if the us attacks without un support
- Thread starter Gickies Gageeze
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
STING2 said:
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.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
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
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
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?
Klaus
Refugee
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Dreadsox.
Where was that article taken from and the author?
Where was that article taken from and the author?
It must have been written by the Washington post staff. Here is the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2697-2003Feb25.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2697-2003Feb25.html
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Thanks.
Dreadsox,
"It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations"
Collin Powel and others including myself do not agree with your opinion on that point.
In any event, 678 reaffirmed in 1441 gives the USA all the legal authorization that is needed. 1441 and further resolutions are about politics rather than a legal necessity. 678 has already been used by the USA to justify military action in 1996 and 1998 and probably 1993 as well since I could not find specific Security Council endorsement for 2 of 3 the military actions in 1993 against Iraq.
Popmartijn,
1441 does not list a second resolution, but there will indeed be one. I actually think the USA is going to win approval with it as well. The US will have to play some diplomatic hardball, but at the end of the day China and Russia would be foolish to veto the resolution so they will abstain. Russia wants to make sure the debt Iraq owes Russia is payed off and China does not want to risk its increasing trade relationship with the USA. France does not want to cast a lonely veto vote plus they have interest in Iraq that they want to protect once Saddam is gone, so it would probably be in their best interest to abstain or vote for the resolution. Convincing the 6 countries on the fence will be much easier. But you never know. It will be interesting to see if the French, Russians, and Chinese will want to risk damaging their interest in Iraq and their relationship with the USA over a vote to disarm Saddam.
FizzingWhizzbees,
I think the USA and other member states have always had the authorization through Res. 678 affirmed in Res. 687 and now 1441, to use military force if Iraq was in material breach of any of its obligations. I think to suggest that "Serious Consequences" just means talking about it some more, misses the obvious point of the entire resolution, to disarm Saddam or else. I believe and support the US governments interpretation of the resolution. Its no secret what the adminstration meant by "Serious Consequences".
"It does not authorize any action on the part of independant nations"
Collin Powel and others including myself do not agree with your opinion on that point.
In any event, 678 reaffirmed in 1441 gives the USA all the legal authorization that is needed. 1441 and further resolutions are about politics rather than a legal necessity. 678 has already been used by the USA to justify military action in 1996 and 1998 and probably 1993 as well since I could not find specific Security Council endorsement for 2 of 3 the military actions in 1993 against Iraq.
Popmartijn,
1441 does not list a second resolution, but there will indeed be one. I actually think the USA is going to win approval with it as well. The US will have to play some diplomatic hardball, but at the end of the day China and Russia would be foolish to veto the resolution so they will abstain. Russia wants to make sure the debt Iraq owes Russia is payed off and China does not want to risk its increasing trade relationship with the USA. France does not want to cast a lonely veto vote plus they have interest in Iraq that they want to protect once Saddam is gone, so it would probably be in their best interest to abstain or vote for the resolution. Convincing the 6 countries on the fence will be much easier. But you never know. It will be interesting to see if the French, Russians, and Chinese will want to risk damaging their interest in Iraq and their relationship with the USA over a vote to disarm Saddam.
FizzingWhizzbees,
I think the USA and other member states have always had the authorization through Res. 678 affirmed in Res. 687 and now 1441, to use military force if Iraq was in material breach of any of its obligations. I think to suggest that "Serious Consequences" just means talking about it some more, misses the obvious point of the entire resolution, to disarm Saddam or else. I believe and support the US governments interpretation of the resolution. Its no secret what the adminstration meant by "Serious Consequences".
STING2 said:
And all of the links in my signature think otherwise. We have been there and had this debate.
I found three military actions.
#1 Security Council approved of, although, I could not find a resolution. Permission was requested and granted. 1993 Bush.
#2 1993 Clinton was in response to the Assasination attempt on Former President Bush, which could have been construed as a breach of the cease fire? It definitely was justified although no permission was granted.
#3 1998, after the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq.
I do believe that in case #2 and #3 the attacks were protested by China, Germany, and France.
Now, here is my next question........Where the Inspectors inside Iraq at any time during the three operations? Where they in the process of enforcing a resolution that declares that Iraq has one last chance?
PEACE.
I am learning a lot researching this any good books that you haev found?
Dreadsox,
This is some excerts from The World Book Year Book:
1993
"In mid-January, American-led allied forces conducted several bombings of Iraqi military sites. These took place after Iraq was told to remove antiaircraft missiles from southern Iraq and stop impeding UN arms inspectors."
These attacks, I think, are what Bush got "new" approval for but it looks like there was a second attack that Bush did not get "new" approval for several days later:
"On January 17, the United States launched about 40 cruise missiles against an industrial complex near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. One of the missiles hit the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, killing two Iraqi civilians and wounding several Iraqis and foreigners. On January 20, France became the first allied coalition member to criticize the United States for the attack, which france said went beyond UN resolutions."
I'd have to do more research but it looks either this was a second attack without "new" authorization or part of the first attack, but more than France and others felt were justified.
"On June 27, a U.S. cruise-missile attack destroyed Iraq's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad and killed eight civilians. Presidnet Bill Blinton said the attack was in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a mid-April visit to Kuwait. The U.S. attack was widely criticized because it took place before the suspects, including 11 Iraqis, were found guilty. On October 30, a Kuwaiti judge post-poned a verdict in the suspects trial."
Doesn't look like they had any "new" approval from the Security Council for this attack either.
1996
"Iraq again in 1996 became the focus of regional and international attention when the United States on September 3 and 4 fired 44 sea- and air-launched missiles at targets in southern Iraq."
"The United States acted in retaliation for Iraq's military intervention among Kurdish factions in northern Iraq."
"Only the United Kingdom, Kuwait, and Israel supported the actions of the United States. Many nations, including key American allies in the West and Middle East, either urged restraint or condemned the US actions."
Obviously no "new" approval from the Security Council for this action in 1996.
1998
"On December 16, 1998, United States and British forces launched four days of air and missile strikes against military and industrial sites in Iraq. United States President Bill Clinton claimed he ordered the strikes because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had failed to cooperate with inspections of suspected weapons facilities by the United Nations (UN) Special Commission (Unscom). Unscom had attempted to account for and destroy any Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities, as well as Iraqi long-range missiles."
"Many nations criticized the attack on Iraq because the United States acted without UN approval. France, Russia, and China without UN approval. France, Russia, and China were the most vocal critics among UN Security Council members. Most regional governments that were allied with the United States in its ouster of Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991 refused to support the U.S. action. Officials in many of these nations questioned the necessity of the bombings and said they feared that military action would inflict hardship on the Iraqi people."
No new Security Council Authorization in 1998.
"Now, here is my next question........Where the Inspectors inside Iraq at any time during the three operations? Where they in the process of enforcing a resolution that declares that Iraq has one last chance?"
In 1998, I do not think the inspectors were still in Iraq. During 1993 and 1996, I am not sure, but I suspect that they were. In all cases they were in the process of enforcing resolution 687.
This is some excerts from The World Book Year Book:
1993
"In mid-January, American-led allied forces conducted several bombings of Iraqi military sites. These took place after Iraq was told to remove antiaircraft missiles from southern Iraq and stop impeding UN arms inspectors."
These attacks, I think, are what Bush got "new" approval for but it looks like there was a second attack that Bush did not get "new" approval for several days later:
"On January 17, the United States launched about 40 cruise missiles against an industrial complex near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. One of the missiles hit the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, killing two Iraqi civilians and wounding several Iraqis and foreigners. On January 20, France became the first allied coalition member to criticize the United States for the attack, which france said went beyond UN resolutions."
I'd have to do more research but it looks either this was a second attack without "new" authorization or part of the first attack, but more than France and others felt were justified.
"On June 27, a U.S. cruise-missile attack destroyed Iraq's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad and killed eight civilians. Presidnet Bill Blinton said the attack was in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a mid-April visit to Kuwait. The U.S. attack was widely criticized because it took place before the suspects, including 11 Iraqis, were found guilty. On October 30, a Kuwaiti judge post-poned a verdict in the suspects trial."
Doesn't look like they had any "new" approval from the Security Council for this attack either.
1996
"Iraq again in 1996 became the focus of regional and international attention when the United States on September 3 and 4 fired 44 sea- and air-launched missiles at targets in southern Iraq."
"The United States acted in retaliation for Iraq's military intervention among Kurdish factions in northern Iraq."
"Only the United Kingdom, Kuwait, and Israel supported the actions of the United States. Many nations, including key American allies in the West and Middle East, either urged restraint or condemned the US actions."
Obviously no "new" approval from the Security Council for this action in 1996.
1998
"On December 16, 1998, United States and British forces launched four days of air and missile strikes against military and industrial sites in Iraq. United States President Bill Clinton claimed he ordered the strikes because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had failed to cooperate with inspections of suspected weapons facilities by the United Nations (UN) Special Commission (Unscom). Unscom had attempted to account for and destroy any Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities, as well as Iraqi long-range missiles."
"Many nations criticized the attack on Iraq because the United States acted without UN approval. France, Russia, and China without UN approval. France, Russia, and China were the most vocal critics among UN Security Council members. Most regional governments that were allied with the United States in its ouster of Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991 refused to support the U.S. action. Officials in many of these nations questioned the necessity of the bombings and said they feared that military action would inflict hardship on the Iraqi people."
No new Security Council Authorization in 1998.
"Now, here is my next question........Where the Inspectors inside Iraq at any time during the three operations? Where they in the process of enforcing a resolution that declares that Iraq has one last chance?"
In 1998, I do not think the inspectors were still in Iraq. During 1993 and 1996, I am not sure, but I suspect that they were. In all cases they were in the process of enforcing resolution 687.
The 1996 attack was in the no fly zone if I am not mistaken. I believe the no-fly zone was expanded and the attacks were used to enforce the expansion of the Fly-Zone.
You did not mention the response to the Assasination attempt on Bush.
I know I read somewhere that the Council gave its blessing for the 1st attack. If I remember correctly however, the majority of the campaign was in the no-fly zone. The US fired the cruise missles at the end of the campaign and was sharply criticized for it by members of the council.
You did not mention the response to the Assasination attempt on Bush.
I know I read somewhere that the Council gave its blessing for the 1st attack. If I remember correctly however, the majority of the campaign was in the no-fly zone. The US fired the cruise missles at the end of the campaign and was sharply criticized for it by members of the council.
Dreadsox,
The June 27 1993 attack on Baghdad was the retaliation for the assasination attempt on Bush.
In 1996:
"Iraq again in 1996 became the focus of regional and international attention when the United States on September 3 and 4 fired 44 sea- and air-launched missiles at targets in southern Iraq."
"The United States acted in retaliation for Iraq's military intervention among Kurdish factions in northern Iraq."
Only 3 other countries supported this action.
The June 27 1993 attack on Baghdad was the retaliation for the assasination attempt on Bush.
In 1996:
"Iraq again in 1996 became the focus of regional and international attention when the United States on September 3 and 4 fired 44 sea- and air-launched missiles at targets in southern Iraq."
"The United States acted in retaliation for Iraq's military intervention among Kurdish factions in northern Iraq."
Only 3 other countries supported this action.
Dreadsox,
The 1996 action did take place in an area that was technically in southern no fly zone, but the reason for the action was not because of a violation of the no fly zone or because Iraqi Anti-Aircraft systems had fired on coalition aircraft. It was a response to Iraqi attacks that took place in Northern Iraq. The No Fly Zones cover the entire southern and Northern borders. If and when an invasion happens, ground combat will probably take place in these area's first.
The 1996 action did take place in an area that was technically in southern no fly zone, but the reason for the action was not because of a violation of the no fly zone or because Iraqi Anti-Aircraft systems had fired on coalition aircraft. It was a response to Iraqi attacks that took place in Northern Iraq. The No Fly Zones cover the entire southern and Northern borders. If and when an invasion happens, ground combat will probably take place in these area's first.
Well I count then three operations. 1996 may have been inresponse to something in the North, but it along with the 1,000 of other sorties were in the no fly zone.
SO if I am understanding this:
1992 George Bush and Coalition attacked with UN Blessing, but no resolution? Bush was criticized for overstepping the no fly area with cruise missles into areas other than the no fly zone.
1993 Clintons response to the Assasination attempt.
1996 Which was in the NO-Fly Zone
1998 Which was in response to inpectors being removed.
Looking at this picture....
1992 Attack...Jan. 11 Security Council Declared Iraq in Material Breech when they sent troops into Kuwait to recover equiptment. This was a violation because of Iraq again moving into Kuwait. It Occured because of IRAQ violating 687.
1993 Attack was because of the Assasination attempt on George Bush. Hard to argue that this was not justified.
1996 Was in the NO FLY ZONE. No permission from the Security council needed.
1998 The attack occured when Iraq was playing games with the inspections and had originally kicked the inspectors out. Richard Butler testified to the Security Council that Iraq was not meeting it's expectations.
So let's look above. Of the attacks on Bagdhad, really there were two that did not have Security Council blessings. One in retaliation for the Bush incident, and the other came ofter the Chief Weapons inspector, withdrew his inspectors, and testified to the security council there was ample proof of non-compliance.
I could live with scenario #2 as being a parallel situation. If Blix reports that Iraq is not complying and withdraws the inspectors. I can see us moving without the council, even though, I believe another resolution is necessary, I think it gives the clear evidence as did 1998, that there is just cause.
RIght now, 1441, gives a second chance. Until Blix says, this is not working, the second chance stands.
Personnaly, I think Saddam is playing the same games he always has. Have you read "Bush at War" Sting? The Epilogue goes into the Battle between Cheney and Powell over the Iraq situation. It kind of reminds me of you and I over the past week or so. You might like the read. Powell, really believed a resolution was necessary. It ends before 1441 is passed.
SO if I am understanding this:
1992 George Bush and Coalition attacked with UN Blessing, but no resolution? Bush was criticized for overstepping the no fly area with cruise missles into areas other than the no fly zone.
1993 Clintons response to the Assasination attempt.
1996 Which was in the NO-Fly Zone
1998 Which was in response to inpectors being removed.
Looking at this picture....
1992 Attack...Jan. 11 Security Council Declared Iraq in Material Breech when they sent troops into Kuwait to recover equiptment. This was a violation because of Iraq again moving into Kuwait. It Occured because of IRAQ violating 687.
1993 Attack was because of the Assasination attempt on George Bush. Hard to argue that this was not justified.
1996 Was in the NO FLY ZONE. No permission from the Security council needed.
1998 The attack occured when Iraq was playing games with the inspections and had originally kicked the inspectors out. Richard Butler testified to the Security Council that Iraq was not meeting it's expectations.
So let's look above. Of the attacks on Bagdhad, really there were two that did not have Security Council blessings. One in retaliation for the Bush incident, and the other came ofter the Chief Weapons inspector, withdrew his inspectors, and testified to the security council there was ample proof of non-compliance.
I could live with scenario #2 as being a parallel situation. If Blix reports that Iraq is not complying and withdraws the inspectors. I can see us moving without the council, even though, I believe another resolution is necessary, I think it gives the clear evidence as did 1998, that there is just cause.
RIght now, 1441, gives a second chance. Until Blix says, this is not working, the second chance stands.
Personnaly, I think Saddam is playing the same games he always has. Have you read "Bush at War" Sting? The Epilogue goes into the Battle between Cheney and Powell over the Iraq situation. It kind of reminds me of you and I over the past week or so. You might like the read. Powell, really believed a resolution was necessary. It ends before 1441 is passed.
Dreadsox,
The No Fly Zones are to prevent Iraqi aircraft from flying in those area's and the pilots of course of authorization to shoot at anti-aircraft sites that fire at them. Realize the No Fly Zones cover more than half the country.
I don't believe there is any difference between a US Cruise missile strike against non-aircraft or anti-aircraft targets in the no fly zone and one around Baghdad. The 1996 strike was opposed by most countries, only 3 supported it. The 1996 is indeed a case where the USA took military action under Res. 678 against an Iraqi violation.
I would not give "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward to much analysis or credit. Many people take this as a literal translation of what goes on. I honestly think its more of a work of fiction like the first Woodward book 12 years ago. Many have said it makes characterizations that are simply not true or inaccurate. A bit like U2s first full length Biography the Unforgettable Fire. Powell has downplayed many of the divisions that are often reported in the press. Its funny how many people were shocked by Powells presentation, not because of the evidence he presented, but because of the course of action he was strongly advocating. All this media has him cast as a Dove when in reality he is probably a reluctant hawk.
But let me make my position clear. I'm not against a second resolution or a third resolution or whatever if it is politically beneficial which I often think it is. What I reject is the legal necessity for any more resolutions. I'm not a unilateralist, I strongly support multi-lateralism and many Global institutions unlike some of my friends. What I do not believe is, failing to act in are legitamite national security interest simply because a multi-lateral institution or other countries believe its illegal or that we should not act.
The No Fly Zones are to prevent Iraqi aircraft from flying in those area's and the pilots of course of authorization to shoot at anti-aircraft sites that fire at them. Realize the No Fly Zones cover more than half the country.
I don't believe there is any difference between a US Cruise missile strike against non-aircraft or anti-aircraft targets in the no fly zone and one around Baghdad. The 1996 strike was opposed by most countries, only 3 supported it. The 1996 is indeed a case where the USA took military action under Res. 678 against an Iraqi violation.
I would not give "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward to much analysis or credit. Many people take this as a literal translation of what goes on. I honestly think its more of a work of fiction like the first Woodward book 12 years ago. Many have said it makes characterizations that are simply not true or inaccurate. A bit like U2s first full length Biography the Unforgettable Fire. Powell has downplayed many of the divisions that are often reported in the press. Its funny how many people were shocked by Powells presentation, not because of the evidence he presented, but because of the course of action he was strongly advocating. All this media has him cast as a Dove when in reality he is probably a reluctant hawk.
But let me make my position clear. I'm not against a second resolution or a third resolution or whatever if it is politically beneficial which I often think it is. What I reject is the legal necessity for any more resolutions. I'm not a unilateralist, I strongly support multi-lateralism and many Global institutions unlike some of my friends. What I do not believe is, failing to act in are legitamite national security interest simply because a multi-lateral institution or other countries believe its illegal or that we should not act.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Sorry if this isn't really relevant to this thread, I just don't want to start yet *another* Iraq one.
Sting,
From what you posted there it seems that you're saying you support multi-lateralism, but only when it corresponds to what action the US would take if it acted unilaterally. In other words, you welcome the support of other countries, but only if they're going to support the action the US wants to take, not if they're going to suggest different action?
In my opinion, multi-lateral institutions such as the UN can only work if all members are willing to accept the decisions arrived at by the institution. Therefore, I don't think it's right for a member of such an institution to carry out its decisions ONLY when it approves of them.
Klaus
Refugee
FizzingWhizzbees:
Exactly!
Sadly enough, the US government thinks also that "multi-lateralism" works this way.
And they don't understand that they really damage international relations, cause a lot of anger, sometimes even hate - and we know what people "powered by hate" can do :-(
Klaus
Exactly!
Sadly enough, the US government thinks also that "multi-lateralism" works this way.
And they don't understand that they really damage international relations, cause a lot of anger, sometimes even hate - and we know what people "powered by hate" can do :-(
Klaus
FizzingWhizzbees and Klaus,
Well, I guess you were opposed to the US/NATO operation in Kosovo, not approved by the United Nations in any way? If NATO as an organization had been opposed to doing anything, I suppose you would have been opposed to the USA intervening in Kosovo by itself? Better to let thousands of people die for the sake of multi-lateralism right? Just some questions.
"From what you posted there it seems that you're saying you support multi-lateralism, but only when it corresponds to what action the US would take if it acted unilaterally. In other words, you welcome the support of other countries, but only if they're going to support the action the US wants to take, not if they're going to suggest different action?"
When were talking about the lives of innocent people and the national security and international security of the planet, the answer to that question is yes. The USA will never stick to a course set by other countries that will eventually lead to the deaths of millions of people, for the sake of multi-lateralism. In your local community, citizens sometimes have to take the law into their own hands if the institutions around them fail to fullfill their responsibilities. The UN has failed in its responsibility to insure that Saddam is disarmed. If the UN collectively will not do what is necessary to disarm Iraq, then the USA and other countries will perform that necessary operation. The USA is not going to sit by and let a terrible threat materialize. If Europe wants to sit on the fence as they have done so many times in the past, fine. The USA will do something about it. No member state gives away the right to defend other countries, people, or themselves when they join the UN.
When talking about economics, trade, and the environment, I think the USA can afford to be more multi-lateral and it has often been in the past. There are many in the USA who want to pull the USA out of every multi-lateral insitution. I disagree with that approach and believe on building a strong concensus and approach with our allies. But the USA will never go along with a course of action or inaction that is a grave threat to its national security and international security.
Well, I guess you were opposed to the US/NATO operation in Kosovo, not approved by the United Nations in any way? If NATO as an organization had been opposed to doing anything, I suppose you would have been opposed to the USA intervening in Kosovo by itself? Better to let thousands of people die for the sake of multi-lateralism right? Just some questions.
"From what you posted there it seems that you're saying you support multi-lateralism, but only when it corresponds to what action the US would take if it acted unilaterally. In other words, you welcome the support of other countries, but only if they're going to support the action the US wants to take, not if they're going to suggest different action?"
When were talking about the lives of innocent people and the national security and international security of the planet, the answer to that question is yes. The USA will never stick to a course set by other countries that will eventually lead to the deaths of millions of people, for the sake of multi-lateralism. In your local community, citizens sometimes have to take the law into their own hands if the institutions around them fail to fullfill their responsibilities. The UN has failed in its responsibility to insure that Saddam is disarmed. If the UN collectively will not do what is necessary to disarm Iraq, then the USA and other countries will perform that necessary operation. The USA is not going to sit by and let a terrible threat materialize. If Europe wants to sit on the fence as they have done so many times in the past, fine. The USA will do something about it. No member state gives away the right to defend other countries, people, or themselves when they join the UN.
When talking about economics, trade, and the environment, I think the USA can afford to be more multi-lateral and it has often been in the past. There are many in the USA who want to pull the USA out of every multi-lateral insitution. I disagree with that approach and believe on building a strong concensus and approach with our allies. But the USA will never go along with a course of action or inaction that is a grave threat to its national security and international security.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Klaus said:
I agree with you there. I think it's especially scary to see the sort of anger and frustration that is building up in countries in the Middle East at the prospect of a war on Iraq. For instance, comments made by the President of Egypt last year when he expressed fears that moderate leaders of countries with a majority Muslim population would be unable to control the sort of outpouring of anger that would occur if Iraq does come under attack.
I also think it's sad to see the deterioration in relations between the United States and European countries such as France and Germany. (And to a lesser extent the damage done to the relationship between the UK and the rest of Europe.) Especially where this has led to crazy ideas like a boycott of French produce, and a lot of very hateful comments about French and German people
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
But, other countries are arguing that disarmament is possible by peaceful means. What gives the US the right to declare them wrong and start a war without the approval of any other country? Even Hans Blix has stated that he wants more time to investigate Iraq, it's not as though country's opposing military action have no evidence for this view.
Well firstly I'd question whether Iraq really does pose a "terrible threat" to the security of the United States, but obviously that's not something that either of us can prove conclusively either way.
However, I still can't agree with your definition of multi-lateralism. What you're arguing is that the US will work with other countries where they agree but that if those countries don't support the US then it can just ignore them. I just can't agree with the idea that the US calls on other countries to support it on the basis that "if you disagree with us then we'll just ignore you" - what possible incentive for co-operation among countries is that? I know the US is by far the most powerful country in the world, but I don't believe that makes it okay for it to make unilateral decisions.
Many people have argued that the UN will make itself irrelevant if it doesn't ensure the disarmament of Iraq, but I'd argue that the US will make the UN less relevant if it ignores the will of the UN and attacks Iraq anyway. The UN can only work when its wishes are respected by all its members.
And you state that countries don't give away the right to defend themselves when they join the UN. That's true. However, an attack on Iraq isn't a defensive action - even President Bush has acknowledged that it's a pre-emptive strike.
Besides - the US has asked for UN support. It's made it clear it wants a UN resolution on the subject, but it's also made it clear that if no such resolution is passed then it'll attack anyway. What then is the point in the UN debating this issue? The US has clearly already made up its mind to attack Iraq and it could be argued that it's simply going through the UN to try to get a little extra support to ease the political problems such a war could create. That's not what the UN was designed to do.
I agree with you there
I don't think it's in any country's interests to try to hide away from the rest of the world and refuse to co-operate. Particularly on issues like the environment as you mentioned - no one country can solve that problem alone, it can only be solved by co-operation among all countries so I'm glad to hear you say you support the US engaging in such co-operation We heard a lot of the same concerns during the first Gulf War that there would be angry riots all over the middle east and governments left and right would be overthrown, civil war through out the middle east, and eventually World War III. But that did not happen, not even close.
I think the relationship between Europe and the USA will be back on track in a few months. Many countries in Europe support the USA and resent countries like the French and Chirac that tell them to "shut up" if they want to be apart of the European Union. Much of Eastern Europe supports the USA position on Iraq and resents the French and the Germans trying to tell them what to do.
"Especially where this has led to crazy ideas like a boycott of French produce, and a lot of very hateful comments about French and German people"
Why is it that when people march and protest in the streets against the USA, burn American flags, boycott American products, they are cheered and applauded, but if Americans simply decide to stop buying French products, they are considered crazy? Believe it or not, just as people have the right to protest in the streets and boycott American goods, people also have the right to not purchase French products or legally protest the French in some other way, and their no more crazy than anyone that engages in protest against the USA in some way. I don't think either group is crazy as long as they stay within the law with their form of protest.
I think the relationship between Europe and the USA will be back on track in a few months. Many countries in Europe support the USA and resent countries like the French and Chirac that tell them to "shut up" if they want to be apart of the European Union. Much of Eastern Europe supports the USA position on Iraq and resents the French and the Germans trying to tell them what to do.
"Especially where this has led to crazy ideas like a boycott of French produce, and a lot of very hateful comments about French and German people"
Why is it that when people march and protest in the streets against the USA, burn American flags, boycott American products, they are cheered and applauded, but if Americans simply decide to stop buying French products, they are considered crazy? Believe it or not, just as people have the right to protest in the streets and boycott American goods, people also have the right to not purchase French products or legally protest the French in some other way, and their no more crazy than anyone that engages in protest against the USA in some way. I don't think either group is crazy as long as they stay within the law with their form of protest.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
STING2 said:
I've actually never encountered a person burning a US flag on a demonstration and I've been on numerous peace demonstrations in my life. I've also been active in the peace movement for a good while and I've only ever heard one person argue for a boycott of US goods and he was laughed out of the room for such a suggestion!
I don't applaud burning US flags or boycotting US products. I personally think flag burning is a ridiculous form of protest for two reasons: firstly it says absolutely nothing about what you're protesting about and secondly it's easily mistaken for a protest against an entire country as opposed to simply a protest against one action a country has taken.
As for boycotting products, I don't support that because I believe it hurts the people of a country who aren't responsible for the actions which protestors wish to express an opinion on. Although, my only exception to this is that I personally won't buy any goods made in areas which Israel illegally occupies, because I believe that there's a real chance that the production of those products has caused harm to the Palestinian people living in that area. However, that's absolutely NOT the same as saying I boycott all Israeli goods - I don't agree with that boycott either.
Really though, saying that I think it's "crazy" to boycott French products referred to the fact that I don't think there's any justification for such an action. France disagrees with the US - it hasn't done anything to hurt it! It refused to support an attack on Iraq, it didn't commit any crime! And quite honestly, if the US plans to start boycotting the produce of any country which ever opposes it in the UN then it wouldn't have very many trading partners left!
Fizzing,
What about Kosovo? Kosovo was a military operation without UN approval. Did you oppose that operation? It was under the umbrella of NATO, but if the USA had acted without NATO, would you have opposed the operation?
The problem here is the interpretation of the threat from Iraq and the conclusions about the course of action about what to do about that threat. Many in Europe conclude that Iraq is not the threat that the USA claims it is. This influences the course of action many in Europe and the world want to take. The USA feels that Iraq is a grave threat and that after 12 years, there is only one solution that is going to prevent this grave threat from materializing. One cannot expect the USA to adopt a course of action like the one the French and Germans have when the USA strongly believes that Iraq is a grave threat that will only get worse if more time passes.
I do consider it an act of self defense under UN Security Council Res. 678 which authorizes member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with its obligations. Others have different interpretations of this resolution, but the US government feels from a legal standpoint that it has the right to take military action whenever Iraq is in material breach of its obligations, as provided by UN res. 678. The USA has used Res. 678 to justify past military action. Enforcing the the 17 UN resolutions that were passed partly as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 can only be seen as defensive. Disarming Iraq is not an offensive move, it is a defensive move and it is required by the United Nations.
In any event, despite feeling it has the legal right to act militararily without any more resolutions, the USA has sought a further resolution in 1441 and will now seek a second resolution towards the middle of March. The USA is bending over backwards to talk with other countries and make its case. In reality, the USA could have convinced Kuwait a year ago that invasion was necessary and deployed troops to Kuwait and taken over Iraq by last summer without involvement from any other country. That would definitely have been a near unilateral move. The USA has not gone that route and is working within the United Nations. I honestly believe, come voting time, the USA will get all the votes it needs. I predict 12 yes votes for invasion with three countries abstaining. In 3 weeks, Bush will have the United Nations supporting an invasion of Iraq.
What about Kosovo? Kosovo was a military operation without UN approval. Did you oppose that operation? It was under the umbrella of NATO, but if the USA had acted without NATO, would you have opposed the operation?
The problem here is the interpretation of the threat from Iraq and the conclusions about the course of action about what to do about that threat. Many in Europe conclude that Iraq is not the threat that the USA claims it is. This influences the course of action many in Europe and the world want to take. The USA feels that Iraq is a grave threat and that after 12 years, there is only one solution that is going to prevent this grave threat from materializing. One cannot expect the USA to adopt a course of action like the one the French and Germans have when the USA strongly believes that Iraq is a grave threat that will only get worse if more time passes.
I do consider it an act of self defense under UN Security Council Res. 678 which authorizes member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with its obligations. Others have different interpretations of this resolution, but the US government feels from a legal standpoint that it has the right to take military action whenever Iraq is in material breach of its obligations, as provided by UN res. 678. The USA has used Res. 678 to justify past military action. Enforcing the the 17 UN resolutions that were passed partly as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 can only be seen as defensive. Disarming Iraq is not an offensive move, it is a defensive move and it is required by the United Nations.
In any event, despite feeling it has the legal right to act militararily without any more resolutions, the USA has sought a further resolution in 1441 and will now seek a second resolution towards the middle of March. The USA is bending over backwards to talk with other countries and make its case. In reality, the USA could have convinced Kuwait a year ago that invasion was necessary and deployed troops to Kuwait and taken over Iraq by last summer without involvement from any other country. That would definitely have been a near unilateral move. The USA has not gone that route and is working within the United Nations. I honestly believe, come voting time, the USA will get all the votes it needs. I predict 12 yes votes for invasion with three countries abstaining. In 3 weeks, Bush will have the United Nations supporting an invasion of Iraq.
Fizzing,
I understand what your saying. I've not boycotted any products from any country before, but its perfectly legal for private US citizens to do so, and I don't think there is anything wrong with buying Italian or Spanish Wine now rather than French Wine. I don't support US Government boycott on anything French. Were talking about the actions of private US citizens. I don't think its crazy for consumers to make political statements by buying different products. Its a form of protest.
I really do not buy anything French, at least I don't think so, but I thought about if the question were about Ireland and whether to drink Guinness or not. I could understand someone not drinking Guinness as their form of protest, but I would probably continue to drink Guinness because I love it and because one does not really know the political views of Guinness vs. the Irish Government. Bottom line, if someone wants to make a symbolic protest in that way, I think its fine. I probably would not give up something I love though simply because its made in a country who's government I disagree with. But I could always change my mind.
I understand what your saying. I've not boycotted any products from any country before, but its perfectly legal for private US citizens to do so, and I don't think there is anything wrong with buying Italian or Spanish Wine now rather than French Wine. I don't support US Government boycott on anything French. Were talking about the actions of private US citizens. I don't think its crazy for consumers to make political statements by buying different products. Its a form of protest.
I really do not buy anything French, at least I don't think so, but I thought about if the question were about Ireland and whether to drink Guinness or not. I could understand someone not drinking Guinness as their form of protest, but I would probably continue to drink Guinness because I love it and because one does not really know the political views of Guinness vs. the Irish Government. Bottom line, if someone wants to make a symbolic protest in that way, I think its fine. I probably would not give up something I love though simply because its made in a country who's government I disagree with. But I could always change my mind.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Excellent point. It is one I have been trying to make. 1441 states in paragraph 12 that the Security Council has will convene to decide what to do when the INSPECTORS inform them that Iraq has blown its second chance.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Former CIA Analyst and proponent of invading Iraq, Kenneth Pollack states:
Meanwhile, the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement commmunitites have not found any credible evidence of Iraqi involvement in terrorism against the United States....There is, however, a general suspicion that Iraq is working on a viriety of terrorist contingency plans in case Saddam finds it necessary to strike the United States-essentially if Saddam believes that the United States is about to topple his regime (157).
He also continues later in the chapter to say that "...Saddam is not likely to gove WMD to terrorists." The reasons are that the wrath of the international community would probably mean the end of his reign in Iraq(180).
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Excellent points. I will again quote from Pollack, who again believes we should invade. He writes an excellent case for invasion and details what the administration must do. Many things that he has detailed, the administration has not done.
He writes:
In taking action against Iraq, we should not set a precedent that would allow other nations to make a similar claim enabling them to take preemptive action against countries they might not like(371).
Pollack again details the burden that must be met on the part of the UNited States.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
It is because POLITICALLY it would be better to have the blessings of the UNited Nations. Some on the Security Council believe that the US has the Authority from a prior resolution passed by the council in 1990 reaffirmed in 1441. Others would argue that the cease fire is reaffirmed as well in 1441 and until the council decides what steps to take if Iraq violates the second chance.
All in all, the council, has been more concerned with getting votes for resolutions, so it has been passing vague resolutions. These resolutions can be interpreted a number of ways because of their vagueness. That is why 1441 passed. That is why the US feels it already has the authority. That is why the majority of the Council feels differently about it.
Last edited:
STING2 said:
This is finally something we agree on. The President has consistently, despite the critics, attempted to work through the UN to straighten this situation out. The UN and our allies in the Middle East have done absolutely NOTHING for twelve years to enforce UN RESOLUTIONS. It is a joke the amount of smuggling that is going on. It is a crock, that the Middel Eastern countries help him with smuggling and they benefit from the smuggling with him yet, will look to us to handle the mess when he acts up.
Attempts by the Bush administration to handle this situation from 2000-2002 have been rebuffed by the Middle Eastern nations refusal to stop smuggling illegally with Saddam. Our Good Friends Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have repeatedly refused to help. They are in an illegal relationship with Iraq that benefits THEM. They could give a damn about us, as Turkey is showing its true colors this week.
Syria has consistently promised to stop an illegal oil pipeline from Iraq into its country. They promised Clinton, they promised Bush and they have FAILED to honor their promises. THere are reports that the many of the illegal weapons Iraq has are in SYRIA.
Oh, and IRAN, also benefits. Not the country of course, but the leaders are directly involved in the smuggling efforts of Saddam and the money goes into their pockets to the tune of about $400 million a year.
Now here we are , working for resolution after resolution while the leader in Iraq has been violating resolution after resolution. THe French and Russians, who benefit from the food for oil program and are owed money from Iraq, do not want the regime changed. They would rather let the cat and mouse game continue. It is rediculous. It is offensive.
While I do not want to act without the UN on this issue, I am close to the point where I look at these countries, our ALLY's and I am sickened. I want to say Russia screw you grow your own grain. I want to say to Saudi Arabia, sorry next time, let Saddam take your country. I want to say to France and Germany, we are withdrawing our soldiers from your country Germany, and France, enjoy our new trade relationship. If they would rather benefit from their relationship with Iraq so be it. That is my opinion, but my opinion is backed by billions of dollars in evidence. You can think it is because of human rights or the horrors of war that these nations oppose WAR but that is NOT the whole picture.
We as a country have paid a price in our soldiers blood, sweat, and their lives for many of the countries I have listed above. Maybe if we were not putting it on the line, we would not have suffered the effects of 9/11. Maybe we should have just let Saddam do what he wanted. Ultimately, 9/11 is tied into the Iraqi situation, because, if we had not done what we did 12 years ago, Osama would not have turned his organization on us.
That is the truth like it or not.
This is a two way street. You want to do business with us, fine. Russia, France and Germany appear to me to be choosing a relationship with Saddam. That is their choice. I do hope BUSH does not invade without the UN, bacause I do believe the international community has the right to voice an opinion in this situation. l also hope the President has the courage to make changes to how we do business with the world if the inspectors say that Iraq is not complying and the Security Council again does nothing, as it has done for 12 YEARS!!!!
Peace
Last edited:
