Saudi Arabia

[Duke]

Originally posted by Famine
"We" adhere to the rules of the UN, yet disobeyed them to attack Iraq. Wow - I wish I could be a rule-ignoring non-rogue nation.

Actually, no. The UN was disobeying it's own resolutions by not effectively enforcing them. The Coalition in fact upheld the original resolutions, not the 3rd-generation wimpout resolutions that got passed later.

Note that I'm not saying the invasion was an unqualified good idea, please. But it was in keeping with the original UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf War.

 

[///M-Spec]

Actually, violation of Security Council resolutions is one of the weakest reasons for the war, IMO. There are worse offenders than Iraq. Namely, Israel.

Here's a partial list of UN Security Council resolutions that have been violated in the past by countries other than Iraq. I pulled it from a foreign policy "thinktank" website so I cannot attest to its complete accuracy, but it looks pretty legit. PDF found HERE.

A complete list of resolutions violated by Iraq can be found HERE, according to the US State Dept.

What this tells me is that if the US wants to beat its big stick around the Middle East, we should be looking long and hard at Israel, which is one of the worst "bad boys" of the region when it comes to defying the will of the Security Council.

Of course, to be fair, Israel is unlikely to ever pose a military threat to the rest of the world. BUT it does have a long history of getting into craploads of trouble. And this all trouble is the rallying cry for every wonk who has trouble separating Sharon and his government from ordinary Americans, thousands of miles away that have nothing to do with them.

Why the American public continues to put up with and otherwise ignore our Hebrew friends' handling of their problems on the ground in the occupied territories is beyond me. Even someone "casually political" like me can draw a direct line from Israel settling the Palestine issue to curbing terrorism in the middle east.


M

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Why the American public continues to put up with and otherwise ignore our Hebrew friends' handling of their problems on the ground in the occupied territories is beyond me. Even someone "casually political" like me can draw a direct line from Israel settling the Palestine issue to curbing terrorism in the middle east.

This is highly true and I do agree with you, ///M. Both sides have backed themselves so far into corners that there is little to be done since neither side is willing to move an inch in compromise. Of course, there are those on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian that have zero interest in any compromise at all, and take every possible opportunity to demonstrate how irredeemably evil the other side is.

 

[///M-Spec]

I don't know why this isn't more publicized and debated. It really bugs me.

The amount of political and economic pressure the US can exert on Israel to settle the problem is many times greater than what is currently being applied. Of this I am certain. Why aren't we doing it?


M

 

[Duke]

Because the Palestinians have completely invalidated their own side - despite being fundamentally in the right, for the most part - by resorting to terrorism. Even if we wanted to have a compromise, we can't do so because it would appear that we are giving in. Let's not forget who invented suicide attacks against civillians in the '60s and '70s. Remember the Munich Olympics in '72?

Even if you want to come to terms, having people like that identifiably allied with the other side leaves no room for negotiation.

It's kind of like the Northern Ireland situation. The IRA and associates have gotten so used to attacking the UK system that they have derailed it even when it might actually work in their favor.

 

[Danoff]

"We" adhere to the rules of the UN, yet disobeyed them to attack Iraq. Wow - I wish I could be a rule-ignoring non-rogue nation.

Exactly which resolution did we break when we attacked Iraq? I can tell you which ones we were enforcing.

 

[///M-Spec]

Because the Palestinians have completely invalidated their own side - despite being fundamentally in the right, for the most part - by resorting to terrorism. Even if we wanted to have a compromise, we can't do so because it would appear that we are giving in. Let's not forget who invented suicide attacks against civillians in the '60s and '70s. Remember the Munich Olympics in '72?

Even if you want to come to terms, having people like that identifiably allied with the other side leaves no room for negotiation.

It's kind of like the Northern Ireland situation. The IRA and associates have gotten so used to attacking the UK system that they have derailed it even when it might actually work in their favor.

I was just a twinkle in my old man's eye in the summer of '72. But I have read the accounts. Horrible, really.

You are right, though. The PA did walk away from negotiations when they decided Israel's terms were not to their liking. They made a choice to keep the status quo. And their militants put Israel in the situation they're in now. Very hard to sympathise with the Palestinian leadership here.

However, if the US chooses to reverse course on its long history of supporting whatever decision Israel makes, a LOT can be done to bring peace to the region. Not many people realise that US vetos and US inaction on the security council is what keeps the UN from properly handling this problem. The other members would love to see this issue resolved, I am sure.

We could sponser a new resolution that puts UN peacekeepers on the ground. We could forcibly remove Israeli settlements from disputed areas. We could even redraw the map and make a Palestinian state official whether Arafat and Sharon likes it or not. Once you have real borders and a real government, you can transform refugees to citizens.

In fact, let's just give them some tanks and planes. I'm serious. Let's empower them.

Once that transformation occurs, there will be no water to the "we are an oppressed people fighting for our freedom" argument. They will have a country. They will have a government. They will have guns. If they want to argue with Israel over some peice of dirt twenty arces wide no bigger than a driveway in Texas, they will have to grow up and do it like real countries.

And IF that what they decide to do, it will no longer be under some silly guise of fighting for freedom. It will be a real war, with real tanks and missles. And they will have no sympathy.


M

 

[Famine]

Actually, no. The UN was disobeying it's own resolutions by not effectively enforcing them. The Coalition in fact upheld the original resolutions, not the 3rd-generation wimpout resolutions that got passed later.

Note that I'm not saying the invasion was an unqualified good idea, please. But it was in keeping with the original UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf War.

But surely that's the point - the UN makes the rules. If they change their mind, by a majority vote, then the rules have been changed. Who are we - mere member of the organisation - to decide, against the majority of fellow members, to ignore the rule change? I'm off out to vote this evening. The party that gets the majority will get into the local government - perhaps any losing incumbent councillors, also consisting of voters, should decide to ignore this and stay where they are because they know better than the rest of us?

The UN decided not to take action against Iraq. The US and UK decided to ignore this.

Exactly which resolution did we break when we attacked Iraq? I can tell you which ones we were enforcing.

Who said anything about breaking resolutions? I said we ignored the UN and attacked Iraq anyway.


Again, don't confuse my comments for opposition to the war.

 

[Duke]

But surely that's the point - the UN makes the rules. If they change their mind, by a majority vote, then the rules have been changed. Who are we - mere member of the organisation - to decide, against the majority of fellow members, to ignore the rule change?

The UN decided not to take action against Iraq. The US and UK decided to ignore this.

Ah-HAH! Read what you wrote just moments later:

Who said anything about breaking resolutions? I said we ignored the UN and attacked Iraq anyway.

That's the crux of the biscuit, right there!

1) The UN resolved to impose conditions and sanctions upon Iraq, for their behaviour. These were actual, numbered, ratified resolutions that passed by majority vote.

2) The UN then declined to effectively enforce these resolutions - but they did NOT overturn them. If they had, it would be a whole different enchilada.

3) So the coalition is simply carrying out the duty imposed upon them by the existing UN resolutions, to make Iraq's former government submit to the terms. If the UN had issue with that, someone should have gotten a movement together to dissolve or modify the original resolutions, not simply decline to enforce them.

If you say the coalition is handling it wrongly and going outside UN channels, well the UN itself already did that.

 

[87chevy]

^ Bravo 'ol Chap Bravo! 👍

 

[Danoff]

Just to follow up on Neon's post...

If there had been a resolution saying "Resolved: no member of the UN shall attack Iraq due to reasoning presented in any prior UN resolution." Then the US would have been going against the UN. Since there was not, the US was simply acting in parallel with the interests that the UN had laid out but were not willing to commit to completing. The UN never told any of its members what to do. It simply ruled on what the UN would (or would not) do collectively.

I don't see any conflict. The US, in fact, never went against the UN. It simply acted when the UN did not choose to.

If you would like to claim that the US went against the UN, you're going to have to cite a resolution that we broke.

 

[Famine]

First, is it just the US now? I have at no time referred to the US on it's own.

Secondly...

"(UN) Resolution 678 was created for the specific purpose of liberating Kuwait. It was addressed to the governments associated with the government of Kuwait. That coalition is no more." (Nick Grief, Professor of Law at Bournemouth University, specialist in international law). This position is further backed up - "Both George Bush and John Major took the view that it (Resolution 678) did not give them any authority to go to Baghdad or invade Iraq. For our government to pin their argument for the use of force on it 12 years later, in a quite different situation, seems quite contrary to the wording and spirit of that resolution." (Lord Alexander QC, Chairman of the legal organisation Justice and a past chairman of the Bar) - although defining "spirit" of rules is somewhat hard.

This Resolution, assuming it's current validity (which Professor Grief refutes) also dealt specifically with Iraq getting rid of WMDs. Resolution 1441 ws passed to reiterate that "possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security... It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD." (Malcolm Shaw QC, Professor of international law, Leicester University).

Anyone find any? Anyone aware that the USA itself (not to pick on them - I'm sure the UK is as bad, but I can't back that up) refuses to allow inspection of it's own biological weapons facilities and that Israel (back there again) refuses to allow any of it's known WMDs to be inspected?

So, the two most oft-quoted resolutions - 678 and 1441 - have no validity for the "current" conflict in Iraq.

 

[Danoff]

Anyone find any? Anyone aware that the USA itself (not to pick on them - I'm sure the UK is as bad, but I can't back that up) refuses to allow inspection of it's own biological weapons facilities and that Israel (back there again) refuses to allow any of it's known WMDs to be inspected?

Show me where the UN has requested and been denied inspection of US WMDs. Show me 10 years of UN resolutions condeming the US for refusal to allow inspection of WMDs.

And yes we did find them in Iraq.

So, the two most oft-quoted resolutions - 678 and 1441 - have no validity for the "current" conflict in Iraq.

Wrong at least on the second count.

However, you fail to acknowledge the fact that the US went to war with Iraq to liberate kewait. If the terms of the ending of that war are not met, the war is on again baby.

 

[Famine]

And yes we did find them in Iraq.

Wrong at least on the second count.

Easy to say. Given that you demanded I give evidence, I think it's only fair you pony up your evidence for finding WMDs in Iraq.

To date, we (meaning the UK this time) have yet to be told of any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, thus rendering Resolution 1441 irrelevant in the conflict.


The war cannot be "on again baby" if it didn't end. The war DID end, Kuwait was liberated and, most importantly, Resolution 678 never gave the then-coalition permission to enter Iraq in arms. The coalition now is different and, if you (not meaning "YOU" you) claim that Resolution 678 is still in force then the different coalition it apparently governs still do not have permission to invade Iraq on the basis of it.

Edit: Oh - Guardian article citing US's "resistance" to international inspections. I do not know their source for this information.

 

[ledhed]

Here's a list of all security council resolutions re; Iraq http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
Read them and you wonder how long Iraq was going to be able to string the UN along befeore anyone was going to ENFORCE said resolutions.
What is not being mentioned is the cost of keeping forces in the region to deal with Saddams non compliance and to keep no fly zones in affect and enforce the borders.
How long can a country be expected to pay billions of dollars to keep forces on hand while a dictator plays games ? Did you ever think that it may have been a purposefull straqtegy by Saddam to stall out the proccess untill he got terms more to his liking ? The UN had more than enough time to deal with the problem they didn't The coalition did the rest of the world can go screw themselves. Unless they want to spend there money and lives to be the police force for the UN.

 

[Famine]

And I agree with ledhed. Still do not confuse my statements for opposition to the incursion.

 

[ledhed]

It seems to me the UN didn't say we could or could not enforce the resolutions MEMBERS of the UN came out against the use of force but the UN never did..keep in mind that for them to do so the US and Britain and the rest of the coalition would have to have aggreed.
BTW the web page I linked to does not represent my feelings. It was just a good spot to get to all the resolutions in one place. It belongs to an organization that wants to get rid of all the sanctions for humanitarian reasons. I guess the world needs idealist to..

 

[Danoff]

To date, we (meaning the UK this time) have yet to be told of any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, thus rendering Resolution 1441 irrelevant in the conflict.

I'm reffering to the sarin and mustard gas that we found a few weeks back. I think you remember. I'm also referring to the biological weapon strains that we found and were reported in Kay's original findings.

However, I don't think WMD's are the right justification for the war... and I don't want to lead anyone to believe that. I don't really care if the UN decides not to have the guts to enforce its resolutions. If France and Russia want to play games and have their votes bought off, the world can judge that as it likes - that's not reason enough to send young Americans to their death. I counldn't support a war that is simply intended to give UN resolutions some legitimacy.

The proper reason for going to war is to enforce the cease fire terms from the original gulf war. Now, I know that you've been saying that since its a different coallition, that we no longer have any justification in going back.

However, the US appears unlikely to do anything on its own ever again. I think we hold the historical record for number of countries supporting a war with operation Iraqi Freedom (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So every time we go to war with another counter there are likely to be dozens of countries that are with us, and dozens that disagree. Does that mean that whenever we set terms to end conflict, we need to go get the exact 28 countries back together again to enforce those terms? Absolutely not. Any one country could decide that the terms under which it, independently, agreed to lay down arms have been violated and go back to war on its own.

If we (and 3 other countries) go to war with country X and beat them and say "as long as you don't have an army ever again, we're willing to let you keep your country". Any subset of the original 3 could go right back to war if country X decides to get themselves an army. This is justifiable because otherwise what meaning do cease fire terms have?

Each country in a coalition makes its own choices for its own reasons (look at Spain). The loser of a war must be careful with each one of them.

In general, the message is this. If you want to take over an ally of the US (like Kuwait), you had better be able to win the impending war or you're going to have to live up to whatever terms the victors feel like setting.

Just like a criminal, when you break the international law, you forefeit your freedom.

 

[Famine]

That's rare - a danoff/Iraq post I agree with...

Although I did think the "WMDs" found were tenuous at best - anthrax can be cultivated in a kitchen, but sarin at least requires a laboratory. We haven't found any laboratories yet and the shell casings sadly didn't have "Property of Saddam Hussein, Baghdad 1" stamped on them...