a question of memory and the actual history

[heartsurgeon]

i read the resolutions in quite a different way, they are not restrictive in my opinion to just kuwait. they mention international and regional peace and security, and they specifically state that Saddam had obligations to disarm and verify his disarmament.

i suggest you try reading the resolutions from the perspective of someone who agrees with the Bush administration policies in Iraq, and you will appreciate that the resolutions can indeed reasonably interpreted to support their positions.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i read the resolutions in quite a different way, they are not restrictive in my opinion to just kuwait. they mention international and regional peace and security, and they specifically state that Saddam had obligations to disarm and verify his disarmament

.

Could you quickly quote/link to the specific resolution on this one - as this is the crux of the arguement. If I could see this then I would be convinced that "any means necessary" applied to the question of arms inspections.

i suggest you try reading the resolutions from the perspective of someone who agrees with the Bush administration policies in Iraq, and you will appreciate that the resolutions can indeed reasonably interpreted to support their positions.

I'm trying! (especially since I am in agreement with the removal of Saddam) - but I need to see the words "weapons inspections" or similar in a resolution preceeding 1441, and so under the proviso of "any means necessary" or whatever exactly the phrase was. Moving forward then I see how 1441 states "serious consequences", which could obviously mean force - but as you state it is ambiguous and we cannot assume we know it to be force only because we'd like it to say "force".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[heartsurgeon]

read my post above..links to the resolutions are provided, and i have quoted the appropriate text from the resolutions...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i read the resolutions in quite a different way, they are not restrictive in my opinion to just kuwait. they mention international and regional peace and security, and they specifically state that Saddam had obligations to disarm and verify his disarmament.

i suggest you try reading the resolutions from the perspective of someone who agrees with the Bush administration policies in Iraq, and you will appreciate that the resolutions can indeed reasonably interpreted to support their positions.

Let me ask you this, where is the evidance that Saddam didn't disarm according to 1441? UN inspector was in Iraq verifying Iraqi compliance and they didn't find anything that violated the agreement. Those inspector found only missiles that marginally exceeded the allowed range by 10's of miles and Iraq was destroying those as well. UN security council who had the authority to determine if Iraq violated 1441 never claimed Iraq violated the agreement. The reports from inspectors never indicated any major violation. We all know what Bush claim Iraq had, it was in his STOU address, but did Iraq really had those? Don't tell me you still believe they do. How can you agree with Bush Administration's policy on Iraq after everything he claimed had proven wrong?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
read my post above..links to the resolutions are provided, and i have quoted the appropriate text from the resolutions...

Thanks - but that doesn't answer my question. I cannot see a statement pertaining to weapons inspections (as mentioned in your repsonses) that is in a resolution preceeding 1441 and thus under the option of "all available measures". As I outlined before - such measures seem only to deal with the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. 1441 deals with weapon inspections and suggests "serious consequences".

I quote you:

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...

Already exists in the context of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait, as far as I can determine. Not in reference at all to weapons inspections, as far as I can determine.

If you know such references exist to weapons inspections in resolutions preceding 1441 then please tell/show me - as this will convince me of your viewpoint. I have been unable to find such statements so far. If you don't then I don't see how your "do-people-bother-to-read-original-sources-before-they-spout-off" arguement stands up.

Thanks,

Andy

 

[Shad0hawK]

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?

that is because they apparrantly cannot read, the 1991 gulf war never actually "ended" there was a CONDITIONAL cease fire, saddam broke the conditions of the cease fire and hostilities resumed in 1998 under clinton who himself cited "existing UN resolutions and saddams commitments" as authority, and later in 2002 by bush who also cited "existing UN resolutions" as his authority.

in my previous post i quoted him saying so..but all the dems can do is ignore it to play a sophomoric semantic game about what "serious consequences" means(it does not mean farting in saddam's general direction or taunting him).



if it helps my fine liberal friends... look up the word "consequences" in the dictionary... i know i know, i am a roque and a radical for actually suggesting using the dictionary to determine the meaning of words... the manner it is used "serious consequences" is defined by the merriamwebster dictionary:

"something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions

so what were the conditions? full compliance with UN resolutions

what were the serious consequences? here is a quote from 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[/b] (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

so does "all means necessary" really mean all or does "all" not mean "all" but something else?

oh i forgot i am posting to people who voted for a guy who said "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

guess what, i learned in jr. high school what many clintonesque idiots do not know, contextual usuage in a sentence determines which definition of a word is used if more than one definition is given...

 

[Fencer128]

that is because they apparrantly cannot read, the 1991 gulf war never actually "ended" there was a CONDITIONAL cease fire, saddam broke the conditions of the cease fire and hostilities resumed in 1998 under clinton who himself cited "existing UN resolutions and saddams commitments" as authority, and later in 2002 by bush who also cited "existing UN resolutions" as his authority.

All I need to see is where in the cease fire conditions it talks about disarmament and inspections. Then I can tag that to "all necessary means" and --> logical arguement.

if it helps my fine liberal friends... look up the word "consequences" in the dictionary... i know i know, i am a roque and a radical for actually suggesting using the dictionary to determine the meaning of words... the manner it is used "serious consequences" is defined by the merriamwebster dictionary:

Being condesending - especially to people who don't label themselves as liberal, whom you just stereotyped - never made a person anymore right. Please stick to the facts. BTW, the dictionary is not always the be all and end all. Do you agree that the term "race" can apply to not only people with different skin colour, but also to those from other countries? The dictionary does.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[sandorski]

hmm, from Dictionary.com:
con·se·quence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.

1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.
4. Importance in rank or position: scientists of consequence.
5. Significance; importance: an issue of consequence. See Synonyms at importance.


Yup, must mean war!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wow! I wonder if Clinton was using Nancy's astrologer. Given that UN 1441 was passed in 2002, it is truly astounding that Clinton "said 1441 gave him all the authority he needed to attack iraq" . . . in 1998.

Perhaps you should become a little better informed before you start attacking others for their "hypocrasy" (sic) and saying they are "idiots" and "apparrantly (sic) cannot read".

Just a thought.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are utterly confused.

The UN is made up of member states that are required to carryout its resolutions. The UN is nothing without its members' support.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
if it helps my fine liberal friends... look up the word "consequences" in the dictionary... i know i know, i am a roque and a radical for actually suggesting using the dictionary to determine the meaning of words... the manner it is used "serious consequences" is defined by the merriamwebster dictionary:

No, you're just being a dick for suggesting everyone is stupid (again).

oh i forgot i am posting to people who voted for a guy who said "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

guess what, i learned in jr. high school what many clintonesque idiots do not know, contextual usuage in a sentence determines which definition of a word is used if more than one definition is given...

Woops! You did it again! Everyone's soooo stupid aren't they Shadow? For all of your supposed semantic expertise, what you've clearly glossed over is the fact that Kofi Annan specifically said that UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize any member nation (i.e. the United States in this case) to use force against Iraq. Kofi also went on to say that ONLY the UN Security Council has the authority to determine what the "serious consequences" of UN 1441 are and at what point they should be used.

Perhaps you forgot why we went to the UN in the first place? OK, I'll remind you: It was to get a NEW resolution that specifically authorized force against Iraq in the event they didn't comply with inspectors. Well, guess what, we didn't get that new resolution.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i read the resolutions in quite a different way, they are not restrictive in my opinion to just kuwait. they mention international and regional peace and security, and they specifically state that Saddam had obligations to disarm and verify his disarmament.

i suggest you try reading the resolutions from the perspective of someone who agrees with the Bush administration policies in Iraq, and you will appreciate that the resolutions can indeed reasonably interpreted to support their positions.

Let me ask you this, where is the evidance that Saddam didn't disarm according to 1441? UN inspector was in Iraq verifying Iraqi compliance and they didn't find anything that violated the agreement. Those inspector found only missiles that marginally exceeded the allowed range by 10's of miles and Iraq was destroying those as well. UN security council who had the authority to determine if Iraq violated 1441 never claimed Iraq violated the agreement. The reports from inspectors never indicated any major violation. We all know what Bush claim Iraq had, it was in his STOU address, but did Iraq really had those? Don't tell me you still believe they do. How can you agree with Bush Administration's policy on Iraq after everything he claimed had proven wrong?

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

Of all the rationalizations used to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq, I always found the "U.N. authorized it, really, but since they didn't, we unilaterally decided to enforce 1441 anyway" argument the weakest and most dishonest. This is the same rationalization used by vigilantes for ages, "we aren't satisfied with the authorities so we're taking the law into our own hands". While I'm sure the warmongers love a good lynching, it was not our place to take it upon ourselves to interpret the U.N.'s resolution.

As an allegedly law-abiding nation, we had an obligation to follow the U.N.'s wishes whether we agreed with them or not. The only exception would be to defend ourselves or our allies from an imminent threat. There was no imminent threat. Our invasion was wrong. By defying the will of the U.N., we not only discredit the United States, we implicitly authorize other countries to launch their own little adventures in empire-building and personal politics.