the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine - Page 4 - 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 07-12-2006, 01:57 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:30 PM
I guess I'm going to have read the actual text of the UN resolutions myself because Irvine and Sting are drawing opposite conclusions from the same resolution. So I can't take either one's word for it.

I'm still highly skeptical of Sting's remarkably optimistic take on the war (though I'd love for him/her to be right. Despite what some would suggest those of us who think the war is a mistake DON'T want our efforts in Iraq to fail.) however I appreciate his/her recognition that we're going to need to stay in Iraq for awhile to finish the job properly. He/she doesn't say this but I would bet that Sting would also support increasing troop strength if it were necessary to the success of the endeavor.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:17 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



force was *not* authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally *not* understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government. both Negroponte and Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 in November 2002, gave assurances that it was *not* a step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and the invasion of Iraq. even Richard Perle has said that the invasion violated international law. why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 was 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.

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. 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 that was enough to convince many nations that the disarmament of Iraq was achieveable without a direct, unilateral invasion by the United States.

all 1483 did was make the invasion legal retroactively, because what else was to be done other than deal with reality?
There is nothing within UN Security Council Resolution 1441 stating that another resolution was required before military action could begin. Tony Blair wanted a second resolution because of his domestic political difficulties at home. If Richard Pearl thinks the resolution violated international law, thats fine. The United States governments official position as well as that of Secratary of State Colin Powell is that the resolution authorized the use of military force.

When the security Council approved resolution 1441, it authorized the use of military force, just as it did when it authorized resolution 678 back in 1990.

The term "Serious Consequences" in the context of the situation in 2003 could only mean one thing, military force. Iraq was already under the most extensive military embargo and sanctions regime in the world. The only thing that could be considered a consequence especially a SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE of Iraqi non-compliance at this point was the the use of military force.

In 1990 the Soviets requested and got wording mentioning "military force" out of resolution 678. It was replaced with more ambiguous terminology like "All Necessary Means" so the Soviets could have the option to make the same arguement that your making now in regards to resolution 1441, that it did not authorize military action.

Yes, most people know about the laughable 12,000 page document that Iraq followed which was virtually identical to one in 1998. Not a single concern about Iraqi WMD that had existed since the last time inspectors were in Iraq in 1998 as well as the UN inspectors report on the level of Iraqi compliance in 1998 was solved. 12 years after Iraq had agree to verifiably disarm of all its WMD, it had not done so. It only took Ukraine, Kazakstan, South Africa and Belarus, a year to fully disarm of all its WMD arsonals.

Not every nation was convinced that military action was needed to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1990 and the vote on resolution 678 was not unanimous like the vote on resolution 1441 was. Iraq was not invaded unilaterally, nor has it been occupied unilaterally. UN Security Council resolutions 678,687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force to bring Iraq into compliance with all resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations.





"all 1483 did was make the invasion legal retroactively, because what else was to be done other than deal with reality?"


Really, so where was the UN resolution recognizing the "reality" of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990?


Where is the UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of coalition troops if the invasion was in fact illegal? Where is the UN resolution condemning the 2003 invasion? Why would the UN pass a resolution approving the ocupation if it felt the invasion was clearly unauthorized or illegal? Why is the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait so different from its response to operation Iraqi Freedom?


Both Dr. Kenneth Pollack, the only CIA officer to predict Saddams invasion of Kuwait as well as being at the head of Clinton administration policy on Iraq, and Michael E. O'Hanlon fo the Brookings Institution,liberal on many foreign policy issues, agree that the coalition did have the authorization it needed and the war was not illegal. They agree with Colin Powell. All of whom are not apart of the "neo-conservative" group that liberals claim are responsible for all administration policy.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:30 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:30 PM
[Q]UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the use of military force to bring Saddam into compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions Saddam was in violation of. It was passed in November 2002. The invasion started in March 2003. In June 2003, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1483 authorizing the occupation.[/Q]

Holy shite....It's the same fucking discussion again...

Here lets look at a legal interpretation from the American Society of International Law

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm


[Q]On May 22, 2003, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1483 by a vote of 14-0, with one member (Syria) not present. The resolution was submitted by Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States after undergoing revisions to satisfy other members of the Security Council. In it, the Council determined that the situation in Iraq still constitutes a threat to international peace and security; consequently the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which gives the Council authority to make decisions that are binding on all U.N. member states.

The resolution is quite detailed, containing 27 operative paragraphs and a long preamble. This Insight will address only those provisions that have noteworthy legal significance, after considering three overarching international law issues that the resolution arguably raises.

The first overarching issue is whether Resolution 1483 could be regarded as an implicit approval of the legality of the coalition forces' invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom/United States legal justification for the invasion was based primarily on previous Security Council resolutions dating back to Resolution 678, which was the basis for the military action against Iraq in 1991. That justification has not been universally accepted. [1] Nothing in Resolution 1483 explicitly approves of the 2003 invasion. The resolution does refer to the United States and United Kingdom as occupying powers, but the duties of an occupying power exist whether or not it was lawful to use the armed force that resulted in the occupation. Consequently no implication as to the lawfulness of the invasion can be drawn from the resolution's recognition of the U.S. and U.K. as occupying powers.

The resolution also provides for the appointment of a U.N. Special Representative for Iraq, with responsibilities relating primarily to coordinating humanitarian and reconstruction activities, promoting the return of refugees, economic reconstruction and the protection of human rights, encouraging other restorative efforts, and working intensively with the occupying powers to establish the necessary institutions for representative governance in Iraq. It might be argued that this Security Council authorization of U.N. involvement in post-conflict Iraq serves as a tacit approval of the use of force that led to the removal of the non-representative government of Saddam Hussein. A similar argument was heard when the Security Council adopted Resolution 1244 (1999), providing for the deployment under U.N. auspices of international civil and security personnel in Kosovo after the 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Serbia. An Annex to Resolution 1244 expressly called for substantial NATO participation in the post-conflict security presence. [2] There is nothing comparable in Resolution 1483, nor is U.N. involvement in post-conflict Iraq intended to be nearly as extensive as it was in post-conflict Kosovo under Resolution 1244. Thus, even if Resolution 1244 and the subsequent U.N. involvement in Kosovo could be seen as tacit consent to the NATO use of force, it would be stretching the precedent to similarly construe Resolution 1483. Of course, even if Resolution 1483 does not tacitly approve of the use of force against Iraq, that simply means that the Security Council has not made a judgment one way or the other on the legality of the invasion.


[/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 03:52 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]Q]

Holy shite....It's the same fucking discussion again...

Here lets look at a legal interpretation from the American Society of International Law

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm


B]


[/Q]
Nice to see their opinion on the issue again as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:03 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:30 PM
As usual, we have fallen back to the repeated talking points that attempt to declare the victor in a race that is ongoing. The need for political opinion has far outpaced the collection and analysis of fact.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:07 PM   #51
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 07:30 AM
Do you think you guys will benefit from mandatory voting.....'cause that will almost guarantee that the Dubya' reign will end?
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:32 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
As usual, we have fallen back to the repeated talking points that attempt to declare the victor in a race that is ongoing. The need for political opinion has far outpaced the collection and analysis of fact.

if you read the posts, you'll see a tremendous amount of analysis and fact, far more so than in most other threads.

do you have any analysis or fact to offer?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 08:48 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:30 PM
STING, everyone in the entire fucking world knew that the US was going to invade Iraq a good year out from the actual invasion. Everying in the entire fucking world knew there was not a damn thing that the UN, any other country, or even Iraq could do about that. Many countries tried to find viable alternatives. Allies even tried to pace it out and get every correct piece and agreement in place. The US wasn't having it. The French and Germans were mocked. The Allies were appeased for a small while, as their support was politicaly important. No-one believed that the last resolution authorised force. Everyone believed that another was needed to spell out specific terms of what needed to happen, and what the consequences were. Many countries believed that there were multiple options to sorting out the mess, the populations 'Coalition of the Willing' countries like the UK and Australia were not glassy eyed to bullshit propaganda as too many were in the US, and demanded that their leaders go back and make a better argument, and/or get better support/global backing (the UN). Everyone in the entire fucking world knew that the US were working to a military timetable and would only accomodate this pesky UN business if it worked with that timetable and worked in their favour. Everyone was surprised that the US even went for another final resolution, and good for US allies like the UK and Australia for pushing it. No-one in the entire fucking world was surprised that as soon as that resolution looked to not be going the exact way the US wanted to, that it was buried and the US took off and invaded. You have the most incredibly narrow blinkers on if you believe it any other way.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:07 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Why isn't the US invading North Korea since they are an obviously greater threat to the so-called national security of the United States than Iraq was?
Cost-benefit, North Korea is not going to do anything against the US or it's neighbours. It will sell it's missiles to whoever pays - namely Iran.

Incidently Saddam was procuring missiles from North Korea prior to the invasion.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:09 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by fly so high!
Do you think you guys will benefit from mandatory voting.....'cause that will almost guarantee that the Dubya' reign will end?
It has delivered a decade of coalition government here.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:01 AM   #56
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 07:30 AM
^ Yes...........that's why i vote Labour,and will keep on voting for Labour..........to piss off John we have to vote for Labour.....not the Greens,not the fishing or shooters party or "The Dark Side".............vote for the ALP!And reverse the IR laws!!!!!
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 09:12 PM   #57
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by fly so high!
Do you think you guys will benefit from mandatory voting.....'cause that will almost guarantee that the Dubya' reign will end?
Mandatory voting would change our country, that's certain. So would reliable voting procedures and an end to the antiquated electoral vote. Reform is crucial, but until there is a change in the make-up of Congress I doubt it will get anywhere.

why mess with a good thing?
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-29-2006, 06:18 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:30 PM
America's Pessimism Grows Deeper

Washington Wire highlights evidence of a growing long-term deep funk among Americans in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll: "Among the six-in-10 Americans who say country is 'on the wrong track,' most see 'long-term decline.' More than two-thirds of those over 50 aren’t confident life will improve for 'our children’s generation'; 62% of those under 35 agree. Americans are especially gloomy about the environment, health care, public morals and housing costs; nearly eight in 10 expect college to become less affordable. By 47%-24%, Americans fear the quality of jobs in the U.S. will get worse."
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 07-29-2006, 08:02 PM   #59
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Less than 100 days, and things can (and hopefully will) change. Putting lipstick on the pig isn't going change what has happened to the U.S. in the years since Bush came to office.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-30-2006, 11:53 AM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Less than 100 days, and Americans are very pessimistic. Those numbers are damning to this Administration.
__________________

__________________
verte76 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 04:30 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