if the us attacks without un support

[Gickies Gageeze]

what sort of example would this display?

does it essentially make the un useless?

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, I suppose that depends on how you look at it. The UN has had 12 years to make themselves relevant. If Saddam does not disarm, as Blix has ordered him to, then doesn't this take the US off the hook and put the UN on it?

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

or you could look at it as a matter of opinion.

the un appears to me, like its only good for the us as long as it plays by their rules.

meanwhile north korea continues to make more and more noise but noone cares.

 

[Dreadsox]

15-0 on Resolution 1441.

16 others........

How is this the US Rules?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Keep in mind I haven't read all this resolution caper etc, but shouldn't the UN be a little more pro active? Its looking bad for the US because they may do this without UN approval, but like you said Dreadsox, 12 years! Why is the onus on the US and why not on the UN???
It does make you wonder what the purpose of the UN really is McGickies McGee, indeed.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

what infuriates me more than anything else on earth, is your failure to call me gickies gageeze instead of mcgee.

i cant help the name i was given, just like you cant help it you were born angela harlem.

what an odd name if there ever was one.

its usa rules because im flaggerantly anti-us, remember? no, in all seriousness i need to go to bed.

goodnight, children.

 

[diamond]

i liked the red ships of scallia character whatever the best.
it gave everybody a great mental image.
gickies kinda sucks.
thank u-
db9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

what sort of example would this display?

does it essentially make the un useless?

It's interesting, isn't it?

You could say the UN should attack Iraq because it's ignored resolutions calling on it to disarm. Therefore you'd say that if it doesn't enforce disarmament then it's allowing its will to be ignored. Of course disarmament doesn't necessarily have to involve war though.

On the other hand, if the security council vote against military action and the US and UK go ahead and attack Iraq anyway, then who's ignoring the will of the UN?

 

[U2girl]

Well, Bush said US will lead a "coalition" even if the US/British resolution isn't passed, so I guess it's war either way you look at it.

I think it's Bush and Blair that are making UN irrelevant.

 

[Dreadsox]

U2 Girl that is indeed another way of looking at it. However, 12 Years, 17 Resolutions later we are in the same spot we were after the war Iraq Started.

Peace

 

[hiphop]

It doesn?t make the UN useless at all.

There?s a lot, lot more to the UN than the Sec Council.

Inform yourself at
http://www.un.org/english/
http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html
http://www.un.org/aroundworld/map/
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html

 

[Beefeater]

From what I am to understand, the 1991 conflict isn't even over, so any attack, would be a 'rebirth', or continuation of this one. However, it seems that the 12 years of defiance and noncompliance with resolution are not enough to warrant an attack?... But it is confusing that in addition to the past 12 years of defiance to resolution, to which noncompliance can be punished with military force, Saddam's recent defiance and noncompliance to 1441 STILL isn't enough for

A)The UN to realize that Saddam really doesn't care what they say or what they demand.. Hence, the UN is already useless.

B)Military action is the only way Saddam will listen, it is only after America begun to really threaten with force, and back it up by moving in troops that Saddam even attempted to try and comply with the resolution.


Thanks Dreadsox.. Back to topic...

I think the UN is only useless if they fail to enforce the rules and regulations that they put up there.... And so far.. they have been.

Beefeater

 

[Dreadsox]

Bush and Co. have just proposed a new resolution.. I have no reason to believe that it will not be passed, however, regardless of if it is passed or not.. The UN has already given the OK for Military intervention in past resolutions.

Beefeater

That permission was basically put on hold with resolution 687 (Cease-Fire). I do not want this to deteriorate into another debate on resolutions. If you would like to join in the debate over the resolutuions click below:

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72549

Or click the link below with the New York Bar Associations letter to the President below.

 

[Scarletwine]

Dreadsox,

Thanks for the links in your sig. Very interesting.

 

[Screaming Flower]

Or click the link below with the New York Bar Associations letter to the President below.

thanks for the link. interesting letter.

 

[STING2]

The resolutions come down to one's interpretation of them. There are many on both sides of the debate, but from my own analysis, I agree that Res. 678 reaffirmed in Res. 687 and Res. 1441, gives members states including the USA all the authorization they need to take military action. Four different US Presidential administration have sited Res. 678 as a legal bases for military action they have taken or could take against Iraq. The Current US Presidential Administration defines "Serious Consequences" in the current 1441 resolution to mean military action to enforce the resolutions. There is nothing in 1441 that says there needs to be a second resolution. The USA and England are seeking a second resolution for political reasons.

At the end of the day its really one's interpretation of the law which always vary's widely in the USA itself and certainly will vary among the 191 nations of the UN. I've looked at it and agree with Bush, Clinton 1 and 2 , Bush administrations interpretations.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sting,

You are 100% correct...."SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" is not defined. Can you show me anywhere in the resolution 1441 where the Security Council gives the authority to anyone else to determine what "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES"is?

Since when is it up to the individual nations to take that power into their own hands to interpret the will of the Security Council?

Paragraph 12 of the resolution clearly states that the Council is to convene "immediately...to consider the situation" when they have been notified by UNMMOVIC or the IAEA that Iraq is no longer working towards compliance.

NOwhere can you show in the resolution where the council gives this power to the UNITED STATES to determine the consequences. For the UNITED STATES to do this without another resolution is a violation of the UN CHARTER.

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.

 

[Scarletwine]

Sting,

NOwhere can you show in the resolution where the council gives this power to the UNITED STATES to determine the consequences. For the UNITED STATES to do this without another resolution is a violation of the UN CHARTER.

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.

That was eloquently put and my main reason for not supporting the administration. We then become a rogue nation in the eyes of the world.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

There is nothing in 1441 that states that member states do NOT have the right to use military action. If it does, can you show me where? What do you think "Serious Consequences" mean, if not military action? Please be specific. 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.

Do you consider KOSOVO a violation of the UN Charter?

"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."

Do you believe KOSOVO, military action without Security Council approval, was politically dangerous? Did KOSOVO set a precident for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council?

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox,

There is nothing in 1441 that states that member states do NOT have the right to use military action. If it does, can you show me where? What do you think "Serious Consequences" mean, if not military action? Please be specific. 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.

Do you consider KOSOVO a violation of the UN Charter?

"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."

Do you believe KOSOVO, military action without Security Council approval, was politically dangerous? Did KOSOVO set a precident for other nations to do the same and choose to ignore the Security Council?

STING, I am not ruining this thread with this debate. Go back to the thread we started.

Peace

 

[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.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

feel free to ruin this thread, ive ruined many myself.

 

[Beefeater]

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

 

[Dreadsox]

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]

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

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

dreadsox, uh, you have good sentance structure.

 

[megadrum2002]

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