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 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