if the us attacks without un support - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-26-2003, 01:35 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Unfortunately, other countries have a different interpretation of what "Serious Consequences" mean. In addition none of them have ever specifically defined what their interpretation of "serious consequences" is, unlike the USA.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 02:10 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


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.

Sting,

1441

#1 Declares Iraq in material breach.

and

#2 Gives Iraq ANOTHER CHANCE AT COMPLIANCE, which in a way REAFFIRMS the Cease Fire of 687.

#3 Puts Inspectors Back in Iraq

#4 Gives the Council the Power to have a meeting to decide what to do if the inspectors report that Iraq is not cooperating.

#5 Does not define "Serious Consequences"



Now all this said. The US framed it vague to get the 15-0 Vote. It removed language authorizing the use of force. You and I may both agree its intent was the use of force, however, paragraph 12 still leaves it up to the Security Council to meet and decide what steps to take in the event of further violations. It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 02:42 AM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Now all this said. The US framed it vague to get the 15-0 Vote. It removed language authorizing the use of force. You and I may both agree its intent was the use of force, however, paragraph 12 still leaves it up to the Security Council to meet and decide what steps to take in the event of further violations. It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations.
Well said. You may say that 1441 was framed vague but that US's intentions are clear that it wants to use force. Other countries will say that 1441 was framed vague so that a single country (read: USA) cannot use force on its own, but that the Security Council will decide in a separate resolution what the "serious consequences" are. This has always been the clear intent of many other countries (including France, Russia, etc.), that there would be a second resolution defining the consequences.
That is also the reason there was a 15-0 vote. Other countries did not favour the resolution because they wanted to go to war, they favoured the resolution because it DID NOT immediately favour a war, but allowed for a second resolution to define those "serious consequences".

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 05:50 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Unfortunately, other countries have a different interpretation of what "Serious Consequences" mean. In addition none of them have ever specifically defined what their interpretation of "serious consequences" is, unlike the USA.
Sting,

Perhaps that's why it was possible to get agreement from the security council on resolution 1441 - it doesn't commit states to supporting a war, it just states that there will be serious consequences but doesn't specify what these should be.

Do you think it should be the responsibility of all of the security council to decide what serious consequences means, or is that a decision you believe the US alone should take?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 07:00 AM   #35
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Fizzi: exactly!

another thing to mention if the us attacks without un support..
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) thinks about a Oil boycott to stop that war.
Well i guess chances increase if the US can't even convince the majority of their friends.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 10:49 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:22 AM
The Second Resolution



Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page A22


THE NEW DRAFT resolution submitted to the U.N. Security Council by the United States and Britain this week has the advantage of simplicity. It asks only that the council judge whether Iraq has complied with the terms of the disarmament resolution unanimously approved by the council last Nov. 8. The language of Resolution 1441 is very precise: It offers Iraq a "final opportunity" to voluntarily disarm but says that false statements or omissions by Iraq in its weapons declaration, combined with failure "at any time . . . to cooperate fully," would be a "material breach" of the resolution. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix has reported to the council that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete; he has also said in each of his reports that full cooperation has not been forthcoming. No council member disputes those findings. So the new resolution merely restates these uncontested facts, together with the inescapable conclusion: Saddam Hussein has failed in his "final opportunity."

Council members who oppose this text will not be resisting some unilateral diktat from the Bush administration; they will be voting to repudiate a U.N. resolution adopted little more than three months ago. No wonder that French President Jacques Chirac, who last fall insisted on the idea of a second resolution, now argues with equal fervor that none is necessary. And that is only the first of his contradictions. In their effort to free themselves from the Security Council's solemn commitments, the French and their German and Russian allies have adopted a position that is as convoluted as the new resolution is simple.

A memorandum distributed by their governments Monday begins by acknowledging the main point: Iraqi cooperation "is not yet fully satisfactory," as required by 1441. Yet rather than follow the resolution's terms, the opponents instead propose a very different scheme -- that of an earlier resolution, 1284, adopted in December 1999. Mr. Chirac's government and that of Russia fought fiercely to block or weaken that resolution, and neither voted for it. Yet now they unashamedly champion the plan, which calls for the inspectors to draw up a list of "remaining disarmament tasks" for Iraq, along with a timeline for accomplishing them. Iraqi disarmament would be limited to those areas stipulated in advance by the inspectors -- thus excluding any stockpiles that have not already been identified -- and there would be no penalty for failing to complete the work. On the contrary, 1284 would mandate that sanctions on Iraq be suspended after 120 days if Iraq is judged to have made "progress" on its assigned tasks. Paris and Moscow already argue that such progress is being made; if their scheme were adopted, they could be expected to demand a lifting of sanctions on July 1, even if Iraq's chemical and biological weapons remained undiscovered.

All this may sound like a legalistic debate over the wording of resolutions, but vital principles lie behind it. Resolution 1441, which the Bush administration painstakingly negotiated with the French and Russians, says what it does because past attempts to disarm an unwilling Iraq with U.N. inspections had failed. Saddam Hussein this time was to be offered a stark choice between immediate voluntary disarmament and "serious consequences," which all understood to mean war. This was a sound strategy, and it might have succeeded had the forceful message not been quickly undermined by the French and their allies. The most damaging contradiction in their position is this: They would insist that the United States act through multilateral institutions such as the Security Council; but they themselves will not support those institutions if the outcome is a sanctioned exercise of U.S. power. That's because their priority is not disarming rogue states, or strengthening world government, or even preventing war per se. It is, rather, to neutralize what the French call the American "hyperpower." When its security is threatened, there is no reason for the United States to accept such paralysis -- especially when it has the unambiguous terms of U.N. resolutions on its side.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:33 PM   #37
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Dreadsox.
Where was that article taken from and the author?
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:38 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Washington Post. Sorry that is not like me. Editorial page...

I will have to find it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 04:58 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:22 AM
It must have been written by the Washington post staff. Here is the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Feb25.html
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 05:16 PM   #40
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Thanks.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 05:52 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Dreadsox,

"It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations"

Collin Powel and others including myself do not agree with your opinion on that point.

In any event, 678 reaffirmed in 1441 gives the USA all the legal authorization that is needed. 1441 and further resolutions are about politics rather than a legal necessity. 678 has already been used by the USA to justify military action in 1996 and 1998 and probably 1993 as well since I could not find specific Security Council endorsement for 2 of 3 the military actions in 1993 against Iraq.

Popmartijn,

1441 does not list a second resolution, but there will indeed be one. I actually think the USA is going to win approval with it as well. The US will have to play some diplomatic hardball, but at the end of the day China and Russia would be foolish to veto the resolution so they will abstain. Russia wants to make sure the debt Iraq owes Russia is payed off and China does not want to risk its increasing trade relationship with the USA. France does not want to cast a lonely veto vote plus they have interest in Iraq that they want to protect once Saddam is gone, so it would probably be in their best interest to abstain or vote for the resolution. Convincing the 6 countries on the fence will be much easier. But you never know. It will be interesting to see if the French, Russians, and Chinese will want to risk damaging their interest in Iraq and their relationship with the USA over a vote to disarm Saddam.

FizzingWhizzbees,

I think the USA and other member states have always had the authorization through Res. 678 affirmed in Res. 687 and now 1441, to use military force if Iraq was in material breach of any of its obligations. I think to suggest that "Serious Consequences" just means talking about it some more, misses the obvious point of the entire resolution, to disarm Saddam or else. I believe and support the US governments interpretation of the resolution. Its no secret what the adminstration meant by "Serious Consequences".
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 09:39 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In any event, 678 reaffirmed in 1441 gives the USA all the legal authorization that is needed. 1441 and further resolutions are about politics rather than a legal necessity. 678 has already been used by the USA to justify military action in 1996 and 1998 and probably 1993 as well since I could not find specific Security Council endorsement for 2 of 3 the military actions in 1993 against Iraq.
And all of the links in my signature think otherwise. We have been there and had this debate.

I found three military actions.

#1 Security Council approved of, although, I could not find a resolution. Permission was requested and granted. 1993 Bush.

#2 1993 Clinton was in response to the Assasination attempt on Former President Bush, which could have been construed as a breach of the cease fire? It definitely was justified although no permission was granted.

#3 1998, after the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq.


I do believe that in case #2 and #3 the attacks were protested by China, Germany, and France.

Now, here is my next question........Where the Inspectors inside Iraq at any time during the three operations? Where they in the process of enforcing a resolution that declares that Iraq has one last chance?

PEACE.

I am learning a lot researching this any good books that you haev found?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 11:49 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Dreadsox,

This is some excerts from The World Book Year Book:

1993


"In mid-January, American-led allied forces conducted several bombings of Iraqi military sites. These took place after Iraq was told to remove antiaircraft missiles from southern Iraq and stop impeding UN arms inspectors."

These attacks, I think, are what Bush got "new" approval for but it looks like there was a second attack that Bush did not get "new" approval for several days later:

"On January 17, the United States launched about 40 cruise missiles against an industrial complex near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. One of the missiles hit the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, killing two Iraqi civilians and wounding several Iraqis and foreigners. On January 20, France became the first allied coalition member to criticize the United States for the attack, which france said went beyond UN resolutions."

I'd have to do more research but it looks either this was a second attack without "new" authorization or part of the first attack, but more than France and others felt were justified.

"On June 27, a U.S. cruise-missile attack destroyed Iraq's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad and killed eight civilians. Presidnet Bill Blinton said the attack was in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a mid-April visit to Kuwait. The U.S. attack was widely criticized because it took place before the suspects, including 11 Iraqis, were found guilty. On October 30, a Kuwaiti judge post-poned a verdict in the suspects trial."

Doesn't look like they had any "new" approval from the Security Council for this attack either.


1996

"Iraq again in 1996 became the focus of regional and international attention when the United States on September 3 and 4 fired 44 sea- and air-launched missiles at targets in southern Iraq."

"The United States acted in retaliation for Iraq's military intervention among Kurdish factions in northern Iraq."

"Only the United Kingdom, Kuwait, and Israel supported the actions of the United States. Many nations, including key American allies in the West and Middle East, either urged restraint or condemned the US actions."

Obviously no "new" approval from the Security Council for this action in 1996.


1998

"On December 16, 1998, United States and British forces launched four days of air and missile strikes against military and industrial sites in Iraq. United States President Bill Clinton claimed he ordered the strikes because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had failed to cooperate with inspections of suspected weapons facilities by the United Nations (UN) Special Commission (Unscom). Unscom had attempted to account for and destroy any Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities, as well as Iraqi long-range missiles."

"Many nations criticized the attack on Iraq because the United States acted without UN approval. France, Russia, and China without UN approval. France, Russia, and China were the most vocal critics among UN Security Council members. Most regional governments that were allied with the United States in its ouster of Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991 refused to support the U.S. action. Officials in many of these nations questioned the necessity of the bombings and said they feared that military action would inflict hardship on the Iraqi people."

No new Security Council Authorization in 1998.



"Now, here is my next question........Where the Inspectors inside Iraq at any time during the three operations? Where they in the process of enforcing a resolution that declares that Iraq has one last chance?"

In 1998, I do not think the inspectors were still in Iraq. During 1993 and 1996, I am not sure, but I suspect that they were. In all cases they were in the process of enforcing resolution 687.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 07:50 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:22 AM
The 1996 attack was in the no fly zone if I am not mistaken. I believe the no-fly zone was expanded and the attacks were used to enforce the expansion of the Fly-Zone.

You did not mention the response to the Assasination attempt on Bush.

I know I read somewhere that the Council gave its blessing for the 1st attack. If I remember correctly however, the majority of the campaign was in the no-fly zone. The US fired the cruise missles at the end of the campaign and was sharply criticized for it by members of the council.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 06:36 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Dreadsox,

The June 27 1993 attack on Baghdad was the retaliation for the assasination attempt on Bush.

In 1996:


"Iraq again in 1996 became the focus of regional and international attention when the United States on September 3 and 4 fired 44 sea- and air-launched missiles at targets in southern Iraq."

"The United States acted in retaliation for Iraq's military intervention among Kurdish factions in northern Iraq."

Only 3 other countries supported this action.
__________________

__________________
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 06:22 AM.


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