Mr Manifesto said:
Last resort, last resort. you fail to identify what exactly is a last resort.
Try using some mental faculty to try and figure out that after 12 years and repeated warning after repeated warning, that last resort can be reached.
For years nobody has cared what the UN has said. Saddam thunmbed his nose at it for 12 years (12 years!!!!!!!!!!) knowing that 30 day ultimatums and final warnings and serious consequences meant nothing of the sort.
After some countries decided to put some backbone into international law by enforcing the UN resolutions, the UN now has some restored credibility thanks to the action taken over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Evidence? Iran kicked out the international atomic energy commission and then let them back in after being warned not to disobey UN directions to do so.
Libya is opening up and starting to come clean, realising that they have a little more to worry about than yet another UNSC resolution.
The only time the UN has had any credibility has been when countries have taken the initiative and preempted official UN
The US in Kosovo, another unsanctioned military gung ho venture with less post conflict planning as Iraq.
East Timor, an Australian force acted without UN endorsement and headed off a possible massacre.
Look what happens when we wait for the UN to decide we have reached a "last resort". Rwanda.
You deal in global political rhetoric. In the real world we need practical soutions to intractable problems; the least worst option in most cases. Sure it would be better putting flowers in each others hair, but the world ain't like that.
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Drooper said:
Iraq wasn't Rwanda. Iraq was Iraq: a country under great global scrutiny, with no means to continue its weapons programs. So what if it took twelve years to get to this stage? As we've seen, Iraq disarmed. Oh... Except for an artillery shell from who-knows-when that could have come from who-knows-where.
And for all of your bad-mouthing of the UN for Rwanda, at least they don't bomb civilian targets on the off-chance that a person of interest might be lunching there. Frankly, if it came between trusting the UN and trusting the morons who run the US military, it isn't hard to guess who I'd be backing.
Mr Manifesto said:
oh, but Vietnam was Iraq?? You crack me up.
Rwanda was an example of waiting for the UN to reach the last resort before doing anything of substance.
We didn't know what Iraq's potential was, because they wouldn't co-operate. Hans Blix said so at the expiration of the "final" 30 day "ultimatum"
We now see a couple of sarin shells that came from a large suspected stockpile. Where are they now??? They are STILL unaccounted for.
Yes, and as for Rwanda some estimate up to one million peple were murdered. That is about as close to genecide as one could come. Nobody needs to badmouth the UN over its failure to act in Rwanda, it there for all to see, except those blinded by political idealogy.
[qoute]Frankly, if it came between trusting the UN and trusting the morons who run the US military, it isn't hard to guess who I'd be backing. [/QUOTE]
Well, as an Aussie, I wouldn't want any help from the UN if my nation was threatened.
Mr Manifesto -
Well, I really hoped for a bit more from you but you did about as well as I expected. Maybe if you ask nicely someone can help you out here, or at least explain it to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not forgetting anything. You're the one who seems to be having trouble either reading or comprehending. Look, I know that you can read, and I provided you with links to the actual information. So, why is it that you mysteriously cannot understand the plain wording of the resolutions. I even posted it for you. Here, I'll try it again, and I'll even emphasize the more important words for you since you seem to be having trouble finding them:
“….Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized MEMBER STATES to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
1441 finds Iraq in material breach. It states it in plain words. Again, since you either haven't actually read it or you are too dense to understand it I'll post it here for you to make it a bit easier.
"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA......"
Please, take a look at the facts before you spout off.
Well, I really hoped for a bit more from you but you did about as well as I expected. Maybe if you ask nicely someone can help you out here, or at least explain it to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Ashi: What you seem to be forgetting is that it isn't up to the US to enforce 1441. That is a decison for the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not decide if a breach had been made yet, and, if a breach had occurred, whether armed force was required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not forgetting anything. You're the one who seems to be having trouble either reading or comprehending. Look, I know that you can read, and I provided you with links to the actual information. So, why is it that you mysteriously cannot understand the plain wording of the resolutions. I even posted it for you. Here, I'll try it again, and I'll even emphasize the more important words for you since you seem to be having trouble finding them:
“….Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized MEMBER STATES to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
1441 finds Iraq in material breach. It states it in plain words. Again, since you either haven't actually read it or you are too dense to understand it I'll post it here for you to make it a bit easier.
"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA......"
Please, take a look at the facts before you spout off.
Grammatron:
"I think if you want a problem with a country that blindly bombs the city you want to go yell at Russia and how they pounded Groznyy into a fine powder."
Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough, once the (pretence of) the "Cold War" ended, Russia was permitted any and all acts of destruction - Russian war-crimes since Putin have been entirely glossed over, forgiven, and even encouraged, in "The West" (if by "The West" we mean the US top-dog and the UK lap-dog elites).
"The USA goes to great lengths to minimize the civilian deaths."
Either you have an masterfully intuitive sense of irony, or George Orwell wants to have your babies
"I think if you want a problem with a country that blindly bombs the city you want to go yell at Russia and how they pounded Groznyy into a fine powder."
Couldn't agree more. Funnily enough, once the (pretence of) the "Cold War" ended, Russia was permitted any and all acts of destruction - Russian war-crimes since Putin have been entirely glossed over, forgiven, and even encouraged, in "The West" (if by "The West" we mean the US top-dog and the UK lap-dog elites).
"The USA goes to great lengths to minimize the civilian deaths."
Either you have an masterfully intuitive sense of irony, or George Orwell wants to have your babies
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Strawman.Drooper said:
Say, what did the US do about the Rwanda massacre while the UN sat on their hands? Did they try to bring in a batallion of heroic marines, but were held back by the UN? Hmm...
And while we're on the subject, how many other massacres have the US ignored, if not condoned?
>WHACK<
>WHACK<
See my previous posts in which these points were already addressed. Whack-a-rat is such a fun game.
I'll ask again: What did the US and other 'Coalition of the Willing' nations do while this was happening?
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
Ashi said:
You clearly have no idea how the Security Council works, yet you tell me to to look at the facts. Physician, heal thyself.
As your quote here states,Resolution 678 only authorises use of force to uphold resolution 660, which calls for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.Ashi said:
1441 also says:
1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions.
BillyTK:
"1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions."
Well said.
1441 was hijacked by the US and the UK because the UN refused to rubber stamp their desire to attack Iraq. There is a veritable mountain of evidence in the lead up to the "war" that shows just this.
"1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions."
Well said.
1441 was hijacked by the US and the UK because the UN refused to rubber stamp their desire to attack Iraq. There is a veritable mountain of evidence in the lead up to the "war" that shows just this.
Mr Manifesto -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You clearly have no idea how the Security Council works, yet you tell me to to look at the facts. Physician, heal thyself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about trying to address the issue. I stated my argument, I supplied my references. Rebut my argument like an adult or keep your smart a**ed comments to yourself. You are just proving my original post in this thread to be true.
BillyTK -
First, I would just like to thank you for debating this issue in an intelligent and reasonable manner. I wish that the majority of "skeptics" in these forums could follow suit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
As your quote here states,Resolution 678 only authorises use of force to uphold resolution 660, which calls for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand why you continually seem to ignore the full wording in the resolutions. You seemed to do the same thing when we last tried to come to a conclusion on this issue at the end of this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36568
Resolution 1441 recalls that Resolution 678 authorizes the use of force, as you have agreed, to uphold 660 and "......ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION (660)........". (emphasis mine)
Please explain why you are not acknowledging this part of the wording.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never stated that 1441 offers anything other than declaration of material breach and a recalling of past issues. All legal authority for military action against Iraq for breach of cease-fire conditions is determined in the resolutions preceding 1441.
Resolution 1441 was clearly implemented in order to give Iraq another shot at fulfilling its obligations under the cease-fire. It is my opinion that the UNSC went above and beyond the call with this resolution. Even still, Iraq did not comply even after the deadline set in 1441.
I can understand how someone could possibly view 1441 as a way for the USUK to "legitimize" additional action in Iraq. However, we both seem to agree that 1441 offers no grounds for military action in and of itself and I have never heard anyone else legitimately make that an argument. So, I cannot accept your premise that anyone is attempting to use 1441 for that purpose when it clearly doesn't support that argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You clearly have no idea how the Security Council works, yet you tell me to to look at the facts. Physician, heal thyself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about trying to address the issue. I stated my argument, I supplied my references. Rebut my argument like an adult or keep your smart a**ed comments to yourself. You are just proving my original post in this thread to be true.
BillyTK -
First, I would just like to thank you for debating this issue in an intelligent and reasonable manner. I wish that the majority of "skeptics" in these forums could follow suit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
As your quote here states,Resolution 678 only authorises use of force to uphold resolution 660, which calls for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand why you continually seem to ignore the full wording in the resolutions. You seemed to do the same thing when we last tried to come to a conclusion on this issue at the end of this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36568
Resolution 1441 recalls that Resolution 678 authorizes the use of force, as you have agreed, to uphold 660 and "......ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO RESOLUTION (660)........". (emphasis mine)
Please explain why you are not acknowledging this part of the wording.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
1441 in and of itself offers no grounds for attacking Iraq, which would require a further resolution, and the whole thing is a bunch of pants anyway because it was nothing more than a pretext constructed by USUK, to try and legitimate their intentions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never stated that 1441 offers anything other than declaration of material breach and a recalling of past issues. All legal authority for military action against Iraq for breach of cease-fire conditions is determined in the resolutions preceding 1441.
Resolution 1441 was clearly implemented in order to give Iraq another shot at fulfilling its obligations under the cease-fire. It is my opinion that the UNSC went above and beyond the call with this resolution. Even still, Iraq did not comply even after the deadline set in 1441.
I can understand how someone could possibly view 1441 as a way for the USUK to "legitimize" additional action in Iraq. However, we both seem to agree that 1441 offers no grounds for military action in and of itself and I have never heard anyone else legitimately make that an argument. So, I cannot accept your premise that anyone is attempting to use 1441 for that purpose when it clearly doesn't support that argument.