Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong - 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 04-11-2004, 01:50 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Actually your new argument is quite not the same.

There was no Cease Fire Agreement in 1990. AS it has been since the beginning of the UN, only the Security Council can declare a Cease Fire ended. It has been such since the UN began. We could not wait because there was immediate danger as the administration has said repeatedly in the "cherry picked" quotes.

Kind of hard to violate the international law on cease fires in 1990 when there was none.
But, the Security Council already approved the use of force beyond the ceacefire if Iraq was found to be in material breech of its obligations. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all approve of the use of force against Saddam if he does not fulfill his obligations.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2004, 02:06 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Why The U.N. General Assembly Has Authority To Speak on the War on Iraq In the Event of Security Council Stalemate
By MARJORIE COHN
----
Thursday, Mar. 27, 2003

As was widely reported, the current war on Iraq followed on the heels of contentious deliberations among the members of the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. - along with the U.K. and Spain - tried to convince the Security Council to pass a resolution that would have authorized the use of armed force. But when France threatened to veto any such resolution, and their ability to get a majority seemed dicey at best, the U.S. and U.K. decided to start the war even without Security Council approval.

President Bush's claims that prior Security Council resolutions constituted sufficient authority for war are incorrect - as a prior column for this site by Michael Dorf explains. Accordingly, the war is a direct assault not only on Iraq, but also on the Security Council's authority.

Nevertheless, the Security Council has not acted further, since the war began. That's not surprising: The U.S. and U.K. would doubtless veto any resolution denouncing the war, or stipulating that the U.N. or its designee would be the entity to control post-war Iraq. (Interestingly, the deadlock goes both ways: France has said it will veto any proposed resolution that would give the United States and Britain--not the U.N. - the right to govern postwar Iraq.)

Does that mean the U.N.'s hands are tied - due to the U.S.'s and U.K.'s veto powers? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no.

The United Nations Charter confers on the Security Council primary responsibility to keep the peace. Yet when the Security Council is unable to act, there is a procedure for the General Assembly to fulfill this role in its stead. It is contained in the "Uniting for Peace Resolution," Resolution 377.

The Uniting for Peace Resolution

Under the Uniting for Peace Resolution, within 24 hours of a stalemate in the Security Council, the General Assembly can meet to consider the matter. Either seven members of the Security Council or a majority of the members of the General Assembly can invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution.

Once the Resolution is invoked, the General Assembly can recommend collective measures to "maintain or restore international peace and security." Thus, even in the face of insoluble disagreement in the Security Council, the General Assembly could act to urge the U.S. and its allies to stop the war - or, for example, to mandate that after the war, the U.N. should be the one to keep the peace and determine what the new Iraq should look like.

The Origins and History of the Uniting for Peace Resolution

It was, ironically, the United States itself that spearheaded the passage of the Uniting for Peace resolution, in 1950. Even more ironically, the resolution's passage was prompted by the same situation that prompted the war on Iraq: Security Council deadlock due to the exercise or threatened exercise of veto power.

After North Korea invaded South Korea, the United States was unable to obtain Security Council approval for a U.S.-led military operation to invade North Korea, because of the Soviet veto. Thus, Secretary of State Dean Acheson secured the passage of the Uniting for Peace resolution.

The Uniting for Peace Resolution has been employed ten times since its enactment. In 1956, it was used by the United States when Britain and France attacked the Suez Canal after Egypt nationalized the canal. In the face of Security Council vetoes by Britain and France, the U.S. convinced the General Assembly to call for a cease-fire. Britain and France withdrew from the canal a week later.

Then, that same year, the U.S. used the Uniting for Peace Resolution to pressure the Soviet Union to halt its invasion of Hungary, after the Soviet Union had vetoed an anti-intervention resolution in the Security Council.

Now, countries opposed to the war in Iraq could likewise use the Uniting for Peace Resolution to de-legitimize the use of armed force, and call on Bush to halt it immediately. Many nations have requested the Security Council hold an emergency meeting to urge the U.S. and its allies to stop the war. Failing that, they are advocating the General Assembly convene and take action.

Though they are certain to lose in the Security Council, due to the threat of U.S. and U.K. vetoes, nations in favor of peace may well prevail in garnering a majority in the General Assembly.

The U.S.'s Attempt to Preempt The Use of the Uniting for Peace Resolution

Meanwhile, fearful of a resolution condemning its war in Iraq, the Bush administration has mounted a preemptive campaign to prevent the General Assembly from convening. The campaign is somewhat hypocritical, as the U.S. itself has recognized, in the past, that the Uniting for Peace Resolution is a useful outlet when veto powers deadlock in the Security Council - which is just what happened here.

Nevertheless, General Assembly President Jan Kavan has commented, "The United States is putting pressure on many countries to resist [a General Assembly meeting on the issue]." Indeed, the U.S. government has sent communications to several nations, stating, "Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States."

The U.S.'s campaign is unlikely to succeed in the end. Just as many Security Council members refused to put their imprimatur on a resolution that would have authorized the war before it began, myriad countries will likely defy the United States and call for a cessation of the war.

The Need to Stay With the United Nations Process, Even Now

The General Assembly, the democratic body of the U.N., deserves the opportunity to speak the truth: This is an illegal war. The General Assembly also deserves the opportunity to do what it can at this point - ensure that the U.N. administers a peaceful postwar Iraq in the interests of its citizens.

The Bush administration has insisted that the United Nations validate its war on Iraq or risk becoming irrelevant. But the U.N., in truth, remains as relevant as it has always been. It is still the key to international peace and security. It must never abandon its mission, set forth in 1945, to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
MARJORIE COHN was wrong on this one because the general assembly did not meet and invoke the uniting for peace resolution. This fact, like the resolutions authorizing the use of force and those authorizing the occupation, is one more thing that supports the legallity of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2004, 04:35 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


But, the Security Council already approved the use of force beyond the ceacefire if Iraq was found to be in material breech of its obligations. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all approve of the use of force against Saddam if he does not fulfill his obligations.
Right.

I am sorry, I forgot, you and the United States of America are right.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2004, 05:48 PM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 02:21 PM
Dread, do you know what a brick wall is?


It's maybe better to invest your energies in other, more worthwile, issues instead of trying to overcome this situation where two parties have dug themselves in trenches.



Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 03:40 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:21 AM
The Danes were fooled as well

Denmark reveals Iraq arms secrets

Quote:
Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 05:15 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
But Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief Rear Admiral Joern Olesen said: "These reports that have been made public document that Iraq, according to the entire DDIS's evaluation, probably had biological and chemical weapons just before the war."

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

nbc,

this is from the article you posted


it reminds me of when W told the CIA "Is that all you got? Joe public isn't going to buy it."


When will people admit this war did not have to be fought.

Saddam was contained and all threats and al-queda links were exaggerated or made up.

Thousands have died and thousands more will die.
100s of billions of our tax dollars will be spent
we are less safe because W actions make extremists’ claims seem legitimate.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 06:55 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



nbc,

this is from the article you posted


it reminds me of when W told the CIA "Is that all you got? Joe public isn't going to buy it."


When will people admit this war did not have to be fought.

Saddam was contained and all threats and al-queda links were exaggerated or made up.

Thousands have died and thousands more will die.
100s of billions of our tax dollars will be spent
we are less safe because W actions make extremists’ claims seem legitimate.
It was not an exaggeration that Saddam had FAILED to VERIFIABLY disarm of all WMD! Thats a fact. Saddam had a 400,000 man military. Most the worlds energy supply lies within just miles of the Iraqi border with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The USA and Coalition were spending 2 Billion dollars a year in the stationing of troops and attempts to maintain sanctions and a weapons embargo, but were failing to do so. Saddam was making 4 Billion dollars a year through smuggling and the black market.

Over 1.7 million people were killed by Saddam. Saddam invaded and attack 4 different countries unprovoked. Saddam used WMD more times than any leader in history and invested a higher ratio of his country's GDP on WMD than any country in history.

When will those that opposed this war start to recognize these facts and the difficulties and problems that made this war necessary after over a decade of other attempts failed to resolve the problem. What would be the cost to the planet and the people of Iraq if Saddam had continued in power considering what he had already done? A question far to often avoided by those that opposed the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-30-2004, 01:19 AM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
RockNRollDawgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 3,307
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Doh! He realizes it now?
But, nevermind that all the intelligence was wrong; the US is hating around the globe, we've created more terrorists because
of the war, Iraq had nothing to do whatsoever with 9/11, there was no imminent threat posed to the US.
Al-Queda? They're in Iraq now, after the fact.
__________________
RockNRollDawgie is offline  
Old 06-30-2004, 02:11 AM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:21 PM
All the intelligence was wrong was it, those 12 Sarin Shells must have been planted right and the Yellowcake and Banned Missiles must be make believe?

The Iraqi regime had links to Al Qaeda as well as other Islamist terrorist organisations, the post war situation demonstrates this as well as the intelligence that has been collected since.

In regards to Al Qaeda gaining strength, terrorists have been increasing exponentially since the 70's when the Saudis got more oil money and exported their terrorists around the world. The Lebanon Embassy and Marine barracks were bombed and this increased the threat to US Targets on US Soil. This kept going through the 1990's all the way up to 9/11 and since 9/11 millions of Al Qaeda sympathisers have began to actively support them, this is no fucking joke but the risk of a truly major attack is decreased by eliminating a state sponser of terrorism. Al Qaeda hates us just as much as they ever did, Invading Iraq did not change that, what Iraq has done is show other state sponsers (Iran, Syrian, Saudi Arabia) that the west will not fuck around in the face of danger, Iraq was in the position to aid Al Qaeda, it had had 5 years of unchecked weapons as well as illegal arms and equipment smuggling from across its border, It had a very definite intention to aquire nuclear weapons and retained the ability to make Chemical and Biological weapons. It is entirely concievable that they would have given Al Qaeda or another terrorist organization WMD's to use against the west.

Removing Saddam has reduced the risk of Iraq giving these weapons to terrorists as well as showing other regimes (Syria, Iran, Lybia) that it is not worth the risks. There will be another terrorist attack on western soil and it will be bad but it will be nothing like an attack using weapons of mass destruction.

All intelligence in regards to Iraq was wrong was it? Every last memorandum and file on Iraq in all the government departments is false, you have seen every top secret briefing as well as the reports by field agents in regards to what went on in Saddam Husseins Iraq? I also suppose that the Middle East was a very pro-American region before the War and that the Europeans were made anti-American because Bush went into Iraq.

Iraq is not a strategic blunder if it is done properly. We have to face the fact that the middle east is a breeding ground for terrorists and that it has been increasing production since the 70's. There is a serious problem there that can only be alleviated by the complete and utter dismantling of authoritarian regimes that sponser terror and keep their people prisoners, Iraq if successful as an Arab Democracy will be a key victory in showing the rest of the world the benefits of the liberal democracy.

As a great man scrawled on an important document - Let Freedom Reign! - let us hope that it does around the world and true peace will prevail.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-30-2004, 09:57 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
RockNRollDawgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 3,307
Local Time: 08:21 AM
If a Democrat pulled the same crap that Dubya did, you Republicans would be screaming " Impeach!" LOL!
Partisan politics.........gotta love it.
__________________
RockNRollDawgie is offline  
Old 07-05-2004, 05:37 AM   #86
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
The Iraqi regime had links to Al Qaeda as well as other Islamist terrorist organisations, the post war situation demonstrates this as well as the intelligence that has been collected since.
Really? I thought the 9/11 commission's report stated that there was no evidence of a significant connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. Indeed the ties between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia are far more substantial and frightening, and yet it doesn't seem to be much of an issue (which I honestly can't believe - we had more justification to attack Saudi Arabia in the name of fighting the war on terror than we did Iraq, but I digress).

I also fail to see a connection between the post-war terrorism and a Saddam/Al-Qaeda link. Yes, Al-Qaeda seems to be in Iraq now (they're also in Saudi Arabia, but strangely we don't seem as concerned with that). But then, what do they, and other Islamic terrorist groups, want? To drive the infidels out of the middle east, the Holy Lands. To cause as much loss of life as possible, too. And where, in the middle east, is the US and it's military most heavily concentrated right now? Iraq. Makes sense for the terrorists to come flocking when the country is in upheaval - much easier pickings that way, plus you have the chance to win confused, angered, and bitter Iraqis to your cause, especially if they've suffered personal loss during the US invasion and subsequent occupation.

I would even go so far as to say much of these "terrorist acts" are more of a power struggle within Iraq than the acts of external Islamic militant groups. Al-Sedr is a fine example of that.

Anyway, bottom line is the fact that terrorists are currently in Iraq now in no way suggests or proves that terrorists were linked to Iraq under Saddam's regime.


As an aside...
Out of 19, number of 9/11 hijackers who were Iraqi: ZERO.

Out of 19, number of 9/11 hijackers who were Saudi Arabian: 15

Somewhere our priorities got a bit screwed up...
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 07:56 AM   #87
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: 02:21 PM
Tony Blair Today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3869293.stm
Quote:
"I have to accept we haven't found them and we may never find them, We don't know what has happened to them.

"They could have been removed. They could have been hidden. They could have been destroyed."
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 03:13 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 02:21 PM

And from Reuters today:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies overstated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, relied on dubious sources and ignored contrary evidence in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, a Senate committee reported on Friday.

In a harshly critical report, partly blacked out for security reasons, the Senate Intelligence Committee took U.S. spy agencies to task for numerous failures in their reporting on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which helped President Bush build a case for war.

No such weapons have been found.

U.S. Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the Senate would not have voted overwhelmingly in 2002 to approve the war if it had known how deeply flawed the intelligence was.

"The administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war, we would not have authorized that war, with 75 votes, if we knew what we know now," he said.

Rockefeller said the Iraq war left the United States less safe and would affect national security for generations.

"Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower," he said. "We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 08:00 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Senator Rockefeller does not speak for the rest of the Senate nor the American people. Such a report misses the fact that according to the United Nations Weapons inspectors, Saddam had failed to account for 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells among other things in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.

It was necessary for international security to insure that Saddam's regime was verifiably disarmed and that task has been accomplished because the regime is no more. It was Saddam's responsiblity to comply with the resolutions and prove that he had disarmed. Saddam never did this and it would have been absurd to simply take his word for it. The world is a better place without Saddam and someday, even the anti-war crowd will realize that, I think.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-10-2004, 04:00 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Senator Rockefeller does not speak for the rest of the Senate nor the American people. Such a report misses the fact that according to the United Nations Weapons inspectors, Saddam had failed to account for 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells among other things in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.

It was necessary for international security to insure that Saddam's regime was verifiably disarmed and that task has been accomplished because the regime is no more. It was Saddam's responsiblity to comply with the resolutions and prove that he had disarmed. Saddam never did this and it would have been absurd to simply take his word for it. The world is a better place without Saddam and someday, even the anti-war crowd will realize that, I think.
Yep, we will all be better off without lying governmends
__________________

__________________
Rono 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 08:21 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