if the us attacks without un support - 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 02-25-2003, 06:00 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 PM
The resolutions come down to one's interpretation of them. There are many on both sides of the debate, but from my own analysis, I agree that Res. 678 reaffirmed in Res. 687 and Res. 1441, gives members states including the USA all the authorization they need to take military action. Four different US Presidential administration have sited Res. 678 as a legal bases for military action they have taken or could take against Iraq. The Current US Presidential Administration defines "Serious Consequences" in the current 1441 resolution to mean military action to enforce the resolutions. There is nothing in 1441 that says there needs to be a second resolution. The USA and England are seeking a second resolution for political reasons.

At the end of the day its really one's interpretation of the law which always vary's widely in the USA itself and certainly will vary among the 191 nations of the UN. I've looked at it and agree with Bush, Clinton 1 and 2 , Bush administrations interpretations.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 08:48 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Sting,

You are 100% correct...."SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" is not defined. Can you show me anywhere in the resolution 1441 where the Security Council gives the authority to anyone else to determine what "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES"is?

Since when is it up to the individual nations to take that power into their own hands to interpret the will of the Security Council?

Paragraph 12 of the resolution clearly states that the Council is to convene "immediately...to consider the situation" when they have been notified by UNMMOVIC or the IAEA that Iraq is no longer working towards compliance.

NOwhere can you show in the resolution where the council gives this power to the UNITED STATES to determine the consequences. For the UNITED STATES to do this without another resolution is a violation of the UN CHARTER.

Again you say it is for "POLITICAL REASONS". The political reason is an invasion without Security Council approval is politically dangerous and sets a PRECIDENT for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 09:35 PM   #18
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Sting,

NOwhere can you show in the resolution where the council gives this power to the UNITED STATES to determine the consequences. For the UNITED STATES to do this without another resolution is a violation of the UN CHARTER.

Again you say it is for "POLITICAL REASONS". The political reason is an invasion without Security Council approval is politically dangerous and sets a PRECIDENT for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council.
That was eloquently put and my main reason for not supporting the administration. We then become a rogue nation in the eyes of the world.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:26 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 PM
Dreadsox,

There is nothing in 1441 that states that member states do NOT have the right to use military action. If it does, can you show me where? What do you think "Serious Consequences" mean, if not military action? Please be specific. I still feel the Security Council authorization given in 678, reafirmed in 687 and again in 1441, is all the legal bases the US or any member state needs for military action against Iraq IF it is in military breach of any of its obligations. Its been the legal bases for past military action against Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

Do you consider KOSOVO a violation of the UN Charter?

"The political reason is an invasion without Security Council approval is politically dangerous and sets a PRECIDENT for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council."

Do you believe KOSOVO, military action without Security Council approval, was politically dangerous? Did KOSOVO set a precident for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:33 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

There is nothing in 1441 that states that member states do NOT have the right to use military action. If it does, can you show me where? What do you think "Serious Consequences" mean, if not military action? Please be specific. I still feel the Security Council authorization given in 678, reafirmed in 687 and again in 1441, is all the legal bases the US or any member state needs for military action against Iraq IF it is in military breach of any of its obligations. Its been the legal bases for past military action against Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

Do you consider KOSOVO a violation of the UN Charter?

"The political reason is an invasion without Security Council approval is politically dangerous and sets a PRECIDENT for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council."

Do you believe KOSOVO, military action without Security Council approval, was politically dangerous? Did KOSOVO set a precident for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council?
STING, I am not ruining this thread with this debate. Go back to the thread we started.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:55 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 PM
Dreadsox,

This is a thread about the US acting without the UN, so such a debate is very relevant to this thread. Past military action without UN approval such as Kosovo is also relevant.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:55 PM   #22
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 12:37 PM
feel free to ruin this thread, ive ruined many myself.
__________________
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:58 PM   #23
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 06:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


We then become a rogue nation in the eyes of the world.
I like that.. 'Rogue Nation'. Thank you for providing a bit of humor to my day.

Beefeater
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:02 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

This is a thread about the US acting without the UN, so such a debate is very relevant to this thread. Past military action without UN approval such as Kosovo is also relevant.
Was there a cease fire agreement with the US and Kosovo????
You say it is relevant....please make more of an explination for me....I fail to see how if there was no cease fire violation.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:03 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Gickies Gageeze
feel free to ruin this thread, ive ruined many myself.
Can you throw in a compliment please....I mean there are relatively few weeks before I am pretty sure I will not be eligible!

PEace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:34 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 PM
Dreadsox,

It does not matter that there was not a ceacefire in effect in Kosovo. The operation in Kosovo took place without the authorization of the UN Security Council, just like military action may take place in Iraq without the Authorization of the Security Council.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:06 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Sting.......

Now that is not right. I NEVER said that countries could not take action without the UN. I have consistently said that countries that have entered into Cease-Fire agreements brokered through the UN as in Resolution 687, are not to declare the Cease-Fire over unless, the Security Council declares the cease-fire suspended, or the other party attacks, thus violating the cease fire.

You cannot use the Kosovo case because there never was a UN Brokered Cease-Fire.

PEACE.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:23 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 PM
Dreadsox,

This is what you said and I was responding to with the example of Kosovo:

"Again you say it is for "POLITICAL REASONS". The political reason is an invasion without Security Council approval is politically dangerous and sets a PRECIDENT for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council."

I felt the case of Kosovo contradicted that. In any event, I feel the Security Council has Authorized military action through Res. 678 affirmed again in 687 and 1441, if Iraq is in material breach and indeed it is.

I can continue to bring up the case of Kosovo as long as we are talking about military action without the approval of the Security Council.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:23 AM   #29
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 12:37 PM
dreadsox, uh, you have good sentance structure.
__________________
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:27 AM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 62
Local Time: 06:37 PM
15 to 0 in favor to go to war, now they go back on their word and say they dont support war. hmmmmm interesting why should the U.N run USA anyways? if they say they supported us with 1441 and now they ask for a 2nd resalution then that makes the u n non credible and irreleven hence we go back to league of nations
__________________

__________________
megadrum2002 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 01:37 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