What do you think? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Is the "COALITION" a United Nations force?
Yes 2 6.90%
No 27 93.10%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-19-2003, 12:05 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:04 AM
What do you think?

Is the "Coalition" that is currently occupying Iraq a UN Force? State your opinions here and answer the poll.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 10:07 AM   #2
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:04 PM
No one's answered so far in response. I'm curious as to others reasons for their votes so far. I voted no. It was America's initiative with help from a couple of others. The UN didn't have a very proactive role in this.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 11:24 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:04 AM
No - the US has not acquiesced its sovereignty to the UN.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 04:50 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:04 AM
NO it is not a United Nations Operation. It has and will continue to be my opinion that the United States actions were not authorized by the UN Resolution 1441. I have read enough legal opinions on it to have made my decision on this topic and shared them in this forum.

If this were a UN Operation, there would be UN sponsored inspections going on right now.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 05:14 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 02:04 AM
No
__________________
adamswildhoney is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 05:17 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Yes! The Current operation launched in Iraq is authorized by multiple UN resolutions such as Resolution 678, 687, and 1441. I have read plenty of legal opinions on it and based on everything I have seen and in light of previous US military action launched against Iraq from 1991-2003, it is obvious that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a UN operation no matter what Paris decides to scream about.

Dreadsox,

"If this were a UN Operation, there would be UN sponsored inspections going on right now."

This is already happening. The United States military, British Military, and Australian military are very busy in insuring that Iraq is disarmed as required by UN resolutions.



Over 40 countries expressed strong support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sure, only 3 of them have countries on the ground in Iraq, but then again there were only 4 countries on the ground in Germany after World War II and only one country in Japan after World War II, so those that scream that three countries on the ground is two small a number for a UN operation are incorrect.

I'd be interested if those that do not feel that "Serious Consequenses" authorized in 1441 did not mean military action could explain what "Serious Consequences" meant, in light of the fact that everything short of military action was already being done to Iraq when the resolution was authorized? In my opinion, common sense tells you that only through wishful thinking, could one think that "Serious Consequences" in this context did not mean military action. So, if you don't Define "Serious Consequences" as military force, please tell me your definition. Remember, sanctions and a weapons embargo, two of the most "Serious Consequences" short of war were already in place when the resolution was authorized, so your definition has to involve something else.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 04:26 AM   #7
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:04 PM
I didn't think the UN wholeheartedly supported this. Legally, yes breaches made it an interesting, if not debateable action, but where has the UN been in this whole thing? I'm only arguing for the sake of it really here, as far as I'm concerned, the UN failed in many areas. The forces are there because of that. And no, I'm not using this as an opportunity to attack the UN etc etc.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 03:14 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Angela Harlem,

"I didn't think the UN wholeheartedly supported this. Legally, yes breaches made it an interesting, if not debateable action, but where has the UN been in this whole thing? I'm only arguing for the sake of it really here, as far as I'm concerned, the UN failed in many areas. The forces are there because of that. And no, I'm not using this as an opportunity to attack the UN etc etc."

It was the United Nations that adopted Chapter VII rules in which resolutions passed under such rules permitted the use of military force to bring about their compliance. It was the United Nations that passed Resolution 678 that authorized member states to use all means necessary to bring about compliance with all subsequent UN resolutions in regards to Iraq. The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire was a done by the UN and was conditional of remaining in place only if Iraq agreed to certain conditions. The last Resolution 1441 by the UN authorized military action against Iraq if it failed to comply with the "one last chance" the world community was giving it. The forces currently in Iraq are member states of the UN fullfilling the goals and requirments of the UN in Iraq as mandated by the resolutions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 04:11 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Sting, you said you have read many opinions that support the fact that 1441 gave the authority. Could you please provide some links to some of these articles. I am sincerely interested in reading opposing opinions. I have posted links in the past supporting the other side of the issue, but I have not found many online opinions that support your postion. In the interests of reading something new, please post away.

Thanks
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 07:50 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Sting (And others),

I thought you might enjoy reading this article. It is in pdf format.

http://www.cfr.org/pdf/highlight/03spring_arend.pdf
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 11:35 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Dreadsox,

"Sting, you said you have read many opinions that support the fact that 1441 gave the authority. Could you please provide some links to some of these articles. I am sincerely interested in reading opposing opinions. I have posted links in the past supporting the other side of the issue, but I have not found many online opinions that support your postion. In the interests of reading something new, please post away."

Sorry, but I have not saved and linked everything that I have read over the past months much of which was on TV or in various books or magazines read at random. The fact that there are more online opinions which support a different view of 1441 does not make such a view more correct. The Heritage Foundation may have some views that strongly support my opinion on 1441 as well as several other think tanks. I stand by the opinions of the US State Department, Colin Powell, retired Military, Current members of the military to include my family and friends, and my own opinion based on what I have read and seen and others rather than the opinions by those that tend to lean toward the French position on the subject matter, which I strongly disagree with.

But the next time I run into something that is on the internet, I'll post the info or the link.

I was wondering if you could tell me, if in any of your literature that you read which opposed the United States position on 1441, did any article ever offer a specific alternative to the meaning of "Serious Consequences" that did not mean military force?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 11:50 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Whether or not you believe the Iraq war was authorized by previous resolutions or not, I don't think that was the question posed. What has been asked is whether or not the "coalition" occupying Iraq is a UN force. Clearly, it isn't. The UN couldn't come to an agreement and the U.S. led an independent "coalition of the willing" or whatever catch-phrase-of-the-day you want to call it.

Not even the UN weapons inspectors have been allowed back in after the fall of Saddam, and, whether or not you agree or disagree with that tactic is not my perogative. Whether or not there is a legal justification for what the "coalition" did under previous UN resolutions is also not my concern. The fact of the matter is that the "coalition" is not a UN force, but a "multilateral," independent force outside of the UN.

I guess that's the way the cards were dealt.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 02:49 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
Melon,

"Clearly, it isn't. The UN couldn't come to an agreement and the U.S. led an independent "coalition of the willing" or whatever catch-phrase-of-the-day you want to call it."

I say clearly it is. The UN voted 15 to 0 for a resolution 1441 that authorized the use of force if Iraq failed its "one last chance". Resolution 678 already authorized member states to take any action necessary to disarm Iraq. 1441 simply restates 678 but gives Iraq one last chance inspite of its current failure and material breech of UN resolutions.

Many do not see it as a UN operation because countries like Germany and France after 1441 decided to disagree with its meaning and opposed any military operation. But their opposition to the war does not mean it was not a UN operation.

If you believe that the UN resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized member states to use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq, then operation Iraqi Freedom must be viewed as a UN operation.

The peaceful UN inspections process ended when the military operation to ensure Iraqi disarmament started. UN inspector are in Iraq currently. Members of the US, British, and Australian military are currently carrying out this task since the peaceful civilian phase of inspections is over. They are apart of the military operation to ensure Iraq is disarmed. The military has been tasked with the job of ensuring that Iraq is disarmed.

Again, I could understand you saying this is not the doing of the UN if you believe that the UN resolutions did not authorize the operation. But if you do believe that it was authorized you will have to explain to me more specifically why it is not a UN operation.

Remember, countries that are currently "willing" are performing UN operations all over the world. Being a member of the UN does not mean that you have to provide troops to those operations. Only countries that are "willing", provide troops. Most other UN operations being performed in other countries only involve a few countries in each case.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-24-2003, 08:40 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:04 AM
I think clearly people here do not believe it was authorized by the UN. I do think it is good that the UN is being brought back into the situation in Iraq.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 02:53 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:04 AM
"I think clearly people here do not believe it was authorized by the UN. I do think it is good that the UN is being brought back into the situation in Iraq."

Not surprising at all that most people here think that. Remember, most people here opposed the war. If their idea's had won out, Peaceful UN inspections would still be ongoing, the sanctions would still be in place, and Saddam would still be in power.
__________________

__________________
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 05:04 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