• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do international laws about wars count?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
681, 1441, I find it hard to read these sort of things. Who's job was it to interpret that conditions were not being met? And who's job was it to decide what the actions (supposedly spelled out) to take? For the war to be legal on these grounds, it seems that the job should have belonged to the US...
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
681, 1441, I find it hard to read these sort of things. Who's job was it to interpret that conditions were not being met? And who's job was it to decide what the actions (supposedly spelled out) to take? For the war to be legal on these grounds, it seems that the job should have belonged to the US...
It is specifically stated in 1441 that only the Security Council has the power to determine if Iraq violated the agreement and if and what action will be taken. US and all those warmonger will have you believe that US or one or two of their alleys can determine that. Well if that is the case, we might as throw away UN and all the charter and let the most powerful nation on the planet run the life of everyone else.

Oh and the Security Council did not determine Iraq violated 1441. They were suppose to vote on it but US chickened out and decided to go ahead without the support of Security Council.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
OK then, so we really are back to "Self-Defence" as the only legal reason for war.
 

dawks

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,071
2
81
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
As far as I know, the US attacked Iraq with no solid proof. The 'Uranium Case' is another twist, but the question remains: can Bush be found guilty in 'sins of war' or such like Milosevich?
Attacking a non-threatening country which doesn't attack first is not a legal solution. In law there is no 'pre-empitive strike' and it was clearly no self-defense of the US.
I didnt bother reading the rest of the thread.

A few canadian law students (I think they were students.. or professors..) released an article stating that this 'war' was clearly illegal by violating several international laws.. I wonder why no one has pressed this issue further. Probably due to fear the US would strong arm them, just like they do anyone who steps in their way.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Any 681 or 1441 claimers want to dispute that the US does not have the authority to decide that conditions were not met and appropriate actions in return?

If not, to legitimize the war, we need to show that it was in "Self-Defense"
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Any 681 or 1441 claimers want to dispute that the US does not have the authority to decide that conditions were not met and appropriate actions in return?

If not, to legitimize the war, we need to show that it was in "Self-Defense"
Read the resolutions here - there are some other ones you need to read too. I guess my earlier link doesn't want to work right so you have to click the appropriate resolution.

681 isn't part of the Iraq situation. Read Resolution 687. Points 7-14 but while you are there keep reading - there is some good stuff about not selling things to Iraq. There are multiple resolutions that deal with the situation but this one has the terms Iraq agreed to.

CkG
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Quote directly from 1441, please ignore somebody's desperate try to justify the war by quoting resolutions from 1990 (yeah like something agreed 13 years ago, before Gulf war 1 is relevant today). 1441 supercedes all of them

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
After 12 years and 18 resolutions does the UN really matter if it only wants to write resolutions and not enforce them. Resolutions without enforcement are meaningless.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
After 12 years and 18 resolutions does the UN really matter if it only wants to write resolutions and not enforce them. Resolutions without enforcement are meaningless.
So it don't matter ... if you don't like the law... or the way it is enforced you just do your own thing... if you be big enough you do what ever suits your fancy...

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
So it don't matter ... if you don't like the law... or the way it is enforced you just do your own thing... if you be big enough you do what ever suits your fancy...
Now, now Mr. Duck Maker, there is still the matter of self-defense. But I'm pretty sure that the conclusion here is that UN resolutions were no legal basis for war.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
So it don't matter ... if you don't like the law... or the way it is enforced you just do your own thing... if you be big enough you do what ever suits your fancy...
Now, now Mr. Duck Maker, there is still the matter of self-defense. But I'm pretty sure that the conclusion here is that UN resolutions were no legal basis for war.

Well.... I need seeing the evidence... for the exigent circumstance that required our invading Iraq.. Human rights violations and all would be a cause if only the UN said so..
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
Ah, but 1441 doesn't void 687 so it is relevant. "Recalling" doesn't mean it is null and void - it means that you need to recall it - like "Do you recall the conversation we had last week." That kind of "recall". The first time I read resolutions from the UN, I thought they mean the same thing as you must have, but that interpretation is wrong.

OK, so here we go:
<snip of 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,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,...
</snip>

OK, so just using that we can say that the UN had authorized ALL neccesary force to remove Saddam from Kuwait (#660 +), to use all necessary force to keep him out of Kuwait, AND to use all neccesary force to restore peace and SECURITY in the area.
So now that we have permission if Iraq doesn't stay out of Iraq, or is a security threat to Kuwait and area, lets break down the reason he is a security threat in the region:
As the second part of my snip said Iraq had "obligations" which were "a necessary step for .....restoring international peace and security in the area," Now what were those "obligations"?
This is a summary and/or direct quotes of point 8+ of Resolution 687.

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

a -ALL chem and bio weapons and all RELATED subsystems and COMPONENTS and ALL RESEARCH, developement, support and manufacturing facilities.
**Woops:p guess the nuclear parts, and all the other documentation that has been found hasn't violated "a" ;)
b- ALL balistic missiles with a range greater than 150 Km, and MAJOR PARTS and repair and production facilities
**Guess those missiles we found just magically appeared just before we showed up ;)

9. Decides also, for the implementation of #8 the following:
a-submit declaration of weapons in violation and allow inspection immediately.
Guess he didn't do that since we found things during inspections;)
10. Decides further that Iraq shall UNCONDITIONALLY undertake not to use, develop, construct or ACQUIRE any of the items in 8&9....
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree NOT to aquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapon-usable material or any subsystems or componenets or any research, development..... it goes on to say that the IAEA should secure and remove items these sorts of items from Iraq.
guess the IAEA missed those parts that were buried - I wonder why that is. What else is hidden?


OK so that goes over the ceasefire terms that he agreed to. So is anyone going to claim that he hasn't broken ANY of the ones that I pointed out?
Assuming no one is that ignorant - what does Saddam do by breaking these things that will bring international peace and security in the area? You think it might mean that since he isn't complying, he isn't bringing int'l peace and security to the area? So now with Int'l peace and area security in question(due to non-compliance) we go back to what was said above in that the UN authorized ALL neccesary force to .....and all ..... and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Doesn't take a lawyer to read plain english and connect the numbered dots.

I eagerly await rebuttals.

CkG
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
After 12 years and 18 resolutions does the UN really matter if it only wants to write resolutions and not enforce them. Resolutions without enforcement are meaningless.
Yeah, UN did not act because they did not find proof of WMD in Iraq and they believe US claim was unsubstantiated. Who is right so far? I'd like to remind you the claim of Iraq's nuclear capability has been proven false and zero biological weapon has been found.

Based on what we know so far, UN was right, France, Germany and all the country that opposed us was right. You Bushies are dead wrong.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
After 12 years and 18 resolutions does the UN really matter if it only wants to write resolutions and not enforce them. Resolutions without enforcement are meaningless.
Yeah, UN did not act because they did not find proof of WMD in Iraq and they believe US claim was unsubstantiated. Who is right so far? I'd like to remind you the claim of Iraq's nuclear capability has been proven false and zero biological weapon has been found.

Based on what we know so far, UN was right, France, Germany and all the country that opposed us was right. You Bushies are dead wrong.
IF the UN thought nothing was there, why were sanctioned maintained and inspections continued? They were doing it for the hell of it? Maybe the UN just enjoyed making billions administering of the oil for food program.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
After 12 years and 18 resolutions does the UN really matter if it only wants to write resolutions and not enforce them. Resolutions without enforcement are meaningless.
Yeah, UN did not act because they did not find proof of WMD in Iraq and they believe US claim was unsubstantiated. Who is right so far? I'd like to remind you the claim of Iraq's nuclear capability has been proven false and zero biological weapon has been found.

Based on what we know so far, UN was right, France, Germany and all the country that opposed us was right. You Bushies are dead wrong.
Nope - the UN wasn't held to any WMD proof to take action, only breaking of the resolutions could result in action - read the resolutions. The UN didn't have the balls for 12 years to take action against a regime that was constantly in violation of the cease-fire terms. READ the resolutions - even the UN points out that they were in violation. Too bad they didn't grow a set -then maybe their resolutions would mean something.

CkG
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
From resolution 1441

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

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,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Like I said, it may take a lawyer to understand the implications, but it looks to me like 1441 is taking previous resolutions into account in its statement. It seems to be saying, "considering all of these previous resolutions and how we now feel, here is resolution 1441...". The job of a lawyer, someone who can string together things like precidents to say if this language is implying that 1441 supercedes previous resolutions. And, if it does not, what is the point of creating another resolution?

You are stringing together a lot of language from various points in time. It is really beyond me (and I am guessing you too) to understand whether the sum total of these resolutions makes a case for a legal war. All that I do know it the most recent one (1441) does not, and it claims to take all previous resolutions into consideration.

That said, based on what you have shown, it does look like 678 authorizes the US to use force in the area, unfortunately, the link you provided me does not seem to get me to 678, so I cannot be sure what 678 authorized the use of force for.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Whoops, found a different link to 678. It authorizes force to implement 660 (which seems to say get Iraq out of Kuwait). More interesting is this language:
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
The language, "and reaffirming" does not show up in 1441. It really seems to me that someone with legal experience in interpreting UN resolutions would need to put these resolutions together to tell me what is relevant and what is not. Until then, you can stick to 687 (which "recalls", but does not "reaffirm" 678) and I will stick with 1441 (which "recalls", but does not "reaffirm" 678 and 687).

Now doesn't that just make you head spin. I really don't like reading through this stuff, so I hope that there is a lawyer lurking in these forums who can help us interpret the language.

Edit:
Links to 660 and 678
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Yeah, UN did not act because they did not find proof of WMD in Iraq and they believe US claim was unsubstantiated. Who is right so far? I'd like to remind you the claim of Iraq's nuclear capability has been proven false and zero biological weapon has been found.

Based on what we know so far, UN was right, France, Germany and all the country that opposed us was right. You Bushies are dead wrong.
Nope - the UN wasn't held to any WMD proof to take action, only breaking of the resolutions could result in action - read the resolutions. The UN didn't have the balls for 12 years to take action against a regime that was constantly in violation of the cease-fire terms. READ the resolutions - even the UN points out that they were in violation. Too bad they didn't grow a set -then maybe their resolutions would mean something.

CkG[/quote]

Can't you read the resolution? UN recognized that Iraq violated PAST resolution, and decided in 1441 to offer one final opportunity for compliance. ALL SECURITY MEMBERS AGREED ON 1441. So unless Iraq violated 1441, past violation does not mean jack. We all know what happened after 1441 was adopted and put into action. No non-compliance was found. UN weapon inspectors did not report any material breach. UN inspection was not completed due to the war started by us. Security council did not vote on if Iraq violated 1441 or an action should be taken.

Go ahead and put more spin if you want. You are just wasting your time.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeah, UN did not act because they did not find proof of WMD in Iraq and they believe US claim was unsubstantiated. Who is right so far? I'd like to remind you the claim of Iraq's nuclear capability has been proven false and zero biological weapon has been found.

Based on what we know so far, UN was right, France, Germany and all the country that opposed us was right. You Bushies are dead wrong.
Nope - the UN wasn't held to any WMD proof to take action, only breaking of the resolutions could result in action - read the resolutions. The UN didn't have the balls for 12 years to take action against a regime that was constantly in violation of the cease-fire terms. READ the resolutions - even the UN points out that they were in violation. Too bad they didn't grow a set -then maybe their resolutions would mean something.

CkG
Can't you read the resolution? UN recognized that Iraq violated PAST resolution, and decided in 1441 to offer one final opportunity for compliance. ALL SECURITY MEMBERS AGREED ON 1441. So unless Iraq violated 1441, past violation does not mean jack. We all know what happened after 1441 was adopted and put into action. No non-compliance was found. UN weapon inspectors did not report any material breach. UN inspection was not completed due to the war started by us. Security council did not vote on if Iraq violated 1441 or an action should be taken.

Go ahead and put more spin if you want. You are just wasting your time.[/quote]

I would say
authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660
would create a strong legal basis, and yes only if 1441 was broken, we would have known that if the inspectors were allowed to make their final report to the UN
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Context Czar. Your quote is from resolution 678 which authorizes the use of force to uphold 660-677, which essentially say to get Iraq out of Kuwait. The force authorized by that resolution was used in 1991.

This is not the legal basis for war that you seek. The only one left to work on is self-defense.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Context Czar. Your quote is from resolution 678 which authorizes the use of force to uphold 660-677, which essentially say to get Iraq out of Kuwait. The force authorized by that resolution was used in 1991.

This is not the legal basis for war that you seek. The only one left to work on is self-defense.
ah ok, I dont realy seek anything, I just thought that the breaking of the ceasefire was the only legal basis, but only if the UN would say it was broken or of some resolution did it automaticly
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY