Iraq Has Already Failed To Meet Its Obligations In Security Council Resolution 1441

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SlowSS

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Once again guys, there is NO legal justification for a war with Iraq at this stage.

Iraq is currently in violation of part of one section of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (and a series of subsequent resolutions reiterating that segment) requiring full cooperation with United Nations inspectors ensuring that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and facilities for manufacturing such weapons are destroyed. The conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687 was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole ? not for any one member of the council.


The most explicit warning to Iraq regarding its noncompliance came in UN Security Council Resolution 1154. Although this resolution warned Iraq of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Security Council declared that it alone had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."


According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.


If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.


International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked or feared an imminent attack from Iraq, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. But they have not appealed to the Security Council, because they have not felt threatened by Iraq.


Based on evidence that the Bush administration has made public, there does not appear to be anything close to sufficient legal grounds for the United States to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq in U.S. self-defense. This may explain why the Bush administration has thus far refused to go before the United Nations on this matter. Unless the United States gets such authorization, any such attack on Iraq would be illegal and would be viewed by most members of the international community as an act of aggression. In contrast to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, it is likely that the world community would view the United States ? not Iraq ? as the international outlaw.

Wonderful, you are very efficient with copy and paste functions.

How about giving a credit to writer of the article. Link

As for Saddam's, he is incapable of cooperating and he will play

cat and mouse game as long as he is allowed to do so by UN.

UN will ask for more time for inspectors to perform their task,

and Saddam will have more time to conceal Weapons of Mass Destruction

and continual development of Nuke and WoMD.

I actually thought that SherEPunjab wrote that. Oh well.

The author made a few factual errors.

U.N. 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,
&
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,...

Of course the US wimped out again and wagged it's finger again and just threatens Iraq with "serious consequences" if it doens't comply. If you want to know how to raise a juvinile deliquent just threaten them with 'serious consequences' time after time and never follow through when the misbehave. It's a guaranteed way to raise a kid that no one will want to have living in their neighborhood.

The author also failed to mention that 600 Kuwati citizers are still missing and Iraq under a UN resolution is supposed to release all knowledge it has on them. Iraq is also to return the treasures it stole from Kuwati museums.

"Post-Gulf War U.N. resolutions require Iraq to make amends to Kuwait, including accounting for some 600 Kuwaitis still missing as a result of the occupation, and for large amounts of looted materials. Iraqi reparations payments are being made under U.N. auspices."

Iraq is still in breach of the resolution on those items and the fate of those missing Kuwatis.

actually, i never claimed that i wrote it. but then again the question never arose either, so it didn't really matter. In any case, if the article is so well written why change it? I was thinking of giving credit but if the conservatives on here saw what site it was from, they would have blasted it as a lefty liberal site and not listened to what it had to say. the article expresses what i cannot, i'm not that good with words. and i actually got it from a different site.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So what's the plan? Give us our six hundred Kuwaitis or we'll bomb them?

Not to get too far off the point but if we found out that Capt. Specher (sp) was alive and Iraq would not return him would that be worth going to war over? Or maybe if we found out that they had captured, tortured and killed him during the Gulf War or shortly thereafter.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So what's the plan? Give us our six hundred Kuwaitis or we'll bomb them?

No moonie, the request is that the Iraqis tell the grieving families of those missing Kuwatis what they know of them. Did the Iraqis kill them in their jails? Many of them were seen in Iraqi custody and then never seen again.

I'm not surprised that you would make a joke out of their suffering. For all of you talk about "caring" for other people you are one of the most callous people on this board. It doesn't matter who you make fun of or how you use them in your post as long as you get your little attacks in. Get some help moonie.

 

[Moonbeam]

To rephrase the question, how does going to war and killing all kinds of people, some rotten to the core and some innocent victims of circumstance, possibley American or kuaiti prisoners of war, address past wrongs committed by Iraq? Are we too stupid, too endangered, too limited to be unable to find another way than to kill iraqis to free them. You raise hypothetical moral issues, but are you sure the people making the decision to go to war give a fig about kuwaiti prisoners or what happened to them. I think it's about conquest and naked power. You are asking the wrong person your moral questions. You should be asking Bush and particularly the chicken hawks that advise him.

I know, Dave, is that if that American pilot were me, dead or alive, I wouldn't want my fellow Americans killing a bunch of innocent people for revenge. The Iraqi thingi is a huge quandry. A really bad guy has and would like to have really bad weapons. I do not have an answer. I prefer time and focus to solve the problem. I do not think war at this time is justified. Since Bush has made an issue of WMD and has not professed conquest and a new American imperialism, let him prove that case. Lets play by the old rules of a just war. Prove our motive by providing evidence that Iraq is a "real and immediate" threat to the US. I see the problem in Iraq as completely contained, defanged, a threat to nobody. If he starts up killing massive numbers of people again, maybe then you just write off innocent lives to balance an equasion. Kill a bunch to save a lot. Great choice to have to make. I don't see that equasion on the board at the present time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So what's the plan? Give us our six hundred Kuwaitis or we'll bomb them?

Not to get too far off the point but if we found out that Capt. Specher (sp) was alive and Iraq would not return him would that be worth going to war over? Or maybe if we found out that they had captured, tortured and killed him during the Gulf War or shortly thereafter.

No, we should do the same thing that we are doing with the Serbs and insist they turn him over to the Hague to be tried for War Crimes (Like that will ever happen) We have laws that we follow that make us different (and better) than the likes of Hussien.

This post only applies to your post Dave, not the thread topic.

 

[etech]

It seems that some people still have not read UN resolution 1441.
...
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,
...

 

[Moonbeam]

Must eliminate error, must eliminate error, must eliminate error. You sound like Nomad, etech.

 

[etech]

Who or what is Nomad?

 

[Moonbeam]

Nomad

 

[SlowSS]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SlowSS

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Once again guys, there is NO legal justification for a war with Iraq at this stage.

Iraq is currently in violation of part of one section of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (and a series of subsequent resolutions reiterating that segment) requiring full cooperation with United Nations inspectors ensuring that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and facilities for manufacturing such weapons are destroyed. The conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687 was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole ? not for any one member of the council.


The most explicit warning to Iraq regarding its noncompliance came in UN Security Council Resolution 1154. Although this resolution warned Iraq of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Security Council declared that it alone had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."


According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.


If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.


International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked or feared an imminent attack from Iraq, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. But they have not appealed to the Security Council, because they have not felt threatened by Iraq.


Based on evidence that the Bush administration has made public, there does not appear to be anything close to sufficient legal grounds for the United States to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq in U.S. self-defense. This may explain why the Bush administration has thus far refused to go before the United Nations on this matter. Unless the United States gets such authorization, any such attack on Iraq would be illegal and would be viewed by most members of the international community as an act of aggression. In contrast to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, it is likely that the world community would view the United States ? not Iraq ? as the international outlaw.

Wonderful, you are very efficient with copy and paste functions.

How about giving a credit to writer of the article. Link

As for Saddam's, he is incapable of cooperating and he will play

cat and mouse game as long as he is allowed to do so by UN.

UN will ask for more time for inspectors to perform their task,

and Saddam will have more time to conceal Weapons of Mass Destruction

and continual development of Nuke and WoMD.

I actually thought that SherEPunjab wrote that. Oh well.

The author made a few factual errors.

U.N. 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,
&
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,...

Of course the US wimped out again and wagged it's finger again and just threatens Iraq with "serious consequences" if it doens't comply. If you want to know how to raise a juvinile deliquent just threaten them with 'serious consequences' time after time and never follow through when the misbehave. It's a guaranteed way to raise a kid that no one will want to have living in their neighborhood.

The author also failed to mention that 600 Kuwati citizers are still missing and Iraq under a UN resolution is supposed to release all knowledge it has on them. Iraq is also to return the treasures it stole from Kuwati museums.

"Post-Gulf War U.N. resolutions require Iraq to make amends to Kuwait, including accounting for some 600 Kuwaitis still missing as a result of the occupation, and for large amounts of looted materials. Iraqi reparations payments are being made under U.N. auspices."

Iraq is still in breach of the resolution on those items and the fate of those missing Kuwatis.

actually, i never claimed that i wrote it. but then again the question never arose either, so it didn't really matter. In any case, if the article is so well written why change it? I was thinking of giving credit but if the conservatives on here saw what site it was from, they would have blasted it as a lefty liberal site and not listened to what it had to say. the article expresses what i cannot, i'm not that good with words. and i actually got it from a different site.

Your are full of sh!t. You didn't declared that it wasn't your write up either.

You started off with "Once again guys, there is NO legal justification for a war with Iraq at this stage." as if you are writing that piece.

But you got caught plagiarizing someone's work, word for word, except "Once again guys".

 

[optoman]

I hate to butt in but Bush is finally going to show proof next week. He's slowly leading up to the middle of february when we go in.

Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is likely to declassify intelligence as early as next week that it says shows that senior Iraqi officials have been working to conceal weapons and evidence of weapons programs from United Nations weapons inspectors, administration officials said late Monday.

 

[etech]

SherEPunjab

actually, i never claimed that i wrote it. but then again the question never arose either, so it didn't really matter. In any case, if the article is so well written why change it? I was thinking of giving credit but if the conservatives on here saw what site it was from, they would have blasted it as a lefty liberal site and not listened to what it had to say. the article expresses what i cannot, i'm not that good with words. and i actually got it from a different site.

I didn't really address this earlier. Authorial honesty is important. If you were ashamed of the web site where you found the article you could have just put the author's name with it and put the article in quotes.

Anyway,

Two of the better articles I have seen on this mess are written by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN at the NYTimes.
I'd say they are worth the registering for to read.

Thinking About Iraq (I)

"As the decision on Iraq approaches, I, like so many Americans, have had to ask myself: What do you really think? Today I explain why I think liberals under-appreciate the value of removing Saddam Hussein. And on Sunday I will explain why conservatives under-appreciate the risks of doing so ? and how we should balance the two.

What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. And simply because oil is also at stake in Iraq doesn't make it illegitimate either. Some things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits.

Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament ? and that is legitimate ? disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile. "
...."

Thinking About Iraq (II)
"Let's start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960's. Therefore, one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things.

It could say, "Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany ? a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon."

Or the envelope could say, "You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia ? an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam."
....

Seems balanced, brings out some good points. Good start for a real discussion if that is possible here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Now if only it were about weapons.

 

[Moonbeam]

A real discussion would include a rational for a just war.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Sure there is legal justification for a war. Congress authorized it.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Most of you dipshiats are way too young to have an actual knowledge of what war means... the amount of reactionary,rigid,blind flag waving going on among ones so you is frankly disturbing and saddening. The older people posting here know what war means,many of them having either been on the front lines themselves or having lost loved ones in Vietnam.


We need to carefully consider our options,we need to listen to voices from other parts of the world before embarking on an action that could hurt millions of people.

What options have not been considered and attempted in the past 12 years besides military force? What, do we need to pass another resolution that says Iraq has to comply w/the previous resolution or else... we'll pass another resolution saying you need to comply w/the resolution about complying with the previous resolution?


As for US troops wanting to be in harms way? That's total crap. They want to put the enemy in harms way. 😀


Personally I have a solution that I think will satisfy everyone. We should do nothing and just wait. If Iraq has WMD sooner or later they'll either use them or sell them for someone else to use. Either way they'll get used, a few thousand people will die, and the world will have it's clear-as-day evidence it's been waiting for.

BTW, I don't think it's very nice to call everyone in this thread a dipshiat.


Lethal

Sorry, but I have to bring this post up, I think it has a very good thought in it and it seems as if it got overlooked. The only language Saddam seems to understand is Tomahawk Cruise Missles and Stealth bombers.

UN Resolutions don't mean d1ck to him and they never will. HAsn't the world realized that no matter how many sanctions or threats slapped on him and his country by the UN that he is willing to make his people suffer for his own stubborness?? How many more Resolutions is the UN going to pass and not follow through with before the UN is no longer seen as a legitimate speaker of the world???

United Nations? They are starting to remind me of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

 

[Moonbeam]

An authorized war is not the same as a just war.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

An authorized war is not the same as a just war.

I thought Congress authorized Bush to act against terrorists responsible for 9/11 and countries that harbor them? The only verified evidence for Al Qaeda in Iraq is in the northern (Kurdish controlled) region.

You people have NO concept of what 'just war' means. You Bush-leaguers can follow the Crusader all the way to hell (at least purgatory) b/c that's where his policies are leading.

Even as a pacifist I would support armed conflict if there was no other way to deal with Saddam (one of the tenets of Just War Doctrine) but that's not true.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

The Just War Doctrine is an outdated load of crap.

When should you fight a war?

 

[Moonbeam]

Some critic saying it's outdated makes it outdated?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Just War Doctrine is an outdated load of crap.

Did you actually read your link . . . this guy is a twit.

Basically, this principle says that no one is ever justified in actually attacking first; only those who respond to attack are engaged in "just war". But it goes further than that: it implicitly requires that the purpose of war is to maintain the status quo; it denies all possibility that preemptive war could be used to make things better.

This principle of just war clearly maintains that a likely post war peace must be superior to the prewar peace. Bush doesn't really believe the Middle East will be stabilized by a puppet regime in Baghdad. Just War theory just creates a reasonable hurdle to prevent the uninitiated from contending the grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side of kicking somebody's arse.

If I don't like you and you don't like me, do I believe a world with you under my boot heel is preferable to a world with you staring me down? It's a ridiculous argument. Just War Doctrine does presume that you give a hoot about your fellow man. If you are an inhuman POS then yeah, Just War Doctrine is certainly a load of crap. If you care to live on the planet as an equal to your fellow man then Just War Doctrine is easy to live by.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: optoman
I hate to butt in but Bush is finally going to show proof next week. He's slowly leading up to the middle of february when we go in.

Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is likely to declassify intelligence as early as next week that it says shows that senior Iraqi officials have been working to conceal weapons and evidence of weapons programs from United Nations weapons inspectors, administration officials said late Monday.

U.S. to Make Iraq Intelligence Public

• "The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says," he said. "Well, we certainly corroborate all of that, but this is information from the inspectors."

Bottom line to me is, we should have finished this in '91. Instead, he gets to sign a piece of paper and he's off the hook! etech posted a section that mentioned "reparations payments". Does anybody else remember hundreds of oil well fires? Reparations! Yeah, that'll happen!

 

[etech]

One more breach of the UN resolution by Iraq. The inspectors do not have to tell them that they are coming. If fact that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of why they are there.


bbc
Meanwhile, UN inspectors were refused entry to a university science faculty by Iraqi Kurdish authorities on Sunday.

Officials in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil said the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) had failed to inform the local government that they were coming.