a question of memory and the actual history

[Genesys]

when i read through the posts here, i always seem to run accross the Iraq War as being unjust because of the WMD argument that Pres. Bush presented. thats fine, I remember him making the case.

but my question is this: why has everyone forgotten about UN Sec Council Resolution 1441? I seem to remember that coming up before the WMD's, and that Bush tried to use 1441 as his major platform for war, but he was repeatedly shot down by Russia, France, and Germany. So instead, the President presented the WMD case to the American public and took matters into his own hands, leading us to where we are today.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Genesys
when i read through the posts here, i always seem to run accross the Iraq War as being unjust because of the WMD argument that Pres. Bush presented. thats fine, I remember him making the case.

but my question is this: why has everyone forgotten about UN Sec Council Resolution 1441? I seem to remember that coming up before the WMD's, and that Bush tried to use 1441 as his major platform for war, but he was repeatedly shot down by Russia, France, and Germany. So instead, the President presented the WMD case to the American public and took matters into his own hands, leading us to where we are today.

It's up to the U.N. to enforce their own resolutions, not the member countries to do so on their own.

 

[Genesys]

yes, i realize that, but the US was seeking authorization to uphold the resolution. it stated clearly [again, im going from memory, so if im wrong, please correct me] that force would be used if Saddam did not comply. Saddam didnt comply, so we needed to act. The UN needed to show its resolve and commitment to the resolutions it passes instead of sitting by idly while Saddam stepped all over 1441.

but, in retrospect, I guess this makes Pres Bush the international vigilante? You dont comply with the UN or theyll get Bush after ya!

call him Max Bush...?

 

[jpeyton]

1441 did not authorize force. It said Iraq would face "serious consequences" if they failed to comply with the resolution.

It's a sham war, get over it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1441 did NOT authorize Bush War 2003. Bush was justifiably shot down for insisting that "serious consequences" meant invasion/occupation. Furthermore, Bush's WMD presentation to the American people (and Congress) was bought b/c the intelligence was selective and handlers skillfully avoided any reference to what would happen after we attacked . . . other than detail-deficient scenarios about a liberated Iraq and a new day dawning for democracy in the Middle East.

 

[sandorski]

Speaking of memory, when 1441 was being put together, the US and Britain wanted stronger wording. The wording would have meant war, so France and others opposed, then the US and Britain decided to soften the resolution. The agreed upon 1441 resolution did not mean violation resulted in war, unlike how Bush and others saw it, War as a result required further resolutions.

 

[Jmman]

"Serious consequences" ceretainly did not mean that we were going to take away Saddam's Playstation. Of course it was meant as a military threat. The only question was the timing of the military action. Russia, France, etc simply wanted to try and see if diplomatic means would solve the issue, even though after all of these resolutions it was pretty clear that Saddam was unwilling to negotiate.....

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bingo . . . when the world aside from Bush/Blair/Aznar was united behind such an interpretation Bush floated the turd of a 2nd resolution but it wouldn't go down since no one intended 1441 or any other UN resolution to authorize war in Iraq.

Actually there were multiple indications that Saddam wanted to negotiate . . . which makes sense if he didn't really have WMD (or a military worth a poo). But Bush wanted to fight and wanted to fight soon.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Genesys
when i read through the posts here, i always seem to run accross the Iraq War as being unjust because of the WMD argument that Pres. Bush presented. thats fine, I remember him making the case.

but my question is this: why has everyone forgotten about UN Sec Council Resolution 1441? I seem to remember that coming up before the WMD's, and that Bush tried to use 1441 as his major platform for war, but he was repeatedly shot down by Russia, France, and Germany. So instead, the President presented the WMD case to the American public and took matters into his own hands, leading us to where we are today.

it is the hypocrasy of the democrats and thier socialist friends, clinton said 1441 gave him all the authority he needed to attack iraq...the dems hate seeing this but here it is one more time...and it still sounds VERY familiar

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. -Bill Clinton in 1998 address after attacking iraq.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. - Bill Clinton in 1998 address after attacking iraq.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Jmman
"Serious consequences" ceretainly did not mean that we were going to take away Saddam's Playstation. Of course it was meant as a military threat. The only question was the timing of the military action. Russia, France, etc simply wanted to try and see if diplomatic means would solve the issue, even though after all of these resolutions it was pretty clear that Saddam was unwilling to negotiate.....

No, actually "serious consequences" did not mean a military threat according to several other security council members. If the US and Britain could have gotten away with having a military threat outlined in the resolution, it would have been done. The resolution was passed with that wording because it allowed for further discussion of the punishment Iraq would face.

...sham...

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
1441 did not authorize force. It said Iraq would face "serious consequences" if they failed to comply with the resolution.

It's a sham war, get over it.

ok, youre right, it does state seriuos consequences. but seriously now, you cant be so naiive as to think that "serious consequences" didnt equate to war. and if you do read "serious consequences" != war, how exactly do you read that? trade restrictions? [hah!, thats funny in itself seein as how their trade is so limited and restricted anyway] a timeout? no more importing Mercedes Benz limos on a casaual whim?

and all the other countries that thought the same way were just fooling themselves too. just believing what they wanted to believe, hearing and reading what they thought sounded best.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: jpeyton
1441 did not authorize force. It said Iraq would face "serious consequences" if they failed to comply with the resolution.

It's a sham war, get over it.

ok, youre right, it does state seriuos consequences. but seriously now, you cant be so naiive as to think that "serious consequences" didnt equate to war. and if you do read "serious consequences" != war, how exactly do you read that? trade restrictions? [hah!, thats funny in itself seein as how their trade is so limited and restricted anyway] a timeout? no more importing Mercedes Benz limos on a casaual whim?

and all the other countries that thought the same way were just fooling themselves too. just believing what they wanted to believe, hearing and reading what they thought sounded best.

I see "serious consequences" as a non-specific placeholder for further discussion. What your interpretation of it may be is irrelevent. If the other security council members agreed with the US that serious consequences equated to military action, then it would have stated so in the resolution, or it would have been implied in following resolutions.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: jpeyton
1441 did not authorize force. It said Iraq would face "serious consequences" if they failed to comply with the resolution.

It's a sham war, get over it.

ok, youre right, it does state seriuos consequences. but seriously now, you cant be so naiive as to think that "serious consequences" didnt equate to war. and if you do read "serious consequences" != war, how exactly do you read that? trade restrictions? [hah!, thats funny in itself seein as how their trade is so limited and restricted anyway] a timeout? no more importing Mercedes Benz limos on a casaual whim?

and all the other countries that thought the same way were just fooling themselves too. just believing what they wanted to believe, hearing and reading what they thought sounded best.

I see "serious consequences" as a non-specific placeholder for further discussion. What your interpretation of it may be is irrelevent. If the other security council members agreed with the US that serious consequences equated to military action, then it would have stated so in the resolution, or it would have been implied in following resolutions.

AFAIK, there were no 'following resolutions'. and the US/Britian were forced to use softer language so as not to upset the libs that were to sign on to the resolution. the US wanted to use 'military action' or something of the sort, but as usual, some liberal balked and cried until they got their way.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

AFAIK, there were no 'following resolutions'. and the US/Britian were forced to use softer language so as not to upset the libs that were to sign on to the resolution. the US wanted to use 'military action' or something of the sort, but as usual, some liberal balked and cried until they got their way.

Not to defend the liberals but you are way off base. The division was between those who were ready to invade Iraq (Bush/Blair/Aznar) and those that were not (everybody else). The language of "serious consequences" was chosen b/c it did NOT explicitly authorize/detail military action. Now it can be reasonably argued that "serious consequences" does NOT rule out military action . . . but arguing that it justified invasion/occupation is pure poo.

For example, the Congressional resolution authorizing Bush to take whatever means necessary to force compliance on rogue states (paraphrasing) . . . clearly granted Bush authority to wage war as he pleased on Iraq (and possibly others). Some Dems' (Kerry, Edwards, occasionally Lieberman) have said they endorsed Bush War 2003 but not the methodology. Unfortunately, if they wanted control over the methodology they should have signed something else. The UNSC wanted to control the methodology, hence they wrote a resolution that did not authorize ANY action. It just threatened action of a "yet to be determined" manner in the "yet to be determined" future.

 

[Czar]

the UN words for authorising war is "by any means necessary" not "serious consequences", the only way to see that UN authorized the war was that by failing to comply with UN resolutions Saddam would be breaking the original ceasefire, but I'm not entirely sure about that one.

 

[heartsurgeon]

you guys kill me...doesn't anyone read the source material anymore before they spout off about what it means?

link to UN resolution 1441:
"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."

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missles poses to international peace and security."

what part of this is hard to understand? resolution 1441 recalls that the authorization for the use of force by Member States (hello? that means the U.S.A.) already exists!! 1441 states right up front that Saddam was in violation of previous resolutions. Do you think this was put in here by mistake, or that it really doesn't mean this? Come on, this is exactly why the U.S. agreed to "softening" of the language..the authorization for military intervention already existed...

want to read resolution 660 or 678?
here they are


here's some of the more uninformed posts i'm talking about:

It's up to the U.N. to enforce their own resolutions, not the member countries to do so on their own.

no one intended 1441 or any other UN resolution to authorize war in Iraq.

the only way to see that UN authorized the war was that by failing to comply with UN resolutions Saddam would be breaking the original ceasefire, but I'm not entirely sure about that one.

again i ask, doesn't anybody actually read the source material?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
you guys kill me...doesn't anyone read the source material anymore before they spout off about what it means?

link to UN resolution 1441:
"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."

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missles poses to international peace and security."

what part of this is hard to understand? resolution 1441 recalls that the authorization for the use of force by Member States (hello? that means the U.S.A.) already exists!! 1441 states right up front that Saddam was in violation of previous resolutions. Do you think this was put in here by mistake, or that it really doesn't mean this? Come on, this is exactly why the U.S. agreed to "softening" of the language..the authorization for military intervention already existed...

want to read resolution 660 or 678?
here they are


here's some of the more uninformed posts i'm talking about:

It's up to the U.N. to enforce their own resolutions, not the member countries to do so on their own.

no one intended 1441 or any other UN resolution to authorize war in Iraq.

the only way to see that UN authorized the war was that by failing to comply with UN resolutions Saddam would be breaking the original ceasefire, but I'm not entirely sure about that one.

again i ask, doesn't anybody actually read the source material?

Pity for you that the U.N. didn't share your interpretation of their resolution.

 

[Fencer128]

again i ask, doesn't anybody actually read the source material?

Yes. This is how I see it:

1441

"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."

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

Its all about where you place your emphasis. You place them on the paragraph dealing with previous resolutions (see below). I place my emphasis - correctly I believe - on the paragraph dealing with the resolution in question.


660, 678

As far as I can tell 660 and 678 that you mention deal with Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait? Is 678 not the justifiaction for the 1990 war not with weapons inspections? So, the "all necessary means" statement you quote doesn't apply to the weapons inspections?

Pity for you that the U.N. didn't share your interpretation of their resolution.

For the reasons given above - I don't think its a bad interpretation - I think its just wrong?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[chess9]

The U.N. is slow to act, which is a good approach in my view. Going to war quickly is rarely advisable and it certainly wasn't advisable in this case.

We've had about a dozen discussions of Resolution 1441 here. The war's supporters think that if the President asks the U.N. to act and they don't then he is therefore justified in sending troops wherever he bloody well pleases. This view would eviscerate the U.N. if followed by its member nations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we could be back to 1940 in a heartbeat if the world's leaders had as little respect for the multi-national process as Bush.

It's time for Bush to retire. He has risen about 100 steps above his level of incompetence thanks to the Supremes. Most guys with his brains are mopping floors at McDonald's.

-Robert

 

[heartsurgeon]

Pity for you that the U.N. didn't share your interpretation of their resolution.

i am saddened that the U.N. saw fit to ignore it's own resolutions. i accept your offer of sympathy in the spirit with which it was offered.

you certainly can chose to interpret the resolution(s) anyway you want.
i do find it somewhat disingenious on the part of those who claim the UN didn't authorize the use of force in Iraq,
reminiscent of the Democrats who voted for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" but then claimed they were against sending troops into iraq.

i guess when you can argue what the meaning of the word "is" or "alone" means with a straight face, you could certainly argue that the meanings of all these resolutions are the exact opposite of what they state.






Gu

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Pity for you that the U.N. didn't share your interpretation of their resolution.

i am saddened that the U.N. saw fit to ignore it's own resolutions. i accept your offer of sympathy in the spirit with which it was offered.

you certainly can chose to interpret the resolution(s) anyway you want.
i do find it somewhat disingenious on the part of those who claim the UN didn't authorize the use of force in Iraq,
reminiscent of the Democrats who voted for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" but then claimed they were against sending troops into iraq.

i guess when you can argue what the meaning of the word "is" or "alone" means with a straight face, you could certainly argue that the meanings of all these resolutions are the exact opposite of what they state.

Gu

What about my analysis, given above?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[heartsurgeon]

For the reasons given above - I don't think its a bad interpretation - I think its just wrong?

certainly, different parties to an agreement can have very different interpretations of what agreements mean...
this is why lawyers are in court all the time arguing what the meaning of a contract is.

to argue that you "know" what the resolution "really" means is quite frankly a rather immature understanding of
law and legal systems, and to claim that something is "illegal" or "fraudulent" (such as the invasion of iraq) based on your "feelings", fits the legal definition of slander....

Now, to state that you believe something is "wrong" or that you "oppose" the invasion of iraq is perfectly acceptable, and lends to a healthy debate about our national policies.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Bush invoked Article 51 of the UN charter after 1441 to bypass another resolution that would have specifically addressed and authorized war. The better question to ask is if Bush invoked it legitimately and does it really authorize what Bush did.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: chess9
The U.N. is slow to act, which is a good approach in my view. Going to war quickly is rarely advisable and it certainly wasn't advisable in this case.

We've had about a dozen discussions of Resolution 1441 here. The war's supporters think that if the President asks the U.N. to act and they don't then he is therefore justified in sending troops wherever he bloody well pleases. This view would eviscerate the U.N. if followed by its member nations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we could be back to 1940 in a heartbeat if the world's leaders had as little respect for the multi-national process as Bush.

It's time for Bush to retire. He has risen about 100 steps above his level of incompetence thanks to the Supremes. Most guys with his brains are mopping floors at McDonald's.

-Robert

yeah, ill definately agree that the UN is slow to act militarily. but ill disagree with on your point that its a good thing. the UN is supposed to be the worlds police [not the US, yes I agree that the US shouldnt be the global police] and therefore they should act quickly and with appropriate force to uphold their resolutions. you cant let people have any reason to think youre weak or wont act otherwise you get countries like Iraq.

and no, the 'guys with brains' are at home sitting on their ass whining about the lack of good jobs and how much they hate Bush. Theyre too proud to go work at Micky D's. They only have their own pride and ignorance to thank for their current situation.

 

[Fencer128]

certainly, different parties to an agreement can have very different interpretations of what agreements mean...
this is why lawyers are in court all the time arguing what the meaning of a contract is.

This I understand - what I'm saying though is that I think it's black and white. I was using the words "interpretation" and "emphasis" to be polite. The preceding resolutions quoted - as far as I can tell from scanning your links - make no reference to weapons inspections, only withdrawl from Kuwait. Given that, is the use of force as defined by "any means" only limited to removing Iraqi's from Kuwait, as in '91?

to argue that you "know" what the resolution "really" means is quite frankly a rather immature understanding of
law and legal systems, and to claim that something is "illegal" or "fraudulent" (such as the invasion of iraq) based on your "feelings", fits the legal definition of slander....

See above to deal with my "quite frankly ... rather immature understanding" (patronising tone recognised) of legal systems.

Now, to state that you believe something is "wrong" or that you "oppose" the invasion of iraq is perfectly acceptable, and lends to a healthy debate about our national policies.

I never said that though, I do think that all courses led to war. However, I don't see from the evidence presented by yourself how this is catagorically backed up (as implied) by existing resolutions - even having read some (admittedly not line by line) of the sources you quote.

BTW I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that the UN's interpretation of its own resolution was wrong - I was saying that in the absence of "weapons inspections" appearing in the documents proceeding 1441 (that you quote in your reference to "any means necessary") that your understanding of what "any means" applies to is incorrect? Do you follow now?

I too think debate is healthy, but I don't see where the debate is on this issue - as presented thus far, unless I have missed some mention of weapons inspections in preceding resolutions to 1441.

Cheers,

Andy