Ted Turner- Iraq Is "No Better Off" - 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 12-17-2005, 06:36 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 AM
[Q]There were Democrats that argued that resolution 678 did not make military action legal.[/Q]

My left wing source....

The National Review apparently disagreed as well...

[Q]Resolution 1483 puts the Security Council in the curious position of legitimizing the postwar Anglo-American military occupation of Iraq without ever having addressed how U.S. and British forces got there in the first place.[/Q]
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 02:37 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Was the UN resulotion accepted before the speach of Powell or after he showed his evidence ?
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 07:48 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 AM
1441 came before the Powell speach.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 08:20 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




In regards 1441, I’d like to point out that you ignored the assurances by Negroponte and Greenstock assured everyone that it was not a green light for an invasion. You say it was; they say it wasn’t. Why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 is as clear an authorization for war as you make it out to be? Finally, and this is an important point: it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. What 1441 says and doesn’t say isn’t for the United States to decide.

Another point: resolution 678 contains the phrase “all necessary means." 1441 does not.

Clearly, you are in the wrong here. Anyway …

Resolution 1441 offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarmam and to provide a complete disclosure of weapons as required by Resolution 687, and “serious consequences” were threatened. Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Let’s note that Iraq agreed to 1441 on November 13 and Blix and ElBaradei returned to Iraq later that month, and in December Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. Each successive Blix report – in january, february, and march – noted a greater level of Iraqi compliance. No, not nearly enough, but enough to convince many nations that the disarmament of Iraq was achieveable without a direct, unilateral invasion by the United States.

I also can’t believe you would just gloss over the furious debate over 1441 and whether or not it authorizes military action – simply because you believe it to be an authorization does not make it an open-and-shut case. You’d do well to acknowledge that, yes, other viewpoints are equally valid, or at least acknowledge that other viewpoints exist. What I think irritates myself, and most other people, about your posts is the presentation of a stark, black-and-white reality as total fact, whereas anyone with a brain and a television and newspapers knows just how contentious all of this was, and to dismiss the opinion of the rest of the world and close to half of the American population isn’t just arrogant, it’s foolish.

I would also note that the impetus to avoid war comes from nations, unlike the United States, who have seen the effects and aftermath of war in the 20th century on their own soil. Many do not believe that war is an effective geopolitical tool, and that war should not only be the absolute last option, but that it is always the worst option.

I agree that, at some point in time, a war might have been inevitable, or at least some sort of military conflict with Hussein. But to assert that it had to happen then, in March of 2003, is firstly incorrect, and it also guaranteed that worldwide popular opinion against the US would be at a maximum making it impossible for politicians to support the US lest they face the electoral consequences at home. The result, you see, is that US troops have proved to be inadquate to successfullly occupy the country, something that might have been achieveable with the broad international support similar to the coalition formed in 1991. don’t you see that, even if the legal case is correct, that popular support is just as crucial for the successful implementation of the mission. If you believe so mightily in the removal of Saddam for the myriad reasons you’ve laid out, why not take the time to actually build a coalition so that you can be successful?

The reason, I think, was that Rumsfeld, especially, wanted and needed a unilateral invasion to demonstrate the capabilities of the US forces, the whole “shock and awe” scenario. While the US was certainly capable of overthrowing the vastly weakened Iraqi army without much of a problem, maintaining security on the ground in the face of an insurgency that might have as many as 200,000 supporters has proven to be much, much more difficult than anyone in the White House imagined.

Might French troops, German troops, or the troops from any other Arab nation have been helpful? Might we be toasting the success of the invasion today – instead of having it turn, politically, into another Vietnam as a strong majority of the American public thinks the war wasn’t worth it – had the Bush administration showed patience not with Saddam, but with getting the rest of the world on board?

What your posts demonstrate, to me, is precisely the arrogant, of-course-I’m-right attitude of the Bush administration that doesn’t do much when it comes to assembling broad support – and please contrast this with Bush 1 and Jim Baker. It’s no secret that Bush is famously incurious, famously isolated, and famously uninterested in the opinions of anyone other than his group of yes-men. I think an argument can be made to support an invasion of Iraq *if done correctly*, but I think it’s also true that this president, in particular, was uniquely unsuited for the task at hand.



more later, work permitting ...

Thank you for spelling it out, Irvine. I would be much too tired for that.

As to Negroponte:

8 November 2002 – Following the adoption of a landmark resolution aimed at returning United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq, members of the Security Council today stressed that the text, which was cosponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom, contains no provisions for the automatic use of force.

Speaking after the Council unanimously adopted the resolution, US Ambassador John D. Negroponte said the text contains no "hidden triggers;" it was designed to test Iraq's intentions.

(....)

The Ambassador of the United Kingdom, Jeremy Greenstock, agreed that the resolution has no “automaticity,” noting that in the event of a further Iraqi breach, the matter would return to the Council.

from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...5&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

Quote:

"This Resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect
to the use of force"
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 08:38 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Just a few months later, Greenstock has changed his opinion -- all of a sudden :

JIM LEHRER: If this resolution is in fact passed by the U. N. Security Council, does it clear the way for military action?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: It's not legally necessary. Resolution 1441 of last November already established that there would be serious consequences if Iraq did not fully cooperate. (...)

JIM LEHRER: Why was the second resolution necessary? (he´s not talking about 1441 now, but a later one)

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: In order to give the Security Council a chance to be clear, and consensual about the nonperformance of Iraq against their standard. If we just turned our backs on the Security Council at this stage and did not ask them to be clear in their decision on this, then it would look as though we had just put 1441 in our pockets and were moving on in our own way. And that's not what Pres. Bush wanted, as I understand it, on the 12th of September. It's not what my Prime Minister Tony Blair wants. He wants the Security Council to remain the framework for the complete disarmament of Iraq by whatever method is necessary to achieve that. That's the reason for putting down this new resolution.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, as I'm sure you know, the conventional analytical wisdom goes one step further in this, it is that the United States needs Britain to proceed for military action and in order for Britain to proceed, Tony Blair needs a new resolution because of the strong anti-war sentiment in Britain. Does that make sense to you?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: He has made it clear that a new resolution is a high political priority for him. And I can see that from my point of view why the United Kingdom would want that. Pres. Bush has been very supportive of that position. And that's where we are. If the Security Council can do this, then we have international backing for a difficult operation, a difficult post conflict reconstruction effort. And everybody will see this thing through much more effectively if they stick together on that. The question is, have members of the Security Council the toughness to go this extra step, to face up to Iraq's defiance, and deal with it even though they have rejected the peaceful route. That's the question.

(...)

JIM LEHRER: But it's a fair point, though, is it not, Mr. Ambassador, that this -- passing this resolution is dependent on a negative report from the inspectors, otherwise you've got a problem, correct?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, it's dependent on a number of countries voting for it. And they can judge what they hear from the inspectors. You're right; most people would like to hear through the objective voice of the inspectors that not enough is being done. But there's something in the eye of the beholder on all of this, as we've seen all along; that some people will pick some things out of the inspectors report, other people will pick other things. What we want now is a clear decision against the criteria that we unanimously set in 1441, and that I think will be unequivocal.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's go through the three possibilities, as I see it at least, the three possible decisions. The resolution passes by a majority vote, that's nine votes, and then everything proceeds as you discussed, the next step, serious consequences, correct?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Yes; at the minimum. We would like more votes than just the minimum.

JIM LEHRER: But how many ever votes you have, if it's a majority. Let's say there's a majority vote but then it's vetoed by one of the five permanent members; three of them, China, France and Russia, have already indicated opposition. If it's vetoed, then what happens?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: In Security Council terms, the resolution is not adopted.

JIM LEHRER: Now in terms of Britain and the United States, in terms of military action, what would a veto mean?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, decisions then have to be taken by my government and by the United States Government. But under the strict terms of 1441, a new resolution is not required. We are offering the opportunity to the Security Council to get behind this and take the tough decision with us , if Iraq's attitude doesn't change in the meantime, which is something we dearly hope for. So a vetoed resolution removes the opportunity for the Security Council to remain in control of this.


JIM LEHRER: And of course, a minority vote, in other words a turndown of the resolution by a majority vote would do the same?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: You mean our failure to get nine votes.

JIM LEHRER: Yes failure to get nine votes.

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Yes. Those are two different ways of a resolution not being adopted and therefore two different ways of the Security Council not facing up to the glaring truth on the ground.

JIM LEHRER: But neither the United States nor Britain is saying today that they are going to be bound by the outcome or the vote , either one of these three except the first one, of the three alternatives, correct?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: They -- both capitals will have to make absolutely clear on the day that they see the results of this where they want to go next and to make the explanation for that. I'm not going to make it in advance.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...tock_2-24.html
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 03:24 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars



Thank you for spelling it out, Irvine. I would be much too tired for that.

As to Negroponte:

8 November 2002 – Following the adoption of a landmark resolution aimed at returning United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq, members of the Security Council today stressed that the text, which was cosponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom, contains no provisions for the automatic use of force.

Speaking after the Council unanimously adopted the resolution, US Ambassador John D. Negroponte said the text contains no "hidden triggers;" it was designed to test Iraq's intentions.

(....)

The Ambassador of the United Kingdom, Jeremy Greenstock, agreed that the resolution has no “automaticity,” noting that in the event of a further Iraqi breach, the matter would return to the Council.

from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...5&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

Quote:

"This Resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect
to the use of force"
None of those statements show Greenstock or Negroponte saying that a resolution beyond 1441 would be required before military force could be used to bring about compliance.

Saddam failed to comply and suffered the "serious consequences" of failing to do so, just as he failed to comply with UN demands in 1991 and resolution 678 authorized the "use of all means necessary" to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait.

If coalition military action in March 2003 was illegal, where is the UN resolution or attempt at one condemning the action ? Where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq? Why would the UN approve and occupaton of a country that was "illegally invaded" by those that invaded it? If the invasion were "illegal" why has everything the UN has done in response to the coalition invasion of Iraq, been the opposite of their response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 06:36 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Could it be all member nations wanted a vague resolution to meet their own political needs at home?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 07:29 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Could it be all member nations wanted a vague resolution to meet their own political needs at home?
Maybe, but since you´re asking, you´re maybe missing the central message of diplomats´ words that I have signed

To repeat:

basically Greenstock says: Well we need another resolution because 1441 was not clear enough for the use of force and Blair has some probs justifying it for the Brits. However, fuck the outcome of the resolution, we only need it pro forma. US and UK governments will be in war with Iraq, whatever the Sec Council says - but I can´t state that yet.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 08:19 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 AM
No I am not missing your point. I agree with your point. My big problem is that it was a vague anouhg resolution that it could be debated either way. I think within days of its signing, I was screaming too vague in this forum.

In case you missed it, I have not believed 1441 authorized force.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 08:46 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Here is one of the articles I referred to years ago in this forum about how to get around the Security Council...

http://www.humanrightsnow.org/bypass...ty_council.htm
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 02:03 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:03 AM
The point with the resolution being vague is true, but you know how long they kept quarrelling about whether to put this paragraph in, then some other nations protested, etc. It´s vague because they had different ideas and still every pol./dipl. wanted to save his a** and keep options open at the same time.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 02:05 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Here is one of the articles I referred to years ago in this forum about how to get around the Security Council...

http://www.humanrightsnow.org/bypass...ty_council.htm
Thanks for the article, it is an interesting read.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 02:07 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:03 PM
There was more than face at stake at the UN, the wheels of the security council were greased by Saddams oil vouchers.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:53 AM   #44
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:03 AM
This is how well off some Iraqi's are:

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Arti...aq2.htm#behind

Liberators - f**k that.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:47 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
There was more than face at stake at the UN, the wheels of the security council were greased by Saddams oil vouchers.
Personaly i don`t think it is much difference between Saddams oil vouchers or the politics between the promises about money, power and other *friendly* presents of the members of the UN. How to buy votes
__________________

__________________
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 01:03 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