It depends on your point of view (playing devil's advocate here). "Force" as you put it was not authorised previously - that was "serious consequences". This only applies if Iraq is in "breach". This is also open to interpretation as they are now (somewhat - agian open to interpretaion) complying. Its a diplomatic issue - before you protest I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the US using this for its own ends, as well as it being used against its will.
Andy
Whilst I don't doubt that you may be correct - there is no certainty that a veto will not be used. If there were the resolution would have been voted on before now. If the governments are real in their objections to a war in Iraq - then I cannot see how they cannot veto. If they do not then this WILL show them to be self interested and not concerned for the actual outcome of a war decision.
Andy
Well there are currently over 120 of those missles and they exceed limits by about 30 miles. However, there were not disclosed as having a greater range. And while they are destroying these missles, they are making more. This is not cooperation and Saddam is the using the UN as a tool.
The point of this thread is that I don't understand the methods used when giving this "evidence" (see first post) and so I have difficulty (at his moment) believing it. The arguement against war (the sensible arguement that I adopt) is a balance. Is it worth starting a war that may kill upwards of 100,000 people (guessing from last gulf war) because the inspectors have found and are destroying several missiles that exceed the UN resolutions? Military pressure no doubt has provided the results we see today interms of disarmament. I would like to know the difference between "sustained military pressure" and "military build up that cannot be sustained and so must lead to war in a few weeks regardless of the pace of inspections". Why can't we keep up sustained pressure without leading to inevitable war?
Andy
I would htink that this is because the administration decided long ago to go to war. Maybe they gambled as to what evidence would come out when?
If the US-UK-Spain resolution is voted on and is either vetoed or does not pass, the UN security council will be irrelevant. In most matters taken the the council, the council's decision is respected and adhered to. Bush has made it clear that the US will invade Iraq if it sees a need regardless of UN support.
If any country vetos the resolution, they will single-handedly make the council useless now and in the future. If the resolution is defeated in a vote, the blame for that would be shared. However, the best solution (and the most likely scenario) is for the US to withdraw the resolution thereby avoided direct defiance of a UN decision. This would allow the security council to retain some dignity and it would potentially be useful in the future.
If any country vetos the resolution, they will single-handedly make the council useless now and in the future. If the resolution is defeated in a vote, the blame for that would be shared. However, the best solution (and the most likely scenario) is for the US to withdraw the resolution thereby avoided direct defiance of a UN decision. This would allow the security council to retain some dignity and it would potentially be useful in the future.
A very good point. I would add that the UN security council has been ignored before - as in Kosovo (and quite rightly so in that case IMHO). That did not make it irrelevant then. What does (stupidly IMHO) threaten the UN security council now is that the US places ultimatems upon its members (with us and against us sort of thing). Without this rhetoric the situation would be much less inflamed.
Andy
I thought Clinton entirely bypassed the security council with regard to Kosovo. Did he actually ignore a direct decision?
If the US were to withdraw the resolution, they would be acting similarly to the Kosovo situation where they didn't bother to inquire for international support and/or assistance. This would not be very damaging to the security council. However, if the security council explicitly condemns war and states that inspections will be continued for three months (or whatever the French proposal states) and the US disregards this (as we will) that would severely damage the council. (One could argue that the council's failure to enforce their resolutions has all ready irreparably damage its image.)
If the US were to withdraw the resolution, they would be acting similarly to the Kosovo situation where they didn't bother to inquire for international support and/or assistance. This would not be very damaging to the security council. However, if the security council explicitly condemns war and states that inspections will be continued for three months (or whatever the French proposal states) and the US disregards this (as we will) that would severely damage the council. (One could argue that the council's failure to enforce their resolutions has all ready irreparably damage its image.)
If that is the case, then - IMHO - he's a very *misguided* individual (I'm being polite here). For my reasoning have a look at my other posts - please have a good search.
Andy
It doesn't say he'll announce war, but if that is the case, and that is his decision, then my full support goes to the soldiers themselves.
War tomorrow? It'll take a full month for the last carrier battle group to arrive though I suppose it could begin without it. Still with Turkey recently denying entry I wonder if the planners have had time to revise the battle plans yet. The war could begin today but without logistal support in place it wouldn't last long either way.
Agreed - see grasshopper27's post for my full position (you can also - in the event of war - declare your support there).
the support link
Andy
(grinning stupidly as never had signature quote posted by another before).TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter