if the us attacks without un support - 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 02-25-2003, 10:55 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Dreadsox,

This is a thread about the US acting without the UN, so such a debate is very relevant to this thread. Past military action without UN approval such as Kosovo is also relevant.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:55 PM   #22
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 02:06 PM
feel free to ruin this thread, ive ruined many myself.
__________________

Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:58 PM   #23
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 08:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


We then become a rogue nation in the eyes of the world.
I like that.. 'Rogue Nation'. Thank you for providing a bit of humor to my day.

Beefeater
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:02 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

This is a thread about the US acting without the UN, so such a debate is very relevant to this thread. Past military action without UN approval such as Kosovo is also relevant.
Was there a cease fire agreement with the US and Kosovo????
You say it is relevant....please make more of an explination for me....I fail to see how if there was no cease fire violation.

Peace
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:03 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Gickies Gageeze
feel free to ruin this thread, ive ruined many myself.
Can you throw in a compliment please....I mean there are relatively few weeks before I am pretty sure I will not be eligible!

PEace
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 11:34 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Dreadsox,

It does not matter that there was not a ceacefire in effect in Kosovo. The operation in Kosovo took place without the authorization of the UN Security Council, just like military action may take place in Iraq without the Authorization of the Security Council.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:06 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Sting.......

Now that is not right. I NEVER said that countries could not take action without the UN. I have consistently said that countries that have entered into Cease-Fire agreements brokered through the UN as in Resolution 687, are not to declare the Cease-Fire over unless, the Security Council declares the cease-fire suspended, or the other party attacks, thus violating the cease fire.

You cannot use the Kosovo case because there never was a UN Brokered Cease-Fire.

PEACE.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:23 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Dreadsox,

This is what you said and I was responding to with the example of Kosovo:

"Again you say it is for "POLITICAL REASONS". The political reason is an invasion without Security Council approval is politically dangerous and sets a PRECIDENT for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council."

I felt the case of Kosovo contradicted that. In any event, I feel the Security Council has Authorized military action through Res. 678 affirmed again in 687 and 1441, if Iraq is in material breach and indeed it is.

I can continue to bring up the case of Kosovo as long as we are talking about military action without the approval of the Security Council.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:23 AM   #29
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 02:06 PM
dreadsox, uh, you have good sentance structure.
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:27 AM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 62
Local Time: 08:06 PM
15 to 0 in favor to go to war, now they go back on their word and say they dont support war. hmmmmm interesting why should the U.N run USA anyways? if they say they supported us with 1441 and now they ask for a 2nd resalution then that makes the u n non credible and irreleven hence we go back to league of nations
megadrum2002 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:35 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Unfortunately, other countries have a different interpretation of what "Serious Consequences" mean. In addition none of them have ever specifically defined what their interpretation of "serious consequences" is, unlike the USA.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 02:10 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I still feel the Security Council authorization given in 678, reafirmed in 687 and again in 1441, is all the legal bases the US or any member state needs for military action against Iraq IF it is in military breach of any of its obligations. Its been the legal bases for past military action against Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

Sting,

1441

#1 Declares Iraq in material breach.

and

#2 Gives Iraq ANOTHER CHANCE AT COMPLIANCE, which in a way REAFFIRMS the Cease Fire of 687.

#3 Puts Inspectors Back in Iraq

#4 Gives the Council the Power to have a meeting to decide what to do if the inspectors report that Iraq is not cooperating.

#5 Does not define "Serious Consequences"



Now all this said. The US framed it vague to get the 15-0 Vote. It removed language authorizing the use of force. You and I may both agree its intent was the use of force, however, paragraph 12 still leaves it up to the Security Council to meet and decide what steps to take in the event of further violations. It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 02:42 AM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,748
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Now all this said. The US framed it vague to get the 15-0 Vote. It removed language authorizing the use of force. You and I may both agree its intent was the use of force, however, paragraph 12 still leaves it up to the Security Council to meet and decide what steps to take in the event of further violations. It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations.
Well said. You may say that 1441 was framed vague but that US's intentions are clear that it wants to use force. Other countries will say that 1441 was framed vague so that a single country (read: USA) cannot use force on its own, but that the Security Council will decide in a separate resolution what the "serious consequences" are. This has always been the clear intent of many other countries (including France, Russia, etc.), that there would be a second resolution defining the consequences.
That is also the reason there was a 15-0 vote. Other countries did not favour the resolution because they wanted to go to war, they favoured the resolution because it DID NOT immediately favour a war, but allowed for a second resolution to define those "serious consequences".

C ya!

Marty
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 02-26-2003, 05:50 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Unfortunately, other countries have a different interpretation of what "Serious Consequences" mean. In addition none of them have ever specifically defined what their interpretation of "serious consequences" is, unlike the USA.
Sting,

Perhaps that's why it was possible to get agreement from the security council on resolution 1441 - it doesn't commit states to supporting a war, it just states that there will be serious consequences but doesn't specify what these should be.

Do you think it should be the responsibility of all of the security council to decide what serious consequences means, or is that a decision you believe the US alone should take?
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 07:00 AM   #35
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: 09:06 PM
Fizzi: exactly!

another thing to mention if the us attacks without un support..
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) thinks about a Oil boycott to stop that war.
Well i guess chances increase if the US can't even convince the majority of their friends.

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 10:49 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
The Second Resolution



Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page A22


THE NEW DRAFT resolution submitted to the U.N. Security Council by the United States and Britain this week has the advantage of simplicity. It asks only that the council judge whether Iraq has complied with the terms of the disarmament resolution unanimously approved by the council last Nov. 8. The language of Resolution 1441 is very precise: It offers Iraq a "final opportunity" to voluntarily disarm but says that false statements or omissions by Iraq in its weapons declaration, combined with failure "at any time . . . to cooperate fully," would be a "material breach" of the resolution. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix has reported to the council that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete; he has also said in each of his reports that full cooperation has not been forthcoming. No council member disputes those findings. So the new resolution merely restates these uncontested facts, together with the inescapable conclusion: Saddam Hussein has failed in his "final opportunity."

Council members who oppose this text will not be resisting some unilateral diktat from the Bush administration; they will be voting to repudiate a U.N. resolution adopted little more than three months ago. No wonder that French President Jacques Chirac, who last fall insisted on the idea of a second resolution, now argues with equal fervor that none is necessary. And that is only the first of his contradictions. In their effort to free themselves from the Security Council's solemn commitments, the French and their German and Russian allies have adopted a position that is as convoluted as the new resolution is simple.

A memorandum distributed by their governments Monday begins by acknowledging the main point: Iraqi cooperation "is not yet fully satisfactory," as required by 1441. Yet rather than follow the resolution's terms, the opponents instead propose a very different scheme -- that of an earlier resolution, 1284, adopted in December 1999. Mr. Chirac's government and that of Russia fought fiercely to block or weaken that resolution, and neither voted for it. Yet now they unashamedly champion the plan, which calls for the inspectors to draw up a list of "remaining disarmament tasks" for Iraq, along with a timeline for accomplishing them. Iraqi disarmament would be limited to those areas stipulated in advance by the inspectors -- thus excluding any stockpiles that have not already been identified -- and there would be no penalty for failing to complete the work. On the contrary, 1284 would mandate that sanctions on Iraq be suspended after 120 days if Iraq is judged to have made "progress" on its assigned tasks. Paris and Moscow already argue that such progress is being made; if their scheme were adopted, they could be expected to demand a lifting of sanctions on July 1, even if Iraq's chemical and biological weapons remained undiscovered.

All this may sound like a legalistic debate over the wording of resolutions, but vital principles lie behind it. Resolution 1441, which the Bush administration painstakingly negotiated with the French and Russians, says what it does because past attempts to disarm an unwilling Iraq with U.N. inspections had failed. Saddam Hussein this time was to be offered a stark choice between immediate voluntary disarmament and "serious consequences," which all understood to mean war. This was a sound strategy, and it might have succeeded had the forceful message not been quickly undermined by the French and their allies. The most damaging contradiction in their position is this: They would insist that the United States act through multilateral institutions such as the Security Council; but they themselves will not support those institutions if the outcome is a sanctioned exercise of U.S. power. That's because their priority is not disarming rogue states, or strengthening world government, or even preventing war per se. It is, rather, to neutralize what the French call the American "hyperpower." When its security is threatened, there is no reason for the United States to accept such paralysis -- especially when it has the unambiguous terms of U.N. resolutions on its side.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 12:33 PM   #37
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Dreadsox.
Where was that article taken from and the author?
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:38 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Washington Post. Sorry that is not like me. Editorial page...

I will have to find it.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 04:58 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:06 PM
It must have been written by the Washington post staff. Here is the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Feb25.html
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 05:16 PM   #40
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Thanks.
__________________

Scarletwine 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 03:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×