundreds of nukes, and for Iraq its not right to own one, but international law and the past UN resolutions can?t be ignored. After all, what standards do we base international military actions on, if not the UN standards?

I probably wouldn?t support a large scale war, because I think disarming can be done with some interventions. There is a difference in securing that Iraq can?t use its potential nuclear weapons, and in bombing all the country down, going in with ground troops, and killing not only the Republican Guards and Saddam, but tens of thousands of civilians as well.

I would support disarming, though. And I would support military action which helps the Iraqi people to make their own kind of revolution (?) and to install a (hopefully) more democratic leader. I just think they, the Iraqis, have to decide what to do with Saddam (except of the Int Court of Justice, who also has a say in those things).

Anyhow, I can?t really imagine that the development of nuclear weapons is that far in Iraq, because there would have been tests. I don?t know about uranium enrichment, ok, but bombs or nukes, I don?t think so.

I had the chance to speak to officials of the CTBTO. What they say is that no state in history was sure of its nuclear potential before they hadn?t tested it.

I will not tell you details about the surveillance system of the CTBTO, but I can tell you its pretty good. If there is any nuclear explosion for test reasons worldwide by any state, the CTBTO will find out.

This organization doesn?t have the political right to decide whether sth. was a nuclear exlosion, they just have the right to give the scientifically interpreted data to politicians, who must decide what to do with the CTBTO?s data and interpretation of data.

Anyway, if all 5 permanent members of the Sec Council agree its time for a war against Iraq - which is a political decision - I would reconsider my opinion on war, which doesn?t mean I would support war.

Hope this clarifies my point of view.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks for responding with such a detailed response. Thanks again for starting this thread. I enjoyed reading what you posted, and it inspired me to do some research on my own.

Matt

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

I agree 1441 is in charge of things, and 1441 reaffirms 678!

It is unbelievable that the United Nations would not consider anything that Iraq has done over the past 12 years to be a violation or a material breech of Iraq's obligation. The UN should have found Iraq in material breech long ago in which case 678, affirmed in 687, goes into effect. If anything, this totally shows the ineffectivness of the United Nations in regards to security issues.

Scarletwine,

Despite not being able to completely justify it through the framework of the UN without a UN confirmed, material breech by Iraq, I still feel that Bush has an overwhelming case to disarm Iraq with a coalition of the willing. By the way, that CNN/TIME/GALLOP poll that I saw showed that 57% of Americans felt that Bush should lead a coalition of the willing to disarm Iraq.

Polling is tricky and most polls had used UN but not polled a question with "a coalition of the willing". Public support may only be a slight majority for Bushes policy but it is there. Nearly 70% found Powels speech convincing.

If Bush decides to go, I will definitely support him. It may be without the UN, but its still within a coalition. Everyone that is screaming the "not without the UN", where were they when the USA went into Kosovo in 1999 without the UN. Why does no one consider that to be a unilateral, UN destroying move? One reason is because the USA went in with a coalition of countries, which was NATO. The current coalition of countries may not have a formal name or history like NATO, but it is a coalition.

In the Korean War in 1950, if the Soviets had been present at the resolution that decided to use force to remove North Korea from the South, they would have vetoed it. The military operation to save South Korea would have been outside the UN. Anyone argue that would have been unjustified?

Another powerful reason to support disarmament of Iraq or regime change, is human rights one. How much longer do Iraqi's deserve to suffer the hell that Saddam continues to put them through? Saddam's actions have murdered 3 times as many Iraqi's as Milosovic did in the former Yugoslavia. How many more families have to watch their daughters be rapped in front of them or their sons tortured and executed? Yep I know, there are bad people everywhere and the USA can't protect everyone. But that is not a relevant arguement not to do something. Just because we can't put out every fire on the planet does not mean we don't put out any. So how when and where do we decide to go after these human rights abuses, obviously, area's where international security is threatened take precedence. Iraq heads that list.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'd like to know what you think Scarlet o' LOL at us!

HEHEHEHE!!!

Scarletwine

 

[Scarletwine]

I really enjoyed this thread. Very informative. I was lol at you and Sting. Neither conceding an inch about 678.

I'm reading an interesting book called "Censored 2000". It has an interesting articlke about Turkish genocide of Kurdish people and villages using US weapons. That they destroyed more than 3000 villages and over 40,000 lives. It has been reported several times by Amnesty Int'l. More people than Sadaam has supposedly killed. But of course we want that toehold so all that's different.

 

[STING2]

For the record, the Iraqi military/government under Saddam has killed 1.7 million people.

 

[gvox]

For the record, the Iraqi military/government under Saddam has killed 1.7 million people.

That is NOT a widely accepted statistical figure and you know it STING. Not even the Bush administration has alleged this, 'for the record'.

I appreciate your desire to state your opinion, but your calculation is erroneous and not based in fact.

No one is saying Saddam is blameless, without blood on his hands, or a saint.

But let's stick to the facts please.

 

[hiphop]

I think the poll shows 57% are for it with UN approval, only 37% without UN.

 

[Dreadsox]

Actually, the polls show support is decreasing. I beg to differ with you STING.

Here is the link.....YOu do the interpretations. CFR is a pretty reliable group.


http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraque/0,6119,2-10-1460_1323499,00.html

or here

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1194616,00.html

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Not that it wasn't informative...but my head is starting to hurt!

 

[Dreadsox]

LOL...Mine two. I have been waking up at 300 AM to check the news. Talk about head hurting.

 

[Dreadsox]

In one of the articles HIPHOP posted it discussed this section of the Charter.

Article 51 of the United Nation Charter:
Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Armed intervention is justified under the following conditions:
1. The existence of armed aggression (the definition adopted by the UN General Assembly, Resolution 3314 of 1974): Aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one state, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
2. The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council.
3. Legitimate defense only justifies "those measures proportional to the armed aggression that has occurred, and that are necessary for ending that aggression." (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua).

I think it is clear that the US cannot invoke Article 51 because of #2. Very clearly the UNited Nations Security Council is taking steps.

However, I am concerned about the language in the resolution adopted last fall by the UN in Article 1441 in the folowing parts of the resolution:

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;

and

13. 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;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

OK...Now this is where I am a little bit concerned. Even though this states Iraq has indeed materially breeched article 687 (CEASE-FIRE) it very clearly gives Iraq another chance in section #2.

Section #13 does not specifically say that there will be a use of force if Iraq does not comply. It says there will be "serious consequences" without defining them.

In reading through this again and again, I believe in my heart that the United States must get another vote from the security council, otherwise, we will be violating international law and the charter of the UN.

PEACE

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

If you believe that the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's persecution of Kurds and Shia's after the Gulf War, Iraq's execution of citizens and certain military personal, Iraq's denial of humanitarian supplies to various parts of the country, is the fault of Saddam Husseins dictatorship, then the figure of 1.7 million dead is actually a conservative estimate. Now if you do not find fault with Saddam for any or all these particular actions then the figure drops, potentially to 0.

Just out of curiousity, what is your estimate based on what you have studied? How many deaths in World War II would you attribute to Hitler? How many people do you think would die if Saddam Hussein aquired Nuclear Weapons and used them on Tel Aviv, Ankara, Kuwait City, sometime in the future?