Why an Estimate was Ignored - Page 2 - 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 06-02-2005, 04:38 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


No, using facts certainly ain't against the rules.

I admit I was not previously aware of the distinction between the different types of UN resolutions involved. I bow to superior wisdom on that point.

However the UK Attorney General expressed doubts as to whether the existing UN resolutions were a sufficient legal basis for going to war. This was revealed in a memo leaked to the media a while back.

In addition, it has been known for a long time that the UK military top brass specifically requested clarification from Mr Blair as they were extremely concerned that what they were being instructed to do might not be legal.
As to the existing resolutions, Sting and I have had some pretty good debates about the legality of using them to go to war.

Here two years later....I am thinking he is right. Why would they create three more resolutions supporting the US action in Iraq after it occurred if it were illegal?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 06:00 AM   #17
Babyface
 
Marie Clare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:44 PM
Although it mayn't have been the only option, military force was always one of the options available to the SC, should Saddam refuse to comply with the order to declare (or prove the nonexistence of) WMD.
The issue is whether or not the US and her allies were justified in ignoring the SCs veto on military action.
Was it even appropriate for the US to consult a council that consisted of countries who had financial dealings with the country concerned, dealings that would be jeopardised by any western intervention?
As we have seen, the war in Iraq precipitated revelations of the UNs corruption, much of which concerns Iraq.
The relevence of the draconian institution known as the UN has been called into question, thanks to the Iraq debacle, and her failings (particuly in Rwanda) continue to demonstrate the need for reform.
Anyway, the fact is, where would Iraq be had not the US+allies intervened?
Perhaps we should ask the shiites and kurds (iraqs silent majority) what they prefer?
If you're against the change that has occurred in Iraq (due to western intervention), you must accept the horror of the alternative.
__________________

__________________
Marie Clare is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 03:04 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Marie Clare
Although it mayn't have been the only option, military force was always one of the options available to the SC, should Saddam refuse to comply with the order to declare (or prove the nonexistence of) WMD.
The issue is whether or not the US and her allies were justified in ignoring the SCs veto on military action.
Was it even appropriate for the US to consult a council that consisted of countries who had financial dealings with the country concerned, dealings that would be jeopardised by any western intervention?
As we have seen, the war in Iraq precipitated revelations of the UNs corruption, much of which concerns Iraq.
The relevence of the draconian institution known as the UN has been called into question, thanks to the Iraq debacle, and her failings (particuly in Rwanda) continue to demonstrate the need for reform.
Anyway, the fact is, where would Iraq be had not the US+allies intervened?
Perhaps we should ask the shiites and kurds (iraqs silent majority) what they prefer?
If you're against the change that has occurred in Iraq (due to western intervention), you must accept the horror of the alternative.
The Security Council never vetoed military action. Resolution 1441 was passed and approved military action against Iraq. 3 later resolutions have approved the occupation resulting from that military action.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 07:11 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:44 AM
The United States, never followed through with a final vote on the SC because of the threat of a Veto.

This made 1441 and the following resolutions standing justification for action.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 01:43 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Ok, here's the deal.

The Iraq war was illegal.

End of debate.
Amen.
__________________

__________________
Infinity 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 03:44 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