Disarmament Was Working... - Page 6 - 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 03-21-2003, 05:38 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Leave it to the U.S.? The U.S. that supports Sharons policies?

Russia to do sth about it? Do you want WW III? Everyone knows that Israel and the States are big time friends. After all, U.S. provides lots of weapons, in order to have some control in the region.

On another note: Israel got around 100 nukes.
That's what I'm trying to say hiphop,

You can't complain that the U.S. isn't going after one of their allies. I don't expect Russia to do anything either. Just saying that they both have reasons for NOT doing anything. Is it right? I suppose not, but it is the political world we live in.
__________________

__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 05:41 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
Womanfish,
Israel in is violation of a bunch of UN resolutions. I'm not sure of the actual resolution numbers, but they were brought up in a previous thread. STING2, I'm sure would know the actual resolution numbers. They all are about giving back territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Others concern not developing settlements in the seized lands.

They were brought up in a thread about the exact meaning of Resolution 1441 and 687.
Thank you scartletwine, Like I said, I am glad that this was brought up about Israel, because I didn't know their actions in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, ect.. were in violation of UN resolutions, so I am more than happy to be educated on it.
__________________

__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 06:00 PM   #78
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish

I guess you don't think that Saddam has bunkers. He doesn't have WMD's either, or any missles, no guns, no pistols.
I do think Saddam has bunkers. Not for production of nuclear weapons though.
As for guns, pistols, missiles and WMD...I am not sure but I've heard someone say somewhere that the US may have had some pistols in its inventory...but I am not sure. It must be brazen lie....
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 06:32 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish


That's what I'm trying to say hiphop,

You can't complain that the U.S. isn't going after one of their allies. I don't expect Russia to do anything either. Just saying that they both have reasons for NOT doing anything. Is it right? I suppose not, but it is the political world we live in.
Then why did you post this?

"Then why doesn't Russia or the UN do something about it. Oh that's right, leave it to the U.S."

I could use the same argument "Is it right? I suppose not, but it is the political world we live in" on Iraq. But I wonīt because I am not defending any breach of resolutions, neither Iraqs, nor Israels. And I am not defending any breach of the UN Charter, so I wonīt defend this war, in which the U.S. is the aggressor because it hasnīt been attacked.

Lets keep this one thread nice and civil please, you two. Less cynicism is what I ask for (even if I donīt have the right to ask for that, because I am one of the cynical ones here, Iīd say).

The leader of the free World doesnīt want us to quarrel.

Regards from the oval office.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 06:36 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
I think disarmament must have been working.
We've been at war for 2 days and the most Iraq has been able to throw at us is some antiaircraft fire and some old missiles (not determined to be scuds). The tugboat with sea mines is pretty pitiful also. Where are his WMD. I'd think he would have used them by now. I hope he doesn't use chemical or biological weapons if he does have them on our troops, but I even less convinced that this was necessary.
Of course, I could be wrong.
I also agree with Alexrus on Israel.

I am just curious.....You do not think we had special forces dropped into any area that we thought contained these materials? Maybe to prevent them from being used?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 06:40 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Then why did you post this?

"Then why doesn't Russia or the UN do something about it. Oh that's right, leave it to the U.S."

I could use the same argument "Is it right? I suppose not, but it is the political world we live in" on Iraq. But I wonīt because I am not defending any breach of resolutions, neither Iraqs, nor Israels. And I am not defending any breach of the UN Charter, so I wonīt defend this war, in which the U.S. is the aggressor because it hasnīt been attacked.

Lets keep this one thread nice and civil please, you two. Less cynicism is what I ask for (even if I donīt have the right to ask for that, because I am one of the cynical ones here, Iīd say).

The leader of the free World doesnīt want us to quarrel.

Regards from the oval office.

I posted it because it was a rhetorical question. I don't expect Russia to do anything about Israel more than I expect the U.S. to. I just don't agree with Alexrus saying that we shouldn't use force to disarm Iraq but we should go in and do something about Israel. I'm saying that maybe there is justification to do something about Israel, but it won't happen because of the politics involved.

And by the way - I totally respect your opinion of the Iraq situation. You have consistently shown that you know what's going on and you stick to your belief on it. I learn just as much, well probably more, from the discussions in here than on most of the news I watch or read currently.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 06:44 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Thanks for the flowers

Keep them for the graves
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 06:44 PM   #83
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:53 PM
That's the truth!
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 07:12 PM   #84
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Arun, the disarmament process hadn't finished, but really that's beside the point. The point is much more fundamental: the US started this war by not seeking another UN resolution. That's the main issue. There wasn't enough of a diplomatic effort to build an amicable coalition. I simply think they went about it the wrong way, and many, many countries see it the same way. Bush keeps pointing out that they have, as he calls it, 35 countries backing him in the "coalition of the willing". I'm curious to know how many countries are against the war (in its current incarnation). I bet it's MUCH higher than 35.

I agree diplomacy was botched


but...resolution 687 and 1441 are enough to justify the use of force



lets say we did get france on baord..what then..the end result...WE"D GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 07:18 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Nope, Arun, 1441 is not enough to justify the use of force. Have you read 1441?

First, note the Charterīs principles about peace. The United States have signed that Charter, in fact, created it with some other members (Churchill and Roosevelt played their part). The Bush Administration violates this Charter with this war.

Note Article 51 especially. There is the right for self-defense, but only with an armed attack (thats why the 91 Gulf war was easy to justify). It is not about probably possesing WMD. The U.S. hasnīt been attacked by Iraq. There is no legal sense in saying "that could happen in two years".

Furthermore, note resolution 1441. It is not complete in this post, you can find the complete one at http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Maybe disarmarment wasnīt fast enough for some, but it was working. Maybe it wasnīt working great, but it was working.

This war is illegal, according to the documents.



Charter of the United Nations

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.


-----------------------------------------------
CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.


Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.


Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.



Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.


Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.


Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.


The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.


Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they remembers.


Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.


Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.



Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence 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-defence 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.

------------------------------------------
Part of Resolution 1441


Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

*(the UN Security Council)*


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;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;


All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;


Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and


UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by reCommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 07:36 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 08:53 PM
I think the problem on the other hand Hiphop is this. Iraq was in material breach when it submitted false and incomplete documents. And they also did not fully, completely and willingly disarm. It then says that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it violated the terms, which it did. Remember France and Russia also signed this, but then did not fulfill their agreement of bringing about serious consequences. I guess serious consequences to France meant to draft a 17th resolution for Iraq to ignore. I definitely do see the other point of view though.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 08:07 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Well, but serious consequences donīt mean war. The Sec Council would state that more explicitly.

14. decides to remain seized of the matter.

All the other points always quote the IAEA and UNMOVIC. The U.S. is not quoted as having the right for action.

Plus, take one more look at article 51. If you put article 51 and resolution 1441 together, serious consequences donīt mean one state has the right to attack and make war.

Plus, take the subsidiarity principle into account.

Plus, the decision if they were about to disarm fully, completely, and willingly, remains within the UN. And Mr Blixs last reports were positive. 70 Al Samoud missiles were destroyed, about two per day.

All of that, anyhow, doesnīt justify a war. A war is justified if all permanent Sec Council members agree, which they DIDNīT. It is illegal. There may be some reasons pro-war, but it stays illegal.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 08:18 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Well, but serious consequences donīt mean war. The Sec Council would state that more explicitly.

14. decides to remain seized of the matter.

All the other points always quote the IAEA and UNMOVIC. The U.S. is not quoted as having the right for action.

Plus, take one more look at article 51. If you put article 51 and resolution 1441 together, serious consequences donīt mean one state has the right to attack and make war.

Plus, take the subsidiarity principle into account.

Plus, the decision if they were about to disarm fully, completely, and willingly, remains within the UN. And Mr Blixs last reports were positive. 70 Al Samoud missiles were destroyed, about two per day.

All of that, anyhow, doesnīt justify a war. A war is justified if all permanent Sec Council members agree, which they DIDNīT. It is illegal. There may be some reasons pro-war, but it stays illegal.
Nice work again. My question is how do we know that serious consequences doesn't mean military action, when in fact it states use of military action earlier in the resolution. Would it mean more sanctions? I sure hope not.

also, and here is the reason I am so torn on this. It's a major catch-22. We have France who signed 1441 saying they would come through with serious consequences, but then later does a 180 and says, we will NEVER sign ANYTHING that says anything about consequences to Iraq if they don't disarm. And then you have Saddam who only began slight disarmament when there was threat of force and he was surrounded by 300,000 U.S. and British troops. I don't see any winning angle here. One will only listen when force is threatened and a member of the Security Council will veto anything that says it can use force. ????????????????????????????????????????????

So yeah it does make me torn on it, I wish they could come to an agreement on something with more straight forward language.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 09:04 PM   #89
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 08:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Well, but serious consequences donīt mean war.

All the other points always quote the IAEA and UNMOVIC. The U.S. is not quoted as having the right for action.

Plus, take one more look at article 51. If you put article 51 and resolution 1441 together, serious consequences donīt mean one state has the right to attack and make war.


Plus, the decision if they were about to disarm fully, completely, and willingly, remains within the UN. And Mr Blixs last reports were positive. 70 Al Samoud missiles were destroyed, about two per day.

All of that, anyhow, doesnīt justify a war. A war is justified if all permanent Sec Council members agree, which they DIDNīT. It is illegal. There may be some reasons pro-war, but it stays illegal.
Mr. Blix, has proven himself to be a tainted individual in charge of a tainted investigation, all under the rule of Kofi Annan, and biasing his remarks in favor of Kofi Annan's Anti War Position.. And the recent appearance of Iraqi Scud missiles.. Ammunition that Iraq had denied they had, and unless you're an idiot, believe had no intention of declaring, shows that they had no intention of ever completely disarming.

Serious Consequences also do not mean Inaction. Feel grateful.. America is trying to enforce the resolutions and orders that the International community is to cowardly to even venture into.

And you give too much credit to the UN, which has time and again, proven themselves to be irrelevant in enforcing their wishes, and ultimately being laughed at by Iraq. It's time for a rehaul

Beefeater
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 09:10 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 03:53 PM
No one can possibly know if "disarmament" really worked unless the weapons inspectors are free to walk around wherever they please.

Hawks claimed that if WMDs were found, that justified war. If they weren't found, they were being hidden.

Doves claimed that if WMDs were not found, Saddam didn't have them and therefore war was unjustified. If they were found, it was proof that Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors.

Whichever side you're on, I don't really think you can use the results of the inspections to justify your position.
__________________

__________________
speedracer 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 03:53 PM.


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