What do you think? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Is the "COALITION" a United Nations force?
Yes 2 6.90%
No 27 93.10%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-18-2003, 11:05 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
What do you think?

Is the "Coalition" that is currently occupying Iraq a UN Force? State your opinions here and answer the poll.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 09:07 AM   #2
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:12 AM
No one's answered so far in response. I'm curious as to others reasons for their votes so far. I voted no. It was America's initiative with help from a couple of others. The UN didn't have a very proactive role in this.
__________________

__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 10:24 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:12 AM
No - the US has not acquiesced its sovereignty to the UN.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 03:50 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
NO it is not a United Nations Operation. It has and will continue to be my opinion that the United States actions were not authorized by the UN Resolution 1441. I have read enough legal opinions on it to have made my decision on this topic and shared them in this forum.

If this were a UN Operation, there would be UN sponsored inspections going on right now.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 04:14 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 06:12 AM
No
adamswildhoney is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 04:17 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Yes! The Current operation launched in Iraq is authorized by multiple UN resolutions such as Resolution 678, 687, and 1441. I have read plenty of legal opinions on it and based on everything I have seen and in light of previous US military action launched against Iraq from 1991-2003, it is obvious that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a UN operation no matter what Paris decides to scream about.

Dreadsox,

"If this were a UN Operation, there would be UN sponsored inspections going on right now."

This is already happening. The United States military, British Military, and Australian military are very busy in insuring that Iraq is disarmed as required by UN resolutions.



Over 40 countries expressed strong support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sure, only 3 of them have countries on the ground in Iraq, but then again there were only 4 countries on the ground in Germany after World War II and only one country in Japan after World War II, so those that scream that three countries on the ground is two small a number for a UN operation are incorrect.

I'd be interested if those that do not feel that "Serious Consequenses" authorized in 1441 did not mean military action could explain what "Serious Consequences" meant, in light of the fact that everything short of military action was already being done to Iraq when the resolution was authorized? In my opinion, common sense tells you that only through wishful thinking, could one think that "Serious Consequences" in this context did not mean military action. So, if you don't Define "Serious Consequences" as military force, please tell me your definition. Remember, sanctions and a weapons embargo, two of the most "Serious Consequences" short of war were already in place when the resolution was authorized, so your definition has to involve something else.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 03:26 AM   #7
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:12 AM
I didn't think the UN wholeheartedly supported this. Legally, yes breaches made it an interesting, if not debateable action, but where has the UN been in this whole thing? I'm only arguing for the sake of it really here, as far as I'm concerned, the UN failed in many areas. The forces are there because of that. And no, I'm not using this as an opportunity to attack the UN etc etc.
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 02:14 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Angela Harlem,

"I didn't think the UN wholeheartedly supported this. Legally, yes breaches made it an interesting, if not debateable action, but where has the UN been in this whole thing? I'm only arguing for the sake of it really here, as far as I'm concerned, the UN failed in many areas. The forces are there because of that. And no, I'm not using this as an opportunity to attack the UN etc etc."

It was the United Nations that adopted Chapter VII rules in which resolutions passed under such rules permitted the use of military force to bring about their compliance. It was the United Nations that passed Resolution 678 that authorized member states to use all means necessary to bring about compliance with all subsequent UN resolutions in regards to Iraq. The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire was a done by the UN and was conditional of remaining in place only if Iraq agreed to certain conditions. The last Resolution 1441 by the UN authorized military action against Iraq if it failed to comply with the "one last chance" the world community was giving it. The forces currently in Iraq are member states of the UN fullfilling the goals and requirments of the UN in Iraq as mandated by the resolutions.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 03:11 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Sting, you said you have read many opinions that support the fact that 1441 gave the authority. Could you please provide some links to some of these articles. I am sincerely interested in reading opposing opinions. I have posted links in the past supporting the other side of the issue, but I have not found many online opinions that support your postion. In the interests of reading something new, please post away.

Thanks
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 06:50 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Sting (And others),

I thought you might enjoy reading this article. It is in pdf format.

http://www.cfr.org/pdf/highlight/03spring_arend.pdf
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 10:35 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Dreadsox,

"Sting, you said you have read many opinions that support the fact that 1441 gave the authority. Could you please provide some links to some of these articles. I am sincerely interested in reading opposing opinions. I have posted links in the past supporting the other side of the issue, but I have not found many online opinions that support your postion. In the interests of reading something new, please post away."

Sorry, but I have not saved and linked everything that I have read over the past months much of which was on TV or in various books or magazines read at random. The fact that there are more online opinions which support a different view of 1441 does not make such a view more correct. The Heritage Foundation may have some views that strongly support my opinion on 1441 as well as several other think tanks. I stand by the opinions of the US State Department, Colin Powell, retired Military, Current members of the military to include my family and friends, and my own opinion based on what I have read and seen and others rather than the opinions by those that tend to lean toward the French position on the subject matter, which I strongly disagree with.

But the next time I run into something that is on the internet, I'll post the info or the link.

I was wondering if you could tell me, if in any of your literature that you read which opposed the United States position on 1441, did any article ever offer a specific alternative to the meaning of "Serious Consequences" that did not mean military force?
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 10:50 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Whether or not you believe the Iraq war was authorized by previous resolutions or not, I don't think that was the question posed. What has been asked is whether or not the "coalition" occupying Iraq is a UN force. Clearly, it isn't. The UN couldn't come to an agreement and the U.S. led an independent "coalition of the willing" or whatever catch-phrase-of-the-day you want to call it.

Not even the UN weapons inspectors have been allowed back in after the fall of Saddam, and, whether or not you agree or disagree with that tactic is not my perogative. Whether or not there is a legal justification for what the "coalition" did under previous UN resolutions is also not my concern. The fact of the matter is that the "coalition" is not a UN force, but a "multilateral," independent force outside of the UN.

I guess that's the way the cards were dealt.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 01:49 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Melon,

"Clearly, it isn't. The UN couldn't come to an agreement and the U.S. led an independent "coalition of the willing" or whatever catch-phrase-of-the-day you want to call it."

I say clearly it is. The UN voted 15 to 0 for a resolution 1441 that authorized the use of force if Iraq failed its "one last chance". Resolution 678 already authorized member states to take any action necessary to disarm Iraq. 1441 simply restates 678 but gives Iraq one last chance inspite of its current failure and material breech of UN resolutions.

Many do not see it as a UN operation because countries like Germany and France after 1441 decided to disagree with its meaning and opposed any military operation. But their opposition to the war does not mean it was not a UN operation.

If you believe that the UN resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized member states to use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq, then operation Iraqi Freedom must be viewed as a UN operation.

The peaceful UN inspections process ended when the military operation to ensure Iraqi disarmament started. UN inspector are in Iraq currently. Members of the US, British, and Australian military are currently carrying out this task since the peaceful civilian phase of inspections is over. They are apart of the military operation to ensure Iraq is disarmed. The military has been tasked with the job of ensuring that Iraq is disarmed.

Again, I could understand you saying this is not the doing of the UN if you believe that the UN resolutions did not authorize the operation. But if you do believe that it was authorized you will have to explain to me more specifically why it is not a UN operation.

Remember, countries that are currently "willing" are performing UN operations all over the world. Being a member of the UN does not mean that you have to provide troops to those operations. Only countries that are "willing", provide troops. Most other UN operations being performed in other countries only involve a few countries in each case.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-24-2003, 07:40 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
I think clearly people here do not believe it was authorized by the UN. I do think it is good that the UN is being brought back into the situation in Iraq.

Peace
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 01:53 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
"I think clearly people here do not believe it was authorized by the UN. I do think it is good that the UN is being brought back into the situation in Iraq."

Not surprising at all that most people here think that. Remember, most people here opposed the war. If their idea's had won out, Peaceful UN inspections would still be ongoing, the sanctions would still be in place, and Saddam would still be in power.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 07:52 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Yes, but you are responding to someone who believed the war was nevcessary, and does not believe the UN authorized it. I do however believe that inspectors should be embedded with our search teams, as reporters were embedded during the conflict to make it more legitimate in the worlds eyes. Just as the war would have had more legitimacy if it were approved by the Security Council.

Again, this is my opinion. I understand your stance on it.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 12:47 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:12 PM
No: the US/UK weren't given authorisation by the UN to begin the war and the resolution proposed regarding the reconstruction of Iraq did not give significant involvement to the UN. I think it's an occupation by the United States, not the United Nations.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 01:36 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Finally after authorizing the use of military force in 1441 if Iraq failed its "one last chance", the UN has officially recognized the current US and UK occupation of Iraq with resolution 1483. There can now be no doubt that Operation Iraqi Freedom and the current occupation, along with all rules and regulations with regards to the search for WMD, etc, is indeed a UN operation.

Here is a little from 1483:

"Noting the letter of May 8, 2003 from the permanent representatives of the United States Of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of The Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"),"

"Noting further that other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work UNDER the Authority,"

"Welcoming further willingness of Member States to contribute to security and stability in Iraq by contributing personal, equipment, and other resources UNDER the Authority,"


It is clear from the above that the member states that contributed to the UN military operation to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions are currently in control and authorized to have control of the situation in Iraq.

This resolution indeed approves of the actions of the past 3 months conducted by the US, UK, and Australia. There has never been any official mention by the United Nations in any document that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a UN operation or in fact illegal. UN resolution 1441 authorized the use of that force. Resolution 1483 reafirm and approves the actions of Operation Iraqi Freedom done with the authorization from 1441. It recognizes the current occupation force and its Authority and the obligation of other member states to work UNDER that Authority.

I think in the future, Historians will note the strong opposition within the UN to Operation Iraq Freedom, but will view it as a UN operation in light of Resolutions 678, 687, 1441, and now 1483. In light of what 1483 recognizes its rather difficult for anyone now to dispute the fact that the past 3 months was a UN operation.

By the way, I'm still waiting for ANYONE to give me their alternative detailed definition of the meaning of "Serious Consequences" in resolution 1441 if one does not define that as meaning the use of military force.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 03:59 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:12 AM
You have failed to show that it does mean "USE OF FORCE" just as it is impossible for anyone to prove it means something else.

I may be way out of line, but I see nothing that says the US and Coalition were acting under UN Authority. I see this recognizing them as occupying powers, and gives members states the ability to act to help bring about self rule of the country of Iraq.

What you have posted does not legitimize the use of force. In my opinion.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 07:58 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Dreadsox,


"You have failed to show that it does mean "USE OF FORCE" just as it is impossible for anyone to prove it means something else."

In my opinion I have succeeded. The "Serious Consequenses" that 1441 said Iraq would face took place as Iraq was already facing two of the most serious actions a country can face short of the use of military force, international economic sanctions and a weapons embargo. The only thing I can think of that is more serious than international economic sanctions or a weapons embargo is military force. Remember, Iraq had to face a consequense that is serious and the only thing as serious or more serious than what it was currently facing is military force.

It was widely known for months what the Bush Administrations policy was toward Iraq. It was Bush that put the resolution 1441 to the vote and authorized the language in the vote of "Serious Consequences". Everyone prior to the vote knew what the Bush Administration meant by "Serious Consequenses". 1441 would not exist if it was not for the Bush administration. Despite all this, the Bush Administration recieved a 15-0 vote.

The main thing that proves my claim is the simple fact that the only thing that Iraq was not facing at the time that could be considered as "Serious Consequences" was military force, in light of the fact that they were already facing the two most serious non-military actions a country can face.

But I never asked anyone to prove that it indeed meant something else, I simply asked for a suggestion of what else it could mean in light of the context of the situation at that time. No one has even offered a single suggestion. That is more proof for me that "Serious Consequences" means military force. In light of the contexts, there is simply nothing else it could specifically mean.


"I may be way out of line, but I see nothing that says the US and Coalition were acting under UN Authority. I see this recognizing them as occupying powers, and gives members states the ability to act to help bring about self rule of the country of Iraq."

In fact the US and the Coalition have been defined in the resolution as the "Authority".

The recognition of the USA and UK as occupying powers legitamizes the actions that were taking to become occupying powers.

For example, Iraq was never recognized as the occupying power of Kuwait, with the Authority to make decisions about the domestic situation there and that countries attempting to work in Kuwait would do so under the Authority of Iraq.

The reason of course is that the UN never felt the actions of Iraq to be legal. Simply put, the UN would never recognize an occupation that came about through illegal action. In fact, it would attempt to reverse it.
__________________

STING2 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 09:12 AM.


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