US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce! - Page 7 - 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 01-31-2008, 11:23 PM   #121
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:05 PM
i returned to it several times, but here is my original post on 1441 (from 2005!):

[q]In regards 1441, I’d like to point out that you ignored the assurances by Negroponte and Greenstock assured everyone that it was not a green light for an invasion. You say it was; they say it wasn’t. Why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 is as clear an authorization for war as you make it out to be? Finally, and this is an important point: it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. What 1441 says and doesn’t say isn’t for the United States to decide.

Another point: resolution 678 contains the phrase “all necessary means." 1441 does not.

Clearly, you are in the wrong here. Anyway …

Resolution 1441 offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarmam and to provide a complete disclosure of weapons as required by Resolution 687, and “serious consequences” were threatened. Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Let’s note that Iraq agreed to 1441 on November 13 and Blix and ElBaradei returned to Iraq later that month, and in December Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. Each successive Blix report – in january, february, and march – noted a greater level of Iraqi compliance. No, not nearly enough, but enough to convince many nations that the disarmament of Iraq was achieveable without a direct, unilateral invasion by the United States.

I also can’t believe you would just gloss over the furious debate over 1441 and whether or not it authorizes military action – simply because you believe it to be an authorization does not make it an open-and-shut case. You’d do well to acknowledge that, yes, other viewpoints are equally valid, or at least acknowledge that other viewpoints exist. What I think irritates myself, and most other people, about your posts is the presentation of a stark, black-and-white reality as total fact, whereas anyone with a brain and a television and newspapers knows just how contentious all of this was, and to dismiss the opinion of the rest of the world and close to half of the American population isn’t just arrogant, it’s foolish.

I would also note that the impetus to avoid war comes from nations, unlike the United States, who have seen the effects and aftermath of war in the 20th century on their own soil. Many do not believe that war is an effective geopolitical tool, and that war should not only be the absolute last option, but that it is always the worst option.

I agree that, at some point in time, a war might have been inevitable, or at least some sort of military conflict with Hussein. But to assert that it had to happen then, in March of 2003, is firstly incorrect, and it also guaranteed that worldwide popular opinion against the US would be at a maximum making it impossible for politicians to support the US lest they face the electoral consequences at home. The result, you see, is that US troops have proved to be inadquate to successfullly occupy the country, something that might have been achieveable with the broad international support similar to the coalition formed in 1991. don’t you see that, even if the legal case is correct, that popular support is just as crucial for the successful implementation of the mission. If you believe so mightily in the removal of Saddam for the myriad reasons you’ve laid out, why not take the time to actually build a coalition so that you can be successful?

The reason, I think, was that Rumsfeld, especially, wanted and needed a unilateral invasion to demonstrate the capabilities of the US forces, the whole “shock and awe” scenario. While the US was certainly capable of overthrowing the vastly weakened Iraqi army without much of a problem, maintaining security on the ground in the face of an insurgency that might have as many as 200,000 supporters has proven to be much, much more difficult than anyone in the White House imagined.

Might French troops, German troops, or the troops from any other Arab nation have been helpful? Might we be toasting the success of the invasion today – instead of having it turn, politically, into another Vietnam as a strong majority of the American public thinks the war wasn’t worth it – had the Bush administration showed patience not with Saddam, but with getting the rest of the world on board?

What your posts demonstrate, to me, is precisely the arrogant, of-course-I’m-right attitude of the Bush administration that doesn’t do much when it comes to assembling broad support – and please contrast this with Bush 1 and Jim Baker. It’s no secret that Bush is famously incurious, famously isolated, and famously uninterested in the opinions of anyone other than his group of yes-men. I think an argument can be made to support an invasion of Iraq *if done correctly*, but I think it’s also true that this president, in particular, was uniquely unsuited for the task at hand.
[/q]



another great point was brought up by Dread. he linked to this article from the right wing National Review:

[q]Resolution 1483 wisely limits the U.N.'s role to one of consultation and coordination, given its manifest failures at nation building in Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor.

Resolution 1483 puts the Security Council in the curious position of legitimizing the postwar Anglo-American military occupation of Iraq without ever having addressed how U.S. and British forces got there in the first place. This is not, however, unfamiliar territory for the council. In the run-up to NATO's intervention in Kosovo, the chief proponents of intervention — once again, the Americans and the British — decided not to seek Security Council authorization in the face of a certain Russian (and possible Chinese) veto, even though the council had repeatedly determined that the situation in Kosovo was a "threat to international peace and security" — the legal predicate for mandatory sanctions and military action under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. After Serb forces were driven from Kosovo by a U.S.-led air campaign, Resolution 1244 retroactively ratified the settlement terms that NATO imposed on the defeated Serbs without the council ever voting on the legality or legitimacy of the military action that brought about the settlement. Then, as now, the Security Council chose to overlook the elephant in the room.

Connoisseurs of Security Council precedent will note that the council has now bestowed retroactive legitimacy on military intervention against a member state in precisely the same number of instances (twice) that it has granted prior authorization for armed intervention in interstate conflicts (Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990-1). So much for the council's claimed monopoly on prior approval of all arguably nondefensive uses of military force.

Resolution 1483 also marks the demise of the so-called Axis of Weasels, that unnatural ménage a trios pulled apart by the centripetal forces of divergent national interests among the French, Germans, and Russians. This bouleversement — a reversal of fortune in the diplomatic parlance of Old Europe — has left Paris increasingly isolated as Berlin and Moscow set about conciliating Washington. Hence the uncharacteristically emollient tone struck Thursday by France's egregious foreign minister, M. de Villepin. "Even if this text does not go as far as we would like," he said, "we have decided to vote for this resolution. This is because we have chosen the path of unity of the international community." One hopes this path of unity is reachable only by way of a steep learning curve demonstrating the consequences of gratuitously obstructing vital U.S. national interests.

This is a teachable moment for the U.N. as well. Where vital U.S. national interests are at stake, the U.N.'s remaining relevance and authority depend entirely on that body's willingness to assist or at least acquiesce in U.S. efforts to maintain minimum world public order. This remains to be seen.[/q]
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 11:39 PM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Talking to a friend of mine who thinks McCain would likely choose Condi Rice as his VP presuming he takes the Republican nomination.

Granted, it really puts Iraq in the spotlight, but at the same time--they trump Hillary and Obama in one fell swoop on both race and gender!

What do you think?
__________________

maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 11:46 PM   #123
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Talking to a friend of mine who thinks McCain would likely choose Condi Rice as his VP presuming he takes the Republican nomination.

Granted, it really puts Iraq in the spotlight, but at the same time--they trump Hillary and Obama in one fell swoop on both race and gender!

What do you think?


for all her intellectual gifts and very subtle but clear success in bringing reality and practicality to Bush's second term, i think it's quite obvious that she's not a politician. she has no charisma to speak of, at least none that i can detect.

part of being president is charisma. it's not about being the smartest person in the room or about being the most informed person in the room or having the most experience of anyone else in the room. all those things are important, but what is most important is having the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. *that* is leadership, *that* is what makes a great president, which is why i'm not worried about Obama's relative lack of experience. he's got the temperment, the judgement, and the intelligence to understand issues and make good decisions. and he has the god-given gift of getting people to listen, and to feel the issues as he feels them, and that then translates into getting other people to do what you want. it's why brilliant scientists aren't necessarily great doctors. there is a personality quotient that's necessary to be a leader, and that's what he's got.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:11 AM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




for all her intellectual gifts and very subtle but clear success in bringing reality and practicality to Bush's second term, i think it's quite obvious that she's not a politician. she has no charisma to speak of, at least none that i can detect.

part of being president is charisma. it's not about being the smartest person in the room or about being the most informed person in the room or having the most experience of anyone else in the room. all those things are important, but what is most important is having the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. *that* is leadership, *that* is what makes a great president, which is why i'm not worried about Obama's relative lack of experience. he's got the temperment, the judgement, and the intelligence to understand issues and make good decisions. and he has the god-given gift of getting people to listen, and to feel the issues as he feels them, and that then translates into getting other people to do what you want. it's why brilliant scientists aren't necessarily great doctors. there is a personality quotient that's necessary to be a leader, and that's what he's got.
Excellent point. Do you think the charisma factor is as important for the Veep though?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 04:45 AM   #125
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Hmm. Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush Sr... not exactly the most charismatic of men.
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 07:45 AM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 03:05 PM

Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary over McCain and that Hillary is more conservative-she's all a twitter over McCain being against torture

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 07:52 AM   #127
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:05 PM
The Republican Party's gonna explode.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:00 AM   #128
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Wow, that's funny stuff... although I take everything she says with a grain of salt, still entertaining.

What is Sean talking about at the beginning when he said "limits on free speech"?
BVS is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:07 AM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Maybe it's freedom to make racist and other ist comments, I don't know
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 09:08 AM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Excellent point. Do you think the charisma factor is as important for the Veep though?


not as important, but it is there. Cheney and Gore were both elected politicians -- so they had enough of it to make it to Congress. Rice strikes me as an academic.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 09:37 AM   #131
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary over McCain and that Hillary is more conservative-she's all a twitter over McCain being against torture

I'll pay for it karmically, but I'd give McCain a dollar to torture her so she'd shut the fuck up.
martha is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 10:57 AM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I'll pay for it karmically, but I'd give McCain a dollar to torture her so she'd shut the fuck up.


waterboarding Ann Coulter ...

now that's some torture porn i could get into.

but we must remember, as Mukasey said in front of Congress the other day, waterboarding is indeed torture, unless you're a terrorist. and then it's fine.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 11:13 AM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,258
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary over McCain and that Hillary is more conservative-she's all a twitter over McCain being against torture

I'm really starting to get frustrated with this. I was never a big fan of Coulter, but her and Hannity and Limbaugh (2 people I usually like) are going to blow the election for us. McCain isn't my favorite guy in the world either, but he's the only Republican that has a shot of winning, and he's more conservative than Hillary on every major issue. It pisses me off when I hear them say "go vote for Hillary" or "dont vote for McCain." If McCain's the nominee, and he loses, I'm going to blame Limbaugh and Hannity. I'll never forgive them, and they're going to lose a viewer/listener.
2861U2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 11:20 AM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


I'm really starting to get frustrated with this. I was never a big fan of Coulter, but her and Hannity and Limbaugh (2 people I usually like) are going to blow the election for us. McCain isn't my favorite guy in the world either, but he's the only Republican that has a shot of winning, and he's more conservative than Hillary on every major issue. It pisses me off when I hear them say "go vote for Hillary" or "dont vote for McCain." If McCain's the nominee, and he loses, I'm going to blame Limbaugh and Hannity. I'll never forgive them, and they're going to lose a viewer/listener.
I have to admit I feel your pain here. I've heard people in the past say "I could never vote for _________," when that was the party's nominee and not voting for that person will send the election into the opposition's hands. It's the same when people say they're voting for Nader. Then just vote for the other party's candidate then.
martha is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 11:54 AM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

If McCain's the nominee, and he loses, I'm going to blame Limbaugh and Hannity. I'll never forgive them, and they're going to lose a viewer/listener.
Why?

It is the stupid ignoramus people who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and take their words as gospel who will cost you the election. Perhaps if they had several more brain cells to rub together they wouldn't be simpleton drones who just follow whatever the blowhard on the radio tells them.
anitram is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:06 PM   #136
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Why?

It is the stupid ignoramus people who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and take their words as gospel who will cost you the election. Perhaps if they had several more brain cells to rub together they wouldn't be simpleton drones who just follow whatever the blowhard on the radio tells them.


it's true.

they've been trying to convince people for years that it's conservative to try to rewrite the laws to create unaccountable executives, or that it's conservative to spy on people, or to give the president the power to detain anyone he sees fit, or to torture people.

these are not conservative things, yet they are the core beliefs of this group of self-described conservatives are really just very wealthy individuals who are only out to maximize the power (and thereby wealth) of their own particular clique of connections.

those in the middle of the country who vote on things like abortion or judges have been had.

nice to see McCain's likely nomination waking some people up to this.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 12:56 PM   #137
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 03:05 PM
abcnews.com

Democratic Debate: Fact Check

Clinton Overestimates Health-Care Reach; Obama Exaggerates His Voter Support
By JAKE TAPPER

Feb. 1, 2008 —

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were gracious during Thursday night's debate, but the facts they ran up against were stubborn.

Clinton for years has attempted to rewrite history about her Iraq War vote. Thursday night was no different. She said of her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq that she "warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war."

A review of her speech on the Senate floor, however, shows that she said that her vote was not one in favor of a broad change in U.S. policy.

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose," she said, "all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Moreover, regardless of whatever she warned, the legislation was called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. And the other comments she made in her floor speech indicated she knew full well what her vote meant. "It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president," she said then. "And we say to him, 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"

The Clinton campaign maintains that there is nothing inconsistent with the senator's statement, or her vote, and that she had been given assurances by the White House that the vote was merely one to give the president the proper tools to force Saddam Hussein to let in U.N. weapons inspectors.

Thursday night Clinton also claimed that there are "20,000 National Guard and Reserve members in California who have access to health care because I teamed up with Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to get that done."

That's a misleading figure, one Clinton often overstates, applying it to every National Guardsman and not just those who benefit from her law. As Factcheck.org has pointed out, all National Guardsmen and women, and reservists have health insurance while on duty and for a short time afterward. According to a Pentagon survey, four out of five of the soldiers have health insurance when they're off duty as well, because of their job or spouse. Clinton's legislation gives these soldiers the opportunity to purchase health insurance called TriCare when not on active duty.

In practice that legislation benefits the remaining 20 percent because 80 percent already have health insurance. A more accurate number would not be to cite every one of the 20,000 members of the California National Guard and Reserves, but the 20 percent who actually benefit from the program, more like 4,000.

Clinton's campaign underlines that she literally claimed that her legislation gave the 20,000 National Guard and Reserve members "access to health care"  not health insurance  and that since the law could in theory apply to any of them, what she said was factual.

Overstating Support

Obama inflated figures as well. Speaking of how both he and Clinton were bringing new voters into the process, he said, "In Iowa, about 60 percent of those new voters voted for me."

That's inaccurate. About 60 percent of those voting in Iowa were first-time caucus goers and around 40 percent of them voted for Obama.

On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama also said Thursday night that he believes "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

That seems to contradict his previous position. Asked in a 2004 questionnaire, "Should the government crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants as major part of overhaul?" Obama answered "Oppose."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton explained that his boss' position has evolved because of the advent of "tamper-proof electronic employment verification systems" that would make cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants a more realistic option.

"Those employers have never been given the necessary tools to distinguish which workers are legally here and which are not," Burton said, explaining that Obama has tried to take the lead on the new technology during congressional debates over illegal immigration.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 01:17 PM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Happy Valentines Day


MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 01:22 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 07:05 PM


Any guess as to what Obama whispered in her ear?
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 01:29 PM   #140
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


[q]In regards 1441, I’d like to point out that you ignored the assurances by Negroponte and Greenstock assured everyone that it was not a green light for an invasion. You say it was; they say it wasn’t. Why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 is as clear an authorization for war as you make it out to be? Finally, and this is an important point: it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. What 1441 says and doesn’t say isn’t for the United States to decide.

Another point: resolution 678 contains the phrase “all necessary means." 1441 does not.

Clearly, you are in the wrong here. Anyway …

[/q]
Lets make a few things clear first. The United States and other member states of the United Nations already had legal authorization from the United Nations Security Council to use military force to enforce any resoluctions passed against Iraq under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

That authorization came from Resolution 678 passed in the fall of 1990. Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 states the following:

"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international peace and security to the area"

The term all subsequent relevant resolutions applies to EVERY single UN Security Council resolution passed under Chapter VII rules against Iraq since that time! Resolution 678 was always sited by the Clinton administration prior or after any of its major military actions against Iraq during the 1990s or whenever the issue of the legality of the use of military force against Iraq came up after 1991.

It is absolutely clear, that when it came to the legality of the use of any military force against Iraq to enforce compliance, the member states of the United Nations already had prior authorization from the UN Security Council to do so.

On the suggestion of Colin Powell, the United States went back to the United Nations to get a new resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq for POLITICAL reasons only, not because the United States or any other member state no longer had the legal right granted by the Security Council to us military force to enforce the resolutions.

Negroponte and Greenstock said there was nothing automatic about resolution 1441 in the sense that if Iraq did not satisfy UN demands upon the arrival of inspectors, they would be pulled out immediately and B-2 Bombers and Cruise Missiles would be on the way within 30 minutes of their depature. It was a promise to discuss the issue after Iraq issued its report(which was EXACTLY the same totally unsatisfactory one they issued in 1998) and that happened.

Negroponte and Greenstock NEVER assured anyone that there would be another resolution prior to a military invasion, and they NEVER assured anyone that Iraq's violations of 1441 would not eventually lead to a military invasion. There is no mention of a need for a further resolution in the body of 1441 and it reafirms the prior resolutions like 678 which already made military enforcement of the resolutions legal and was sited by the Clinton administration when people questioned military action in the 1990s.

Tony Blair pushed for a new resolution for political reasons, not because he felt invasion without another resolution would be illegal.

The Security Council authorized the use of military force to enforce all UN Security Council resolutions passed against Iraq under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations in both resolution 678 and resolution 1441.

In the fall of 1990, when the United States was attempting to get resolution 678 passed, the original version contained the actual words, "military force", but the Soviet Union said they would VETO any resolution that had those words in it, so the phrase "use of all necessary means" was put in place and was a more ambiguous term than "military force" which would make it easier for the Soviet Union and other countries to distances themselves from any military action if they chose to do so later on.

"Serious Consequences" in resolution 1441 is far less ambiguous than the "Use of All Necessary Means" in 678 do to the situation at the time and all the prior resolutions that had already been passed against Iraq as a consequence of its actions. Essentially every non-military resolution or sanction that could be passed against Iraq, had been passed. In addition, there was already a legal basis for any and all military action, and Iraq was already being bombed every year, sometimes heavily in between 1991 and 2003. The only consequence that Iraq could suffer that was more serious than what it was already going through in terms of international relations was a full scale military invasion!


Resolution 1483 authorized the occupation which was brought about by the invasion of Iraq which was authorized by resolution 1441. Every year since the summer of 2003, the United Nations has authorized the occupation of Iraq. If the United Nations thought the invasion of Iraq was illegal, the first thing it would do would be to call for the immediate withdrawal of foreign forces and the immediate cecessation of hostilities. I don't recall the United Nations doing that on March 19, 2003 as the invasion was getting under way. There was not even an attempt at a resolution calling for a cecessation of hostilities on the first day of the war. Yes, the United States and others would not vote for such a resolution and the US would definitely veto it, but that has not stopped the United Nations from attempting to pass dozens of resolutions against Israel for the past several decades.

The fact that the United Nations Security Council has authorized the occupation(every year now) and never attempted to call for a cecessation of hostilities on the first day of the war or any sort of withdrawal, or even a resolution of protest or condemnation is the final nail in the coffin on the idea that the war was illegal and without UN approval.
__________________

Strongbow 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 02:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×